CRIME & TECHNOLOGY - SOC2066
Which variety of cybercrime presents the greatest challenge to contemporary law
enforcement? Justify your answer with examples.
Many would consider Cyber-crime to be the most rapidly expanding and predominant form of crime
amongst modern society, with new technologies constantly being developed and adapted to fulfil all
our daily needs at the touch of a button. The industrial revolution saw the integration of basic
technological devices to aid communication and provide convenience, and more recently the
introduction of mainframe and personal computers in the 1960’s and 70’s. The online market for
technological goods and computer-related communications is constantly updating their accessibility
and efficiency in terms of competing for our data, attention and time; with an estimated 4.1 billion
of the global population now frequently relying on technological devices to access online services. 1
(Wong et al, 2020) However, this increase in popularity also accommodates an increase in online
offences such as deviant online sub-cultures, cyber-bulling, online harassment, fraud and theft. In
this paper, I will be exploring two variations of cyber-crime which have divulged, and which have
created the most damaging implications upon society’s wellbeing. In addition, law enforcement’s
capacity to react appropriately has been challenged in the attempt to keep pace with the ever-
evolving tactics accumulated by ‘cyber criminals’.
The word ‘cyber-crime’ originates from William Gibson’s science fiction work “necromancer” (1984)
and describes the idea of the open environment ‘cyberspace’ is linked together by technology.
Unfortunately, the initial novelties which cyber technology entailed, such as ‘Google’, have created
unintended myriad opportunities for crime and deviance. The concept of cybercrime poses many
new challenges and is still yet to have a definitive UK legal offence definition other than “the misuse
of communications networks”. Sectors such as transport, communications and the mass population
growth post-industrial revolution, originally benefitted immensely from the necessary integration of
technological advancement to support these new opportunities; a century or so later, and these
aspects have been manipulated into sources of cybercrime.
In the modern day, easy access to online facilities for every aspect of life is considered essential,
especially with the current circumstances rendering us dependent from social media to instant
online bank transactions and purchases. Recent statistics support this evolution in online
dependency, showing that the cybercrime industry is now worth $400 billion annually and is quickly
becoming a more established “professional, industrialised, distributed industry.” 3 (CNBC, 2013) The
endless access to sensitive data, high-speed operations, anonymity and the sheer magnitude of
vulnerable users which can be exploited across a global crime scene, all debatably cement
cybercrime as unrivalled in the context of ominous and intimidating crime for law enforcement.
Especially concerning the high level of anonymity obtainable by cybercriminals, allowing them to
unaccountably commit a wide scale of offences towards indiscriminate audiences to presenting a
mammoth challenge for law enforcement of detectability. This renders both the police and criminal
justice system, reliant on online organisations and corporations to whistle blow and pass on relevant
information/evidence to assist investigators.
Of course, with the ever-growing revolutionary cyber systems and networks now available, as well as
pre-existing crime adapting to operate online, many new opportunities are introduced for
cybercriminals. These cybercrimes are devised into two main varieties of crime, known as cyber-
enabled and cyber-dependent crime. ‘Cyber-dependent crime’ or ‘pure’ crime, is characterised as
completely new methods of offence committed due to the availability and opportunity provided by a
computer, such as the spread of viruses and hacking. This crime is unique to computers and would
not be existent without technology, which is why many inexperienced users fail to initially recognise
1
, CRIME & TECHNOLOGY - SOC2066
it. This variety of crime can be divided into two sub-categories, the first being illicit intrusions of
computer networks such as hacking to deface websites or access personal data. The second is
disrupting functionality such as hijacking software using ‘malware’ or malicious software
programmes. It is a very deceptive and disguised form of crime which denotes a macro or utility by
creating a backdoor access to private files via ‘trojans’. (Bossler and Holt, 2009) 5 This is a very
prevalent issue, as cases of malware have proven to have increased from 125,000 (2012) to an
unfathomable 350,000 (2019). A study conducted last year in Moscow, justified why this may be,
with more than 50 forms of malware found to have mutated 9 (Weekly, 2019) and regenerated to
become capable of connecting to digital web cameras, TVs etc. Worryingly, this not only builds a
new platform for cybercriminals to invade and violate, but also places increased demands on the law
enforcement in terms of financial funding for detective training and enhanced technology. This
would promote more sophisticated and complex coding for prevention and to maintain security of
highly sensitive data, however, there is concern over how long this could be sustained.
DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) is also a compute-dependent crime attack technique which
floods a network with traffic, overpowering its capacity to degrade the functionality and
communication; eventually remedying the computer as ‘infected’. It takes advantage of
inexperienced and insecure users with unskilled digital habits, as well as simply needing two devices
to relay the malware files and fake traffic. Once again, this highlights a hugely uncontrollable area for
law enforcement as a majority of private software can be so easily hijacked and compromised. On
the other hand, there are obstacles which have been implemented and are somewhat successful in
increasing security on personal devices. The Data Protection Act (2018) may be relevant to certain
cyber-dependent crimes, however, there is some debate as to why it has not been composed in a
cyber version too. Guidance from law enforcement officials suggest strategies for protection via a
three-step scheme; ‘secure your rooter, change default passwords on devices and use
comprehensive security’.10 (Davis, G. 2017) This strategy for crime prevention is basic but proven to
be effective; needless to say, not all forms of cyber-dependent crime are so easily overcome.
Notably, the 1980s marks the development of online networks and technology, resulting in an
intense surge in popularity, “The computer would be growing in power while withdrawing as a
presence”6 (Xingan, J. 2017). In the same light, this also means that this prodigious technology has
advanced beyond public and the state’s capacity, leaving only a minority of people able to navigate
and manipulate these online systems to their advantage. A predominant argument suggests that this
variety of unprecedented crime is much more challenging for law enforcement as it is quickly
surpassing the familiar, more traditional offline forms of crime which have evolved slowly but at a
manageable pace. Furthermore, malware developers, by developing their tools, techniques and
social engineering, are making it harder to identify forms of cyber offences and thus, to convict the
actual perpetrator. Therefore, law enforcement agencies are challenged to produce response
strategies fit to prevent and adapt to these changes. As well as essential investigation, campaigns are
utilised to create public awareness to recognise and respond correctly to offences they would
otherwise obliviously fall victim.
This also presents the justice system with the issue of categorising and deciding upon appropriate
sentences to define these evolving offences, as the UK is yet to establish a widely accepted legal
definition of cybercrime. It is naïve to assume that the justice system is equipped to address every
form of cybercrime, with so few associated laws such as the Computer Misuse Act (1990), arguably
subjected to historical distortions and therefore, unfit for purpose in the 21 st century. These two
cybercrime techniques pose security anxiety and jurisdictional challenges to the Criminal Justice
System and society, only preventable to a certain extent, as seen within ‘The Computer Fraud and
2
