Introduction
People of all ages use computers and various forms of technology for school, work, recreation, and interpersonal communication. Unfortunately, some individuals and groups use computing and other peripheral devices in ways that are controversial, abusive or that violate criminal law. In addition, the ubiquitous nature of technology and the expanding opportunity for misuse is a reality that should call for an immediate and rigorous research agenda for those interested in criminal justice, criminology, and information security.
A brief consideration and review of possible solutions to the problem of security in cyberspace is an important part of understanding the role of the U.S. government, the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and conceptualization of the digital architecture as relates to crime control.
Larry Lessig (1999) identified multiple ‘modes of regulation’ and suggested that by altering the architecture of cyberspace, we can increase individual self-restraint and achieve a greater amount of compliance. Lessig provides four regulatory dimensions (law, market, norms, and code) that he believes can improve the Net’s current structure and maintain its original design (Jones 2005). His views are compelling in that they recognize how code is seen as embodying and expressing specific political values that can result in a struggle for individual and social power.
According to Lessig, cyberspace has no “nature” as it is comprised of code. Code is the genesis of software and ultimately contained and connected through hardware. Code becomes akin to the legal code that we use to regulate actions and behaviors in real-space. Fully developing William Mitchell and Lessig’s ‘Code is law’ concept extends beyond the scope of this response; however, these ideas emphasize the importance of using both legal and criminological perspectives, e.g., situational crime prevention (Clarke), in the conceptualization of computer crime.
The influence of commerce has transformed cyberspace into a highly regulated space. Consequently, we must begin to consider what type of virtual architecture will improve our ability to chart an alternative path to the federal government’s desultory approach to computer crime. Anyone questioning the need for alternative solutions only has to read the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace released in February 2003 to realize that the ‘Strategy’ consists of little more than an unrestrained faith in private industry to prevent computer crime. By making market forces responsible for crime prevention, the government will encourage the development of what some (Jones 2005; Katyal 2003) have characterized as digital gated communities. Privately managed virtual barricades could potentially affect the Internet’s intended unrestrained design.
According to Goodman (1997), society expects agents of the government and local police to investigate computer crimes especially in those cases where moral and ethical principles are threatened. Unfortunately, it has taken nearly twenty years to accept that computer crime is in fact a serious problem and the responsibility of not only the government, but also the local police. In response to a growing number of “. . . criminals abandoning their guns for sophisticated computer assisted weapons” (Stambaugh 2000), larger metropolitan police departments have developed specialized computer crime units; however, a lack of resources and in many instances a lack of reporting by victims of computer crime, keeps smaller agencies reliant on the resources of the state or federal government.
Historically, police departments place a greater emphasis on issues like violent crime reduction and community policing efforts. For the most part, the detection and investigation of computer-related offenses remains the responsibility of a few officers who possess an interest in computerizations and a specialized skill set. In addition, a disproportionate number of police departments are not concerned with digital crime, because police culture places a lower value on catching non-violent offenders, the often non-tangential properties of computer crime, investigative challenges created by the nature of virtual environment and evidence, and ultimately the abundance of street crime. A lack of public outcry regarding computer crime, the failure to report victimization, the high cost of training, and the cost associated with starting and maintaining specialized units contributes to the perception that the police are not concerned with computer crime (McQuade III 2006).
