Internet Crime: Cyber Anonymity and Identity, Jurisdictional Issues (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

Cyber Crime
The internet has changed not only the world but also the lifestyle of man. There is a lot of lawful communication and global commerce conducted via the web which has brought dramatic improvements for the society. However, the web has also provided a platform for wrongdoing, and it is increasingly utilized to advance fraudulent activities (Skibell, 2003). With the advancements in technology, it has become possible for cyber criminals to commit high-tech crimes at both the individual and crime-group levels. Consequently, criminal activity in the world has presented a daunting challenge to law enforcement, for there are inadequacies in legislation that would facilitate the prosecution of cyber crime and related offences.
Anonymity and Identity
Pocar (2004) explains that for a prosecution to take place, the identity of the offenders must be known. However, it is often difficult for law enforcers to prosecute cyber criminals because the advancement of technology makes it easy for them to cover up their identity. For instance, there are various computer software that makes it possible to hide the user's IP address, and this makes it hard to track down the criminals.
Jurisdictional Issues
Internet fraud lacks traditional boundaries that are found in other types of crimes. As an illustration, cyber crime has an extraterritorial aspect that gives rise to complex jurisdictional issues (Roberts, 2008). For example, when an offense is carried out in a different nation, there is a legal dilemma on whether the offender should be tried on the basis of the governing legislations or the international criminal law. The issue is further complicated by the lack of clarity on whose mandate it is to try the offender, and also the changing demographics of the offenders. Besides, according to Roberts ( 2008), law enforcement officers are only authorized to enforce the law within their area of jurisdiction. Hence, geographic jurisdiction poses challenges because laws differ from state to state meaning that an act that is legal in one nation may be illegal in another.
Evidential Issues
According to Goodman and Brenner (2002), it is always problematic in deciding whether the evidence gotten from the computer is adequately admissible in court to facilitate the prosecution of cyber crime. In many cases, courts have turned a cold shoulder to the internet evidence, and rebuke the reliability and security of the web leads. In essence, the problem with digital evidence is that it is, after all, a collection of numbers represented by light pulses, magnetization, and radio signals, and this type of information is fragile and prone to distortion (Goodman & Brenner, 2002). As expected, presenting such kind of evidence in court is often inefficient and ineffective for prosecution of cyber crime.
Trans-Border Issues
The internet is an international medium that connects both the offenders and the victims. It is therefore particularly difficult to prosecute for cyber crimes in cases where the perpetrator and victim are in the same country, but the evidence is located in other country or countries. Also, according to Skibell (2003), since cyber crime does not need a physical location but takes place in a virtual environment; it becomes a disjointed crime that 's hard to keep track. In the same manner, the victims of crime do not know where to report. In addition, when looking for evidence to persecute for cyber crimes, it is often unfruitful relying on local investigators where the crime took place. This is because there is little cooperation between governments and international legal enforcement agencies (Pocar, 2004). Also, it is very expensive to access the resources needed to conduct thorough investigations.
Summing up, the common types of cybercrime include fraud, privacy violation, child pornography, intellectual property damage, espionage, identity theft, terrorism, the sale of counterfeit merchandise, money laundering, sabotage, etc. At the moment, prosecuting for cyber crime seems like lassoing a cloud because of the challenges discussed above. However, it is important that all the states cooperate to formulate consistent laws which would make it possible to prosecute cyber criminals (Bell 2002). Also, inter-jurisdictional task forces should be formed which would help in dealing with cybercrime and ensure there is no haven for cyber criminals.