Overcoming obstacles: preparing for computer-related crime.

The computer, a jewel of technology, could become the worst enemy of law enforcement agencies across the country. On a daily basis, local law enforcement must deal with a wide assortment of crime situations that, more and more often, involve computers. Local agencies must stay abreast of technology, but in the area of white-collar crime investigations, the computer makes this task difficult.

As explored in the July 1995 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin article titled "Computer Crime Categories, How Techno-Criminals Operate," computers can intersect with crime in a number of ways. But whether computers are the targets of crime, the instruments of crime incidental to criminal acts, or associated with new versions of traditional crime,(1) the day has come when law enforcement must deal with their presence.

Obstacles

When asked about computer-related crime, most local agency heads say publicly that they do not have such problems in their jurisdictions. But the director of the National White Collar Crime Center asserts that agencies across the country might have very serious problems without realizing it. In fact, it might take years for law enforcement to become proficient in dealing with computer-related crime.(2)

Computer technology has become a significant tool for criminals, just as it has for legitimate private businesses. The head of the Department of Justice's Computer Crime Section predicted a marked increase in the number of computer-literate criminals. In the past, fewer than 10 percent of criminals possessed computer skills; by the year 2000, nearly 90 percent will be computer literate.(3) Such a future presents police and sheriff's departments with serious problems if their investigative staffs are not equipped to handle the technologies used by criminals.

Document trails have been replaced by data trails.(4) A lack of training and proficiency in the use of computer hardware and software handicaps investigators. Even the most basic computer use in a crime or in support of criminal activity can become an obstacle to the investigative process if detectives cannot navigate the computer maze.

Significant evidence might even remain undiscovered without full investigation of computers found at the scene of a crime or at the disposal of the criminal. If an investigator does not enter the system carefully or properly, data (evidence) can be lost.

Law enforcement administrators historically have encountered significant problems finding individuals who possess technical expertise as well as investigative training. There are experienced investigators and there are knowledgeable computer specialists, but rarely does one person command both sets of skills. In fact, one expert estimates that only 25 to 40 people nationwide fit the bill and could manage an investigative unit.(5)

The absence of properly trained investigators represents only one major element of this problem. Computer companies introduce thousands of new products annually, making it a herculean task to stay knowledgeable about computers and the vast world of software. No one can know how to operate every system.

Moreover, no organization, not even a federal agency, could serve as the repository for all the instructions on all software or hardware; the volume simply would be overwhelming. For law enforcement, even iran agency attempted to be prepared by learning how to navigate the more popular programs, how could it predict which products criminals would use? There are just too many popular programs from which to choose.

Where would local agencies go for help in dealing with unfamiliar computer products? Often, they look to the state police for assistance. Several states have established computer crime support units, but these have not developed sufficiently to make a significant dent in the problem. High costs make it virtually impossible to establish a full support capability.(6)

Nor will rescue come from the federal government. It will be some time before most federal agencies, straining under pressure to train enough employees to handle their own cases, can provide significant assistance to state and local agencies.(7)

Another consideration is the age-old problem of funding. Explaining to city leaders during the budget process that violent crime has increased and must be addressed is easy because violent crime strikes fear in the hearts of citizens.

By contrast, obtaining additional funds for the enforcement of computer-related crimes generally proves more difficult. The public often does not view white-collar or economic crimes as serious, even though such crimes do considerable financial damage to society. Budget providers respond to priorities set by the public. Unfortunately, public apathy toward nonviolent crime prevails, at least until citizens become victims.

Suggested Solutions

For now, local law enforcement agencies can take several steps to deal with this dilemma on their own. First, they must integrate computers into basic training for all officers. The Tempe, Arizona, Police Department has taken a bold step in this direction, issuing a laptop computer, along with the badge and gun, to all graduates of its police academy.(8)

Laptop computers cost approximately $2,500. Considering that police and sheriff's departments spend an average of $25,000 to train and fully equip newly hired officers (excluding salary), issuing a laptop computer to each officer increases training costs by about 10 percent. Faced with escalating costs of computer-related crime, police and city administrators should view equipping officers with laptop computers as a wise investment.

At a minimum, computer training should be paid for and directed by departments. The days have passed when agencies could leave it up to individual officers to learn at home on their personal computers. Such a lackadaisical approach will not head off this mounting crisis.

Next, agencies must become more computer active across the board. The Williamsburg, Virginia, Police Department, for example, has embraced computers on a daily basis. There, officers enter all incident reports, investigative files, etc., into the computer system, eliminating the need for multiple paper copies. Paper is generated only for summonses and warrants, which require that a copy go to the citizen.(9)

Departments immediately must begin to articulate how behind they really are and express the need for funds. This is difficult. Administrators must admit that they have a problem and need assistance from the local government, something hard for most chiefs and sheriffs to do. But do it they must.

If departments overcome the funding and personnel obstacles, the usual approach to law enforcement careers might need to be reexamined. Normally, police and sheriff's departments rotate staff among the different disciplines in their departments. Such a practice might create well-rounded officers, but it damages the departments' computer expertise.

Computer technological knowledge and training must be comprehensive and continual. Every year, a person's knowledge potentially becomes dated because the technology changes so quickly. New knowledge builds on old knowledge, and personnel rotation forfeits the continuum of skill needed to deal successfully with computer-related crime.

Local law enforcement agencies also must work together to address the problems associated with computer-related crime. As mentioned, the computer field is too big for one department to handle. Divide-and-conquer tactics offer the only solution.

One jurisdiction can become the expert on one type of hardware and certain software, while a neighboring jurisdiction can specialize in another type. Then, when a computer and its software become evidence, a team can work together to uncover the information critical to the investigation. It took teamwork to make a dent in the drug war; the computer crime war will be no different.

Conclusion

Some local agencies already recognize and understand the emerging enforcement problems posed by computers. Others do not. Some are worried enough to be working on the problem but do not want to disclose just how far behind the criminals they really are. If police and sheriffs will bring this issue to the floor of discussion more often, take definitive steps within their own departments, and work together, the criminals will not be the only group that is 90-percent computer literate for long.

Endnotes

1 David L. Carter, "Computer Crime Categories, How Techno-Criminals Operate," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, July 1995, 21-26.

2 Richard Johnston, Director, National White Collar Crime Center, Richmond, VA, interview by author, September 1995.

3 Scot Charney, Department of Justice Computer Crime Section, Washington, DC, telephone interview by author, October 1995.

4 Supra note 1.

5 Supra note 2.

6 Supra note 2.

7 Supra note 2.

8 Sergeant Toby Dias, Public Affairs Officer, Tempe, Arizona, Police Department, telephone interview by author, December 1995.

9 Larry Vardell, Chief, Williamsburg, Virginia, Police Department, telephone interview by author, September 1995.

Mr. Groover is a volunteer deputy sheriff with the Hanover County, Virginia, Sheriff's Department and a freelance writer.