Computer Crime

Question 1: Discuss the losses suffered by the companies and compare the dollar values for losses between the various offenses. Offer your opinions on why certain offenses are responsible for greater losses than others. Tell the reader if any of the comparisons made were surprising to you.

 

Computer virus crimes were the most expensive offense costing companies $9.8 million in recovery costs and $12.0 million in other monetary losses for a combined total of $21.8 million dollars in 2001. The average cost per incident would be $171,653. Fraud was the next most expensive offense in 2001 causing $18.1 million in damage in only 17 incidents. The average cost per incident would be $1.06 million dollars. The lease expensive offense in 2001 was theft of proprietary information which resulted in only a half a million dollars in damages.

Certain offenses such as creating or deploying a computer virus are responsible for much greater financial loss than something like the theft of proprietary information because the recovery costs are compounded on top of the initial loss. Offenses like embezzlement and fraud are committed for the sole purpose of illegally obtaining money from a company and therefore nearly all loss is the value of that taken rather than that loss plus recovery costs.  I was surprised to see the costs of a denial of service attack. I did not realize it was such a costly crime.

           

 

Question 2: Discuss the percentages of employee versus non-employee involvement for the various offenses. Offer opinions on why certain offenses are more likely to involve employee involvement. Tell the reader if any of the percentages for the various offenses were surprising to you.

 

Overall, theft type offenses are shown to be primarily committed by employees whereas computer attack types of offenses are for the most part committed by non-employee offenders.

            Embezzlement ranks highest with 87.5% of reported incidents being attributed to employees. It makes sense that this offense would have the highest rate of offenders as employees simply because embezzlement by nature requires a close connection between the offender and victim/company.

            It was surprising to see that in this study no employees were offenders in vandalism or sabotage incidents. I would have expected a (very small) few disgruntled employees particularly in large tech-driven companies. As a side note, it was interesting to see that larger companies had far higher detection rates on computer crime than did smaller companies.

Albert Fish

On June 3^rd 1928, a man going by the name of Frank Howard arrived at the Budd household in New York City under the pretense of wanting to interview 18-year old Edward Budd for a job as a farmhand. The Budd family invited Mr. Howard to stay for lunch and at this point he met 10-year old Gracie Budd. After lunch, Mr. Howard excused himself stating that he had to go to a birthday party for his niece but that afterward he would return to pick up Edward and take him to his farm. He gave Edward and his friend money to go to a movie while he invited Gracie to go with him to his niece’s birthday party and promised to return her by 9 o’clock. Her parents agreed and Gracie was never seen again.

The police discovered that there was no “Frank Howard” and that the address given for the birthday party was false. Despite all efforts, the police were unable to locate “Mr. Howard”. As of 1934, the case remained open with only one detective, actively working on solving the crime.  Occasionally, the detective would leak false information to the newspaper to see if it would get a reaction. On November 2, 1934, a small blurb was published in the newspaper stating falsely that there had been a break in the case and that an arrest was soon to follow. Two days later, an illiterate Mrs. Budd received a letter in the mail:

 

“My dear Mrs. Budd,

 

In 1894 a friend of mine shipped as a deck hand on the Steamer Tacoma, Capt. John Davis. They sailed from San Francisco for Hong Kong China. On arriving there he and two others went ashore and got drunk. When they returned the boat was gone.

 

At that time there was famine in China. Meat of any kind was from $1 to 3 Dollars a pound. So great was the suffering among the very poor that all children under 12 were sold for food in order to keep others from starving. A boy or girl under 14 was not safe in the street. You could go in any shop and ask for steak – chops – or stew meat. Part of the naked body of a boy or girl would be brought out and just what you wanted cut from it.  A boy or girls behind which is the sweetest part of the body and sold as veal cutlet brought the highest price.

 

John staid there so long that he acquired a taste for human flesh. On his return to N.Y. he stole two boys one 7 one 11. Took them to his home stripped them naked tied them in a closet. Then burned everything they had on. Several times every day and night he spanked them – tortured them – to make their meat good and tender.

 

First he killed the 11 year old boy, because he had the fattest ass and of course the most meat on it. Every part of his body was Cooked and eaten except the head – bones and guys. He was Roasted in the oven (all of his ass), boiled, broiled, fried and stewed. The little boy was next, went the same way. At that time I was living at 409 E 100 st. near, - right side. He told me so often how good Human flesh was I made up my mind to taste it.

 

On Sunday June the 3 – 1928 I called on you at 405 W 15 St. Brought you pot cheese – strawberries. We had lunch. Grace sat on my lap and kissed me. I made up my mind to eat her.

 

On the pretense of taking her to a party. You said Yes she could go. I took her to an empty house in Westchester I had already picked out. When we got there, I told her to remain outside. She picked wildflowers. I went upstairs and stripped all my clothes off. I knew if I did not I would get her blood on them.

 

When all was ready I went to the window and called her. Then I hid in a closet until she was in the room. When she saw me all naked she began to cry and tried to run down the stairs. I grabbed her and she said she would tell her mamma.

 

First I stripped her naked. How she did kick – bite and scratch. I choked her to death, then cut her in small pieces so I could take my meat to my rooms. Cook and eat it. How sweet and tender her little ass was roasted in the oven. It took me 9 days to eat her entire body. I did not fuck her tho I could have had I wished. She died a virgin.”

 

As Mrs. Budd could not read, she had given the letter to her son Edward who quickly took it to the police. The detective realized that the letter writer knew details of the crime that were not released. Eventually through tracing the originating source of the envelope, police found and arrested “Frank Howard” – Mr. Albert Fish.

The Rational choice theory explains crime as the result of weighing the pros and cons of violating the law through careful planning and thought. If the risks do not outweigh the benefits then a person may make the rational decision to follow through with an act.

            Prior to kidnapping Gracie Budd, Albert Fish in his confession admitted that he had originally planned to kidnap and torture Edward. After the first visit at the Budd household Fish purchased a cleaver, saw, and butcher knife which he wrapped up and left at a newsstand before he went back into the Budd home. He had rationalized that despite his elderly, frail appearance, he would be able to overpower Edward and his friend. It was only after he met Gracie that he decided she would be his victim instead. With this planning, Fish is clearly using rational choice to plan out the details of his crime. Clearly he evaluated the risks associated with kidnapping an 18 year old boy and his friend and rationalized that he was capable of doing so. He also showed further planning by purchasing the materials needed to cut up the bodies.

The trait theory of criminality explains that crime is a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. One of these theories, the psychodynamic approach, explains that criminal behavior “is a function of unconscious mental instability and turmoil.” (Siegel, 2007). Prior to the trial, many alienists (19^th century psychiatrists who specialized in determining sanity) interviewed Fish in an attempt to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. He was declared competent but was diagnosed as a “psychopathic personality without a psychosis.” Interviews brought to light Fish’s dark, life-long sadomasochist tendencies. He admitted to mutilating about one hundred children, 15 of whom are thought to have been killed. He believed that “God had ordered him to torment and castrate little boys” and that if what he was doing was wrong an angel would have stopped him. A key defense strategy in the trial was simple - how could a person who cannibalizes children be considered sane? Clearly no rational or sane person would commit such a crime.

            The jury found Albert Fish guilty and the judge sentenced him to death by electrocution. Fish thanked the judge for the sentence because as one reporter wrote “his watery eyes gleamed at the thought of being burned by a heat more intense than the flames with which he often seared his flesh to gratify his lust.” (Bardsley, 2008)

Strategies for Police Reform

Dealing with and preventing corruption in a police department is a difficult task for many reasons. As a chief you may rely on seasoned officers to break in the rookie cops only to find that these seasoned officers are from the “old school” and are not of the highest moral character. Your recruitment policies, including background checks and academy training, may be outdated or pushed aside in an effort to expedite the hiring of new officers to supplement a deteriorating police force. Once unethical methods are allowed to run rampant through a police agency, it can be very difficult to remove. An effective strategy for reform of a corrupt agency should place emphasis on two points: honest officers within the organization should be motivated to continue to act ethically and morally while it should be made clear that corrupt officers will be sought out and punished.

Essential to a good police force is strong leadership. “People look up in organizations for signals to see if firm messages are really meant.” (Punch, 2000) If the leadership within the department is weak or corrupt in itself, there is no motivation for an officer to behave appropriately. However, if the agency is lead by a strong person who is not afraid to make the tough decisions for the betterment of the department then the officers can be motivated to do the same. Secondly, a strong internal affairs unit staffed with the department’s best officers of known ‘good character’ is imperative in creating a checks and balances. This shows “a determination to tackle the problem.” (Punch, 2000)

It is important also to make sure that there is discipline involved for the officers who are causing the corruption and promoting unethical behavior within the department. If these officers are discovered but no action is taken or they are simply given ‘warnings’ then there is truly no motivation for them to correct their behavior and it send a message to the other officers that they can get away with such behavior.

Most important in creating and maintaining a sound law enforcement division is training and mentoring. “As early as possible the subject of corruption, and of integrity, needs to be introduced early on in training with the accent on supportive insights and skills for dealing with the practical dilemmas encountered in police work.” (Punch, 2000)

Other helpful strategies would include fostering an environment where people can feel comfortable coming forward when they make genuine mistakes so that they can learn from their errors in a non-hostile environment. The department should be receptive to discussing sensitive issues with an emphasis on “ethics, pride, and professionalism.” (Punch, 2000).

Punch, Maurice (2000). Police Corruption and its Prevention. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8(3), 301-324. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from Criminal Justice Periodicals database.

Types of Police Character

Edwin Delattre classifies police character into four categories: the bad, the uncontrolled, the self-controlled and the excellent. The bad character is a person who actively looks for opportunities to “profit by victimizing others”. (Delattre, 2006) This person sees nothing wrong with their actions, feels no remorse, and expects others to submit to their will. The bad character is not simply tempted by immorality but actively finds and creates situations where they can take advantage or profit. These are persons who do not apply anything they have learned about right and wrong to their own conduct. (Delattre, 2006) To illustrate an officer who could be classified as a bad character, imagine a police officer who has no second thoughts about stealing drug money from a drug dealer and then arresting them for the sale of drugs and potentially keeping a portion of the drugs for personal use or to sell themselves.     

            The uncontrolled character can sometimes be confused with the bad character. This is an officer who generally starts out with good intentions but is weak-willed. Over time they succumb to the attraction and benefits of profitable unethical behavior and peer-pressure from other officers. This person, when presented with an opportunity to make an immoral choice, cannot restrain themselves from giving into the temptation that monetary or material benefits offers. As time goes on, the officer with the uncontrolled character type will likely fall into progressively worse behavior. (Delattre, 2006) If, for example, we put our uncontrolled character type officer in the same scenario as we have our bad character type, you may likely have the same overall outcome. The difference however, is that the bad character type does not even consider that his actions are wrong while the uncontrolled type gives in under the possible pressure of his fellow officers or the thought of the monetary gain to be had from completing such an unethical, immoral, and illegal action.

            On the other side of the continuum is the self-controlled officer. This officer should be the one that the department looks for and reaches out to in order to prevent them from become either uncontrolled or simply of bad character and behavior. This officer does what is right for the most part and indiscretions are typically minor. However, this officer will “…resent the higher standards of conduct to which they are held” and this leads to “tension between duty and desire.” (Delattre, 2006) These officers quickly become unhappy when they realize that despite all they risk to protect our streets, the greater material rewards inevitably go to the ‘bad guy’.  They see other officers benefiting from corruption and begin to second guess their appropriate behavior. Department intervention is the key to keeping these officers on the side of ethical behavior. For example, our self-controlled officer arrives to the previously mentioned drug bust. The officer is aware of the potential for making money by compromising his character but does not act on it. Instead, he makes the appropriate arrest and goes through the motions but still feels discontent about the benefits he could be earning if he was willing to make the concessions that his corrupt colleagues make.

            Finally, we have the excellent character. This is a rare person. This person always makes the ethically correct, unbiased decisions. They are not swayed in the slightest nor do they even recognize temptation for what it is. They follow the letter and spirit of the law. Their “…habits of trustworthiness have become integral to their lives”. (Delattre, 2006) They not only do their job but have peace of mind knowing that they believe and stand up for the work that they do. They are “truly incorruptible with no temptation to steal.” (Delattre, 2006) In our drug bust scenario, the excellent character would not only arrest the drug dealer and confiscate all the drugs and money for evidence, it would simply not even occur to them to try to take advantage of the situation by stealing the money or drugs.

Delattre, E. (2006). Character and Cops, Fifth Edition: Ethics in Policing, Fifth Edition. Washington: AEI Press.

Police Management Systems vs. Criminal Justice Information Systems

According to Raymond Foster, criminal justice information includes nearly every type of information gathered throughout the entire criminal justice process. It would include information gathered not just from the police, but also from “court transcripts of testimony, parole or probation records, state driver’s license records, privately gathered information, or police calls for service.” (Foster, 2005). Criminal justice information is used for strategic and tactical decision making throughout the criminal justice process from arrest through court services and adjudication, corrections, and parole or probation. It can be used by courts to issue appropriate sentences. It can be used by parole or probation officers in order to provide for a smoother re-entry to the community with the appropriate services being offered to the parolee. It can be used by research staff to project future police staffing needs, to provide statistics on the effectiveness of currently implemented police and correctional strategies. It can be used by public policy officials to create new laws or revisit or ones.

 

Police records management, on the other hand, deals primarily with information that the police use. This would exclude anything like a court transcript or privately gathered information. Information that is specific to police use such as a possible suspect’s prior criminal offense history, a driver’s license record check, the outstanding warrants for a particular suspect would all be included in police records management but anything beyond specific police interaction would not. A police records management system will have little or nothing to do with corrections and probation or parole. It may contain booking information for arrested suspects but would not include the court transcripts of what happened at any suspects hearings.

 

Reference:

 

Foster, Raymond (2005). Police Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.