WRTG 112 University of Maryland Global Campus The Trouble of Cyber Law Enforcement Essay Help with revising attached essay. There are specific changes that

WRTG 112 University of Maryland Global Campus The Trouble of Cyber Law Enforcement Essay Help with revising attached essay. There are specific changes that are required and are highlighted in the PDF. Other corrections that you think will help tighten the research paper would be great too. Please and thank you 1
The Trouble of Cyber-Law Enforcement
Cyber-security is a real issue even from the ages before. Hackers and attackers have
continuously found new and more sophisticated ways and techniques to break into systems and
networks from anywhere across the globe. As a mitigation to these issues, several laws have been
enacted to help minimize the effects resulting from cyber-security (Randall & Kroll, 2016). The
laws and regulations get implemented by a legal system referred to as the Cyber-law. Cyber-law
is part of the legal system that is concerned with cyberspace and the internet, as well as their
respective legal issues. It also sometimes referred to as the Law of the Internet. Freedom of
expression, cyber-security, online privacy, usage, and access to the internet among so many more
issues in information security are some of the concepts dealt with by cyber-law. Just like any other
law, a cyber-law is enacted and implemented to aid in the protection of individuals and
organisations over internets. Besides, it also helps to secure information from these individuals or
organizations on the internet. Cyber-laws in action would enable the victim to say an individual or
an organization to take legal action against the attacker or hacker (Lloyd, 2017).
The attacker doesn’t just have to get away with it whenever they break into the system or the
network. The action taken against the attacker would depend on the nature of the offense. The
crimes that one would commit over the internet/network as well as on systems include child
pornography, copyright violation, cyberbullying, creation of malware, software privacy, among
other crimes. Therefore cyber-laws would come in handy in case one falls a victim. In another
dimension, cyber-laws scare away attackers from breaking into a network or a system. They would
fear the actions that would be taken against them if they got involved in the same. Apparently, in
the current age, the cyber-crime cases are increasingly growing each day, although cyber-laws
have been in place, there is still a lot that needs to be done. In the new era of cyber-law, it is
INFORMATION SECURITY
difficult to enforce the laws herein due to criminal proximity, ease of anonymity, and the nature of
the digital evidence.
Criminal proximity refers to the closeness of an attacker to the very place that they launch
their attack on. Technology has grown beyond what would have thought of in the current ages.
Nowadays, an attacker can attack systems and networks from anywhere. Due to the same issue,
the perpetrator doesn’t even have to be physical, let alone proximity with the victim. According to
Brenner (2004), for a perpetrator to attack a victim, they only need a computer or an electronic
device linked to the internet to defraud or attack a victim. The attack could include obtaining
confidential information from the victim; the nature of the attack depends on what the attacker
needs from the victim.
Besides, the current technology has introduced complexities in the proximity of an attacker to a
victim. An attack could be virtualized, and this way, it makes it hard to track down such
perpetrators. A good example is when a bank robbery is virtualized in such a way that the monies
stolen get deposited into several accounts in several other different countries. By the time law
enforcement learns that the attack has been made, it would be too late to tack down such victims.
It poses real issues when tracking down the attacker using the location from which they carried
out.
If such individuals are tracked down successfully, the legal action taken against would depend on
the country of residence (Rehman, 2020). However, there could be disparities in how cyber-laws
have been formulated in different countries; therefore, the laws could differ; as a result, it becomes
hard to enforce the laws as it should be done in a certain nation.
In most cases, whenever attacks happen, the victims often do not think that the people close to
them could be the perpetrators. The victims usually waste time thinking of possibilities from
INFORMATION SECURITY
outsiders when, in the real sense, the criminals are there with them (Carson, 2017). It poses
difficulties in enforcing cyber-laws as it becomes difficult to identify the criminals. Another case
would be when such criminals are so close to the victims they often learn of all the loopholes
available before attacking their victims. Think of an insider attacker as someone capable of
knowing everything details about an individual or an organization. If these attackers launch an
attack, they would know of all the possibilities that they can use to cover up traces that would lead
to them.
For a cyber-law to be fully implemented, it requires that the victim takes legal action against the
attacker often by reporting the criminal case to legal authorities. It would be difficult to take legal
actions to someone so close to the victim. Would you think of a case where the perpetrator is a
family member to the victim, few cases would proceed to enforce the cyber-law. Many cases would
prefer not to impose fines and penalties on people that are directly related to them. If they do so,
they might end up incurring the costs by themselves. A criminal’s proximity influences the
enforcement of cyber-laws.
If someone carries out an attack anonymously, it becomes hard tracking them down. One
would not know who the real attacker is. Most attackers would want their attack carried out
anonymously except for a few who would want to be known for their actions, i.e., terrorists. In the
current era, an attacker can easily launch attacks and leave no traces of them; this has been made
possible by the advancements there has been in the technologies we use. The latter culminates
challenges in enforcing cyber-laws. Eichensehr (2020) refers to the issue as the inability to attribute
an attack to a specific perpetrator.
The researcher describes attribution as the process that involves identifying a party responsible for
an intrusion. However, attribution could take different dimensions. It includes identification of the
INFORMATION SECURITY
machine/device used in launching attack, place attack was launched, and the individual behind
the machine. The three could be helpful interchangeably; identifying the machine would help ease
the identification of the individual, and consequently, the larger party involved could also be
identified.
Even though there are still challenges in each dimension of attribution; seemingly, it is a real issue
identifying a machine from which the attack was launched. Investigators of an attack often look
into what would have been the vulnerability through which the attack was launched. Indicators for
such vulnerabilities include domain names, internet protocol addresses, hashes of programs
running on the systems compromised, and, more importantly, the nature of the attack. In some
cases, the programs and software used by the attackers could form a good lead as these attackers
often reuse algorithms and codes through their attacks. Other important information would include
the schedules of work by these attackers and the common slangs and languages the attackers use
to intrude a system. However, it difficult to lay hands on such information in the current era.
Eichensehr, (2020), purports that the attackers often attack the systems deliberately and therefore
work around the same to make sure that there would be no trace of such information.
In some cases, they fake such data such that it would be useless to the victim in case such
information is obtained in the long run. The fact that new technologies such as machine learning,
the internet of things, blockchain among other technologies have emerged in the current ages also
offer attackers the capability to launch attacks without being noticed. Such technologies have
introduced a vast area of anonymity. It has been used by the intruders to launch attacks with the
use of anonymity. For instance, IoT interconnects devices all over the world. An attack could be
launched using ay device on the network without the owner realizing that their device has been
INFORMATION SECURITY
used in the attack. It wouldn’t be able to trace an attack that has utilized the concept of IoT fully
(Wang et al. 2018).
It is more of the same case with machine learning and artificial intelligence. A perpetrator needs
not to attack the system by themselves necessarily, they could use bots that would do the work for
them, and that way, it would be difficult to trace down an individual using the bot. Blockchain
technology also involves the interconnection of multiple miners on the same network, although
the networks serve for the best, it also introduces vulnerabilities for an attack. A miner could use
such vulnerabilities to break through the system with ease of anonymity. Logically, the ease of
anonymity poses difficulties in enforcing cyber-laws as the attackers are often not known.
When taking legal actions against an individual or organization involved in cyber-attack,
there has to be enough and solid evidence. The evidence should be clear enough to hold the
perpetrator responsible for the attack. Unlike other attacks, the digital nature of cyber-attacks is a
real issue when it comes to enforcement of cyber-laws. It has proved difficult to provide digital
evidence that would be substantial enough upon which legal actions can be taken against a
perpetrator. Digital evidence is information and data stored, transmitted, or received by an
electronic device (Goodison, Davis & Jackson, 2015). Through their research, Goodison, Davis &
Jackson purport that digital evidence has a much broader scope than what could be thought of.
Other than that, it could be mobile and more personally sensitive, and also requires different tools
and training, unlike physical evidence.
The form in which digital evidence is represented is crucial when enforcing the cyber-law. Such
information could be retrieved from computers, the internet, and even portable/ mobile electronic
devices, including cell phones. Some of these devices have been designed to hide sensitive data
and location of individuals, and therefore it would be difficult to retrieve such information.
INFORMATION SECURITY
Arguably it would be difficult to track down the individual or information required to hold an
attacker responsible.
Another common feature with digital evidence is that it could be anywhere, on any program,
computer, or even in the virtual space (Kerr, 2018). One cannot exhaust the sources from which
digital evidence could be obtained; this, therefore, limits the amount of evidence drawn from
specific devices while leaving out those that could give substantial evidence. What is more,
extracting information from all these sources could consume a lot of time as it requires time to
look at all possible sources.
Digital evidence is also expensive in extraction (Perumal et al., 2017). Extraction of such evidence
might require expensive tools and techniques to use; this may include programs and software as
well as algorithms that need to be used in the extraction of the digital evidence. Besides extraction
may require that one uses skilled personnel who have to be paid for their service. Such expenses
influence much the enforcement of cyber-laws since, in most cases, individuals or organizations
might opt for less costly techniques and personnel, which in turn would turn to insufficient or even
no evidence of an attack.
One could also argue that digital evidence might sometimes be fake. The attackers might feed the
digital sources with wrong information that would result in distorted or wrong evidence about a
cyber-attack. The information serves no use when retrieved as evidence to take legal action against
the perpetrators.
Criminal proximity, the ease of anonymity, and the nature of digital evidence pose real
challenges when it comes to enforcement of cyber-law, especially in this current age. It becomes
difficult to take legal action against an attacker whose location is not determined. In the event the
location of an attacker is not determined, it is also difficult to identify the real attacker. The attacker
INFORMATION SECURITY
remains anonymous. Ease of anonymity is also another challenge for cyber-laws. Attackers are
continuously discovering and using new techniques that can leave no trace about them. What is
more, the nature of digital evidence is also crucial in the enforcement of cyber-laws. Its nature is
too diverse, and therefore one needs to handle this carefully before they could extract evidence
that is reliable and relevant.
INFORMATION SECURITY
References
Brenner, S. W. (2004). Toward a criminal law for cyberspace: Product liability and other
issues. Pitt. J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, 5, i.
Carson, J. (2017). The evolution of the digital insider trader. Computer Fraud & Security, 2017(8),
12-15.
Eichensehr, K. (2020). The Law & Politics of Cyberattack Attribution. UCLA Law Review, 67.
Goodison, S. E., Davis, R. C., & Jackson, B. A. (2015). Digital evidence and the US criminal
justice system: identifying technology and other needs to more effectively acquire and
utilize digital evidence.
Kerr, O. S. (2018). Computer Crime Law (Introduction). Computer Crime Law (4th Ed. 2018),
West Academic Publishing.
Lloyd, I. (2017). Cyber law in the United Kingdom. Kluwer Law International BV.
Perumal, S., Navarathnam, S., Vosse, C. D., Samsuddin, S. B., & Samy, G. N. (2017). Comparative
Studies on Mobile Forensic Evidence Extraction Open Source Software for Android
Phone. Advanced Science Letters, 23(5), 4483-4486.
Randall, K. P., & Kroll, S. A. (2016). Getting Serious about Law Firm Cybersecurity. NEW
JERSEY LAWYER, 55.
Rehman, T. U. (2020). International Context of Cybercrime and Cyber Law. In Encyclopedia of
Criminal Activities and the Deep Web (pp. 412-423). IGI Global.
Wang, H., Chen, Z., Zhao, J., Di, X., & Liu, D. (2018). A vulnerability assessment method in
industrial internet of things based on attack graph and maximum flow. Ieee Access, 6,
8599-8609.
1
The Trouble of Cyber-Law Enforcement
Cyber-security is a real issue even from the ages before. Hackers and attackers have
continuously found new and more sophisticated ways and techniques to break into systems and
Commented [JJ1]: Try thinking of a stronger attentiongrabber to start your essay. Saying “a real issue” is very
vague and under-whelming.
networks from anywhere across the globe. As a mitigation to these issues, several laws have been
enacted to help minimize the effects resulting from cyber-security (Randall & Kroll, 2016). The
laws and regulations get implemented by a legal system referred to as the Cyber-law. Cyber-law
is part of the legal system that is concerned with cyberspace and the internet, as well as their
respective legal issues. It also sometimes referred to as the Law of the Internet. Freedom of
expression, cyber-security, online privacy, usage, and access to the internet among so many more
issues in information security are some of the concepts dealt with by cyber-law. Just like any other
law, a cyber-law is enacted and implemented to aid in the protection of individuals and
organisations over internets. Besides, it also helps to secure information from these individuals or
organizations on the internet. Cyber-laws in action would enable the victim to say an individual or
Commented [JJ2]: This is unclear.
an organization to take legal action against the attacker or hacker (Lloyd, 2017).
Commented [JJ3]: Is this the end of a paragraph? Do you
have 2 introductory paragraphs? If so, boil it down to just
one by reducing information and not making it so long.
The attacker doesn’t just have to get away with it whenever they break into the system or the
Commented [JJ4]: This is vague. What is “it”?
network. The action taken against the attacker would depend on the nature of the offense. The
crimes that one would commit over the internet/network as well as on systems include child
pornography, copyright violation, cyberbullying, creation of malware, software privacy, among
other crimes. Therefore cyber-laws would come in handy in case one falls a victim. In another
dimension, cyber-laws scare away attackers from breaking into a network or a system. They would
fear the actions that would be taken against them if they got involved in the same. Apparently, in
Commented [JJ5]: This is vague. “in the same” what?
the current age, the cyber-crime cases are increasingly growing each day, although cyber-laws
Commented [JJ6]: Remove this comma
have been in place, there is still a lot that needs to be done. In the new era of cyber-law, it is
Commented [JJ7]: Change this to a period so that you
avoid a comma splice.
INFORMATION SECURITY
difficult to enforce the laws herein due to criminal proximity, ease of anonymity, and the nature of
the digital evidence.
Criminal proximity refers to the closeness of an attacker to the very place that they launch
their attack on. Technology has grown beyond what would have thought of in the current ages.
Nowadays, an attacker can attack systems and networks from anywhere. Due to the same issue,
Commented [JJ8]: I see your thesis statement now. So I
assume everything before this is your introductory
paragraph. I suggest removing some of the non-essential
information and reducing the length of the introductory
paragraph. It was hard to follow in parts. You do a good job
including some of your external sources in your introduction.
Commented [JJ9]: Use parallel structure. Check out the
grammar lab in week 7 for more details.
the perpetrator doesn’t even have to be physical, let alone proximity with the victim. According to
Brenner (2004), for a perpetrator to attack a victim, they only need a computer or an electronic
device linked to the internet to defraud or attack a victim. The attack could include obtaining
confidential information from the victim; the nature of the attack depends on what the attacker
needs from the victim.
Besides, the current technology has introduced complexities in the proximity of an attacker to a
victim. An attack could be virtualized, and this way, it makes it hard to track down such
Commented [JJ10]: If this is a new paragraph, you need
to indent the first line of each paragraph. Check your entire
paper and make sure you indent the first line of each
paragraph.
perpetrators. A good example is when a bank robbery is virtualized in such a way that the monies
stolen get deposited into several accounts in several other different countries. By the time law
enforcement learns that the attack has been made, it would be too late to tack down such victims.
It poses real issues when tracking down the attacker using the location from which they carried
out.
If such individuals are tracked down successfully, the legal action taken against would depend on
the country of residence (Rehman, 2020). However, there could be disparities in how cyber-laws
have been formulated in different countries; therefore, the laws could differ; as a result, it becomes
hard to enforce the laws as it should be done in a certain nation.
In most cases, whenever attacks happen, the victims often do not think that the people close to
them could be the perpetrators. The victims usually waste time thinking of possibilities from
Commented [JJ11]: You do not include any in-text
citations in this paragraph. If you got this information from
one of your sources, you must include an in-text citation.
INFORMATION SECURITY
outsiders when, in the real sense, the criminals are there with them (Carson, 2017). It poses
difficulties in enforcing cyber-laws as it becomes difficult to identify the criminals. Another case
would be when such criminals are so close to the victims they often learn of all the loopholes
available before attacking their victims. Think of an insider attacker as someone capable of
knowin…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment