August 1996


                         Point of View
  Overcoming Obstacles: Preparing For Computer-related Crime

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

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Document trails have been replaced by data trails.4 A lack of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 if an 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.