We have seen, and undoubtedly will see again, instances where a victim wants to take measures that are in conflict with the investigative strategy. For example, where there is a series of intrusions into a victim's network, the victim may want to shut the intruder out of the system and patch the vulnerability. Law enforcement may prefer that the company leave the system open so that the hacker will not know he or she has been detected, and the agents can monitor the hacker's activity and track the hacker's origins. If there is a cooperative and trusting relationship between law enforcement and the victim that predates the intrusion, the agents and the company are more likely to find a resolution that works for both. In this example, the agents and system operator may be able to configure the network such that it is secure against future exploits, but appears to the hacker to remain open.
Law enforcement can both protect the victim and pursue the intruder.
Many of the industry representatives expressed doubt about the ability of law enforcement to find the culprits. Certainly, tracking intruders is a very challenging task for a variety of reasons. Industry representatives readily acknowledged, however, that intruders will not be caught if the victim does not report. In any event, law enforcement has become much more sophisticated at tracking communications in recent years and even juvenile intruders are not immune from prosecution. Even if the juvenile is outside the United States, many foreign countries have been willing to prosecute.