[sugarNspice]

Web link to the site: cybercrime.gov

Some recent stories that have went to trial lately:

Latest news des moines man indicted for internet threats of violence and identity theft: man made multiple threats to boeing company and anacortes oil refinery (august 28, 2008)

prison terms imposed in access device fraud case (august 28, 2008)

man admits six flags computer sabotage (august 26, 2008)

brazilian man charged in conspiracy to infect more than 100,000 computers worldwide with malicious software (august 21, 2008)

kc man pleads guilty to identity theft, credit card fraud (august 19, 2008)

mastermind of elaborate internet "phishing" scheme sentenced to seven years in federal prison (august 14, 2008)

fact sheet: department of justice efforts to combat cyber crimes (august 5, 2008)

retail hacking ring charged for stealing and distributing credit and debit card numbers from major u.s. Retailers: more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers stolen (august 5, 2008)

romanian citizen admits role in international phishing scheme (july 22, 2008)

digital currency business e-gold pleads guilty to money laundering and illegal money transmitting charges (july 21, 2008)

former television news anchor charged with computer crime (july 21, 2008)

brooklyn man sentenced to 30 months in prison in massive aol spam scheme (july 15, 2008)

charges for "trading with the enemy" and unauthorized access to a protected computer (july 15, 2008)

largo man sentenced for stealing consumer information (july 10, 2008)

former city of newark technology contractor admits defrauding cisco systems of millions of dollars (july 2, 2008)

four defendants sentenced on aggravated identity theft and computer fraud charges (june 30, 2008)

individuals named in swatting conspiracy charged with obstruction of justice (june 27, 2008)

wyoming man charged with infecting thousands of computers with ‘trojan’ that he used to commit fraud (june 27, 2008)

former employee indicted for intentional damage to webhosting data (june 26, 2008)

illinois woman pleads guilty to manufacturing fake ids (june 25, 2008)

houston resident indicted on computer hacking charge (june 24, 2008)

man arrested for stealing identities from internet gambling site for large identity theft ring (june 23, 2008)

romanian national returned to u.s. To face charges (june 13, 2008)

new york woman sentenced to 46 months in prison for internet fraud scheme (june 12, 2008)

international computer "hacker" sentenced to more than three years in federal prison (june 11, 2008)

computer hacker pleads guilty and agrees to two years in federal prison (june 10, 2008)

ohio resident sentenced to 33 months in prison and ordered to pay almost $2 million in restitution to cisco systems, inc (june 10, 2008)

california man sentenced to over 5 years' imprisonment for computer hacking conviction (june 9, 2008)

three individuals indicted by federal grand jury with conspiracy to exceed authorized access of a government computer (june 5, 2008)

[sugarNspice]

Seems there is an international section too on that link.

I see stuff about Europe.

***FYI if the person wants to start with me for displaying this info on here...HAVE FUN
In addition to shutting off my pm and emails in here. I am also only using my work computer when on Mashada. I work at a Police station...fyi.
You don't believe me, I could care less....test me!

[sugarNspice]

Legal issues to consider when getting online once you decide to publish online, whether by posting in a forum, joining a discussion group, blogging, or starting your own website, there are a host of legal issues that may come into play. Understanding your legal rights -- and potential sources of liability -- can help you make an intelligent choice as to what platform you use and what precautions you take when you speak online. Some of the most important issues to consider are free speech protections, anonymity, ownership of content, and vulnerability to others' copyright claims. While a number of factors can influence the scope of your rights and liabilities online, the most important is often the "terms of use" (or "terms and conditions," "terms of service" etc.) that you agree to when you sign up for a website account, blog- or web-hosting service. Whether you read these terms or not, they form a legally binding contract between you and the service operator, and in fact govern much of the relationship between you and that site. It is true that these "terms of use" sections can appear difficult to understand: they often contain legal jargon, and may be divided into several webpages (for example, a basic "terms of use" page may link to a separate "privacy policy"). However, the more aware you are of the terms you are agreeing to, the better you will understand your legal rights and risks. Further, being aware of the differences in the terms of service for using different sites can help you find a platform for your online activities that is appropriate to your specific needs. Please see the section on evaluating terms of service for a comparison of some of the more important terms you might encounter. Free speech protection if you live in the united states, you have a first amendment right to engage in speech on the internet. This legal principle allows you to use the internet as a powerful medium to communicate facts, ideas, and opinions. However, there are two important limits on your online activities which you should be aware of: certain kinds of conduct and speech, such as defamation, are not legally protected. Private website operators and hosting services can control what kind of speech appears on their site and servers. These limits may threaten your ability to publish certain types of content online, especially if you are making a controversial point or are criticizing somebody. You may face situations where your online activity approaches the legal "grey area" between speech that is protected and speech that is not, and offended persons may pressure your hosting service or website operator to remove material that they consider unlawful or simply do not like. Many web hosts will remove content or cancel your account if they receive a complaint or deem content offensive, assuming their terms of service permit them to do so. Regardless of their public stance on free speech issues, hosting services and websites that allow users to create or submit content enjoy immunity in the united states when it comes to claims of defamation, privacy, and other similar torts based on the activities of their users. This means that hosting services and website operators do not have to remove content just because someone complains about it, and they are protected from liability even when they are on notice of the potential defamatory character of the statements. For more information on this law, see our primer on the communications decency act ("cda 230"). Unfortunately, many hosting services and website operators are not aware of cda 230's protections. You may need to remind your hosting service of cda 230 if they claim they must remove your material. Keep in mind, however, that your hosting service likely has the contractual right to remove your material regardless of their exposure to liability, depending on what their terms of use say. If you think your content might be controversial, you should think about what sort of platform or service will protect your speech most strongly. You have perhaps the least amount of protection when posting on somebody else's blog or message board, as a moderator can generally remove any post at any time. Starting your own blog gives you more room to operate, but blog-hosting sites generally impose some restrictions on the content that you can post. If you are planning to start a blog, you should carefully consult each hosting provider's terms & conditions to see which site is the most protective of free speech. The section of this guide that provides a evaluation of terms of service might also be helpful. You are likely to have the most freedom if you start your own website. If you are thinking of starting your own site to publish controversial material, you should consider the extent to which your hosting company will respect your freedom of speech. Sometimes, when faced with a speech-related lawsuit, hosting sites will sacrifice your freedom of speech and send you looking for a new home on the internet. This type of action is most likely to occur with large, mainstream web hosts that have many users and a public reputation to worry about. If you know that you will be covering a controversial subject or expressing a controversial opinion, you may want to consider one of the hosts that make an explicit effort to respect free speech rights. Computer tyme and project dod are two examples of web hosts that make it a point to protect free speech. You can find other examples of web hosts that are proud of their free speech stance on the dedicated hosting guide's post "free speech hosting: 11 web hosts that won’t dump you at the first sign of controversy." another category of speech that may be removed from a website is speech that allegedly infringes on somebody else's copyright. For information on this subject, please read the section regarding the digital millennium copyright act. Anonymity many people choose to engage in online speech anonymously, or under a pseudonym, for a variety of reasons. For information on making this decision, please see our section on deciding whether to publish anonymously. While you have a right to engage in anonymous speech in the u.s., there are certain situations in which you can lose this protection. For one, certain sites simply do not allow their users to be anonymous. Social networking sites, for example, like facebook, often require their users to act under their real names. Accordingly, you should consider a site's terms of service on this subject if anonymity is important to you. Further, others can use a lawsuit to discover the identity of an anonymous internet user. For more information on this danger, please consult our sectio on potential legal challenges to anonymity. Some sites are more protective of their users' anonymity than others. Of course, virtually any service will reveal your information if served with valid legal process -- otherwise the company would be in contempt of court. But there are still ways to protect yourself. If you are choosing between blog-hosting sites, be aware that blogger and livejournal (but not typepad) do not require names or credit card numbers for registration. By signing up through an anonymizing service, like tor, and using an anonymous e-mail account, you gain greater protection from being unmasked, even in the face of a subpoena to the web-hosting service. If protecting your anonymity is important to you, please consult our list of technical precautions you can take to protect your anonymity ahead of a potential lawsuit.

[sugarNspice]

An international legal definition of cybercrime that is used by most of the countries in Europe and North America as well as South Africa and Japan was agreed to in the Convention on Cybercrime, and entered into force on 1 July 2004.

Although the term cybercrime is usually restricted to describing criminal activity in which the computer or network is an essential part of the crime, this term is also used to include traditional crimes in which computers or networks are used to enable the illicit activity.

Examples of cybercrime which the computer or network is a tool of the criminal activity include spamming and copyright crimes, particularly those facilitated through peer-to-peer networks.
Examples of cybercrime in which the computer or network is a target of criminal activity include unauthorized access (i.e, defeating access controls), malicious code, and denial-of-service attacks.
Examples of cybercrime in which the computer or network is a place of criminal activity include theft of service (in particular, telecom fraud) and certain financial frauds.
Finally, examples of traditional crimes facilitated through the use of computers or networks include Nigerian 419 or other gullibility or social engineering frauds (e.g., hacking "phishing", identity theft, child pornography, online gambling, securities fraud, etc.). Cyberstalking is an example of a traditional crime -- harassment -- that has taken a new form when facilitated through computer networks.
Additionally, certain other information crimes, including trade secret theft and industrial or economic espionage, are sometimes considered cybercrimes when computers or networks are involved.


Cybercrime in the context of national security may involve hacktivism (online activity intended to influence policy), traditional espionage, or information warfare and related activities.


One of the recent researches showed that a new cybercrime is being registered every 10 seconds in Britain. During 2006 the computer crooks were able to strike 3.24 million times. Some crimes performed on-line even surpassed their equivalents in real world. In addition, experts believe that about 90% of cybercrimes stay unreported.


According to a study performed by Shirley McGuire, a specialist in psychology of the University of San Francisco, the majority of teenagers who hack and invade computer systems are doing it for fun rather than with the aim of causing harm. Shirley McGuire mentioned that quite often parents cannot understand the motivation of the teenage hackers. She performed an anonymous experiment, questioning more than 4,800 students in the area of San Diego. Her results were presented at the American Psychological Association conference:


38% of teenagers were involved in software piracy;
18% of all youngsters confessed of entering and using the information stored on other personal computers or websites;
13% of all the participants mentioned they performed changes in computer systems or computer files.

The study revealed that only 1 out of 10 hackers were interested in causing certain harm or earning money. Most teenagers performed illegal computer actions of curiosity, to experience excitement. Many cyber police are getting more complaints about Orkut these days as many fake profiles are being created and thus facilitating crimes.

[sugarNspice]

When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment, and threats.

A number of key factors have been identified:

false accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as wikipedia or amazon.com.

attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their ip address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.

encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit. False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases. Attacks on data and equipment. They may try to damage the victim's computer by sending viruses. Ordering goods and services. They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim's name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim's workplace. Arranging to meet. Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyberstalkers try to set up meetings between them.

behaviors cyberstalkers meet or target their victims by using search engines, online forums, bulletin and discussion boards, chat rooms, and more recently, through online communities such as myspace, facebook, friendster and indymedia, a media outlet known for self-publishing. They may engage in live chat harassment or flaming or they may send electronic viruses and unsolicited e-mails.

victims of cyberstalking may not even know that they are being stalked. Cyberstalkers may research individuals to feed their obsessions and curiosity. Conversely, the acts of cyberstalkers may become more intense, such as repeatedly instant messaging their targets.

more commonly they will post defamatory or derogatory statements about their stalking target on web pages, message boards and in guest books designed to get a reaction or response from their victim, thereby initiating contact.

in some cases, they have been known to create fake blogs in the name of the victim containing defamatory or pornographic content. When prosecuted, many stalkers have unsuccessfully attempted to justify their behavior based on their use of public forums, as opposed to direct contact. Once they get a reaction from the victim, they will typically attempt to track or follow the victim's internet activity. Classic cyberstalking behavior includes the tracing of the victim's ip address in an attempt to verify their home or place of employment.

some cyberstalking situations do evolve into physical stalking, and a victim may experience abusive and excessive phone calls, vandalism of personal property, threatening or obscene mail, trespassing, and physical assault.

moreover, many physical stalkers will use cyberstalking as another method of harassing their victims.

a 2007 study, led by paige padgett from the university of texas health science center, found that there was a false degree of safety assumed by women looking for love online.

cyberstalking legislation in the united states the current us federal anti-cyber-stalking law is found at 47 usc sec. 223. The first u.s. Cyberstalking law went into effect in 1999 in california. Other states include prohibition against cyberstalking in their harassment or stalking legislation. In florida, hb 479 was introduced in 2003 to ban cyberstalking. This was signed into law on october 2003. some states in the u.s. Have begun to address the issue of cyberstalking: alabama, arizona, connecticut, hawaii, illinois, new hampshire, and new york have included prohibitions against harassing electronic, computer or e-mail communications in their harassment legislation. Alaska, florida, oklahoma, wyoming, and california, have incorporated electronically communicated statements as conduct constituting stalking in their anti-stalking laws. Texas enacted the stalking by electronic communications act, 2001. Missouri revised its state harassment statutes to include stalking and harassment by telephone and electronic communications (as well as cyber-bullying) after the megan meier suicide case of 2006.[15] a few states have both stalking and harassment statutes that criminalize threatening and unwanted electronic communications. Other states have laws other than harassment or anti-stalking statutes that prohibit misuse of computer communications and e-mail, while others have passed laws containing broad language that can be interpreted to include cyberstalking behaviors cyberstalking has also been addressed in recent u.s. Federal law. For example, the violence against women act, passed in 2000, made cyberstalking a part of the federal interstate stalking statute. Still, there remains a lack of legislation at the federal level to specifically address cyberstalking, leaving the majority of legislative prohibitions against cyberstalking at the state level.[

Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require the alleged stalker's course of conduct constitute an implied threat. While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously.

online identity stealth blurs the line on infringement of the rights of would-be victims to identify their perpetrators. There is a debate on how internet use can be traced without infringing on protected civil liberties. In other countries other countries have begun to include online abuse in their anti-stalking legislation. In australia, the stalking amendment act (1999) includes the use of any form of technology to harass a target as forms of "criminal stalking." in the united kingdom, the malicious communications act (1998) classified cyberstalking as a criminal offense.

[sugarNspice]

Click fraud
The latest scam to hit the headlines is the multi-million dollar click fraud which occurs when advertising network affiliates force paid views or clicks to ads on their own websites via spyware, the affiliate is then paid a commission on the cost-per-click that was artificially generated. Affiliate programs such as Google's Adsense capability pay high commissions that drive the generation of bogus clicks. With paid clicks costing as much as US$100[verification needed] and an online advertising industry worth more than US$10 billion, this form of Internet fraud is on the increase.

[sugarNspice]

Phishing
Main article: Phishing
"Phishing" is the act of attempting to fraudulently acquire sensitive information, such as passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as a trustworthy person or business with a real need for such information in a seemingly official electronic notification or message (most often an email, or an instant message). It is a form of social engineering attack.

The term was coined in the mid 1990s by crackers attempting to steal AOL accounts. An attacker would pose as an AOL staff member and send an instant message to a potential victim. The message would ask the victim to reveal his or her password, for instance to "verify your account" or to "confirm billing information". Once the victim gave over the password, the attacker could access the victim's account and use it for criminal purposes, such as spamming.

Phishing has been widely used by fraudsters using spam messages masquerading as large banks (Citibank, Bank of America) or PayPal. These fraudsters can copy the code and graphics from legitimate websites and use them on their own sites to create legitimate-looking scam web pages. They can also link to the graphics on the legitimate sites to use on their own scam site. These pages are so well done that most people cannot tell that they have navigated to a scam site. Fraudsters will also put the text of a link to a legitimate site in an e-mail but use the source code to links to own fake site. This can be revealed by using the "view source" feature in the e-mail application to look at the destination of the link or putting the cursor over the link and looking at the code in the status bar of the browser. Although many people don't fall for it, the small percentage of people that do fall for it, multiplied by the sheer numbers of spam messages sent, presents the fraudster with a substantial incentive to keep doing it.

Anti-phishing technologies are now available.

Main article: Spoofing_attack
The sender information shown in e-mails (the "From" field) can be spoofed easily, though nowadays many domains have the Sender Policy Framework implemented, which helps prevent the e-mail spoofing. This technique is commonly used by Spammers to hide the origin of their e-mails and leads to problems such as misdirected bounces (i.e. e-mail spam backscatter).

Main article: Pharming
Pharming is the exploitation of a vulnerability in the DNS server software that allows a hacker to acquire the domain name for a site, and to redirect that website's traffic to another web site. DNS servers are the machines responsible for resolving internet names into their real addresses - the "signposts" of the internet.

If the web site receiving the traffic is a fake web site, such as a copy of a bank's website, it can be used to "phish" or steal a computer user's passwords, PIN or account number. Note that this is only possible when the original site was not SSL protected, or when the user is ignoring warnings about invalid server certificates.

For example, in January 2005, the domain name for a large New York ISP, Panix, was hijacked to a site in Australia. In 2004 a German teenager hijacked the eBay.de domain name.

Secure e-mail provider Hushmail was also caught by this attack on 24th of April 2005 when the attacker rang up the domain registrar and gained enough information to redirect users to a defaced webpage.

Anti-pharming technologies are now available.