مسائل جاری در مواجهه با بهره کشی از کودکان با بهره گیری از کامپیوتر و تثبیت شده و نیروهای کاری جرایم کامپیوتری

Over the past five years, a large number of agencies have developed specialized units to deal with high technology crimes and Internet crimes against children. The United States currently funds approximately 45 Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces.3 This article talks about some of the issues confronting established Internet crimes against children and high technology crime units and examines approaches to their resolution. First, the tension between forensics and investigations is discussed. With the first computer forensic laboratory being accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), pressure to split the functions is increasing attention to unit functions (Casey, 2004 and Ferraro and Casey, 2004a). Next, the article addresses the continued confusion over obtaining information from Internet service providers.4 The third issue discussed is the burgeoning problem of storing and returning evidence years after its seizure. In some cases the courts order return of evidence containing contraband, and often impose arduous duties on the unit personnel that are more akin to what a computer technician at a private shop would perform under contract than what law enforcement personnel should do to accommodate the owner of evidence to facilitate its return (Ferraro and Casey, 2004a).

This article explored three emerging issues facing established computer crime units. First, the tension between forensic science and investigations was discussed. Pressure to become accredited conflicts with practical considerations of investigators. This article examined splitting forensics from investigations and discussed some of the many considerations administrators should weigh when parsing out duties. Second, the article examined jurisdictional and practical search and seizure issues spawned by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. We explored the prospect of developing uniform long-arm statutes for states to enact. Further, we discussed the possibility that the states enter into an interstate compact to facilitate obtaining information from ISPs. The article talked about uniform state laws to allow a hybrid warrant that would allow judges to “warrants” that could be executed out-of-state by non-police officers who work for electronic communication providers. Third, we discussed returning evidence that may contain contraband. Ill-informed orders to dispatch the evidence often require personnel to perform functions that are beyond their government responsibilities. Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and law enforcement officers require training in the most expedient and fair methods of returning evidence that may contain contraband. The article described several approaches to dealing with digital evidence. These three issues are the primary concerns seen by units with at least five years experience. The future is uncertain and holds challenges that we may not even anticipate. This inaugural issue of this Journal signals a beginning of a profession attempting to come together to solve our mutual problems. We have hope now, that this new medium will be an indispensable resource to us all in solving our current issues and the challenges yet to come.