Yahoo Answers For Computer Forensics Crime
Question Where do I find Computer Forensic Crime statistics?
I would like to know where to find how many cases a year involve computer forensics, not just comptuer crime. For example they caught the BTK killer using computer forensics, but he did not commit computer crime. Preferable I would want this broken down by state. New York, PA, Mass... Any help would be greatly appreciated. I did a google search, but whatever terms I am using are not helping.
Best Answer That is a tough question. The sarcasm at the end of the other person's post might be something. If this state is not tracked someone needs to do it.
I would like to know where to find how many cases a year involve computer forensics, not just comptuer crime. For example they caught the BTK killer using computer forensics, but he did not commit computer crime. Preferable I would want this broken down by state. New York, PA, Mass... Any help would be greatly appreciated. I did a google search, but whatever terms I am using are not helping.
Best Answer That is a tough question. The sarcasm at the end of the other person's post might be something. If this state is not tracked someone needs to do it.
Question How to establish the forensics of computer based crime?
One of the more difficult things in proving who the culprit is in a computer-related investigation is to tie the crime to the actual offender. Identifying the computer that was used in the commission of the crime is only half the battle...does this really prove who typed the keypad?
Best Answer Nope. unles they can get a clear finger print off the keyboard all they can do is go as far as the computer. even if they can get a fingerprint off a keyboard it just says that a person used they computer,and that doesnt mean they were the one there at the time of the crime. most often the owner of the computer is the one who bears the brunt of monitoring the usage of the computer in question. or at least the person the IP is registered to. The courts are using antiquated rules in a modern world and trying to sort it all out when most of the law makers cannot grasp the technology used Case. A single mother was arrested,jailed and hauled into court. Why? someone downloaded 6 songs off a file sharing network. the songs were not on her hard drive or any other drive that she had. She was convicted. The judge said it was enough that they could prove that she didn't have permission from the copyright holder to download the songs and they went to the IP address that was listed to her. even tho they couldn't actually prove she was the one who did the downloading. She now has a multi hundred thousand dollar judgement and a conviction. For six songs no one could find or prove SHE downloaded.. it just had to be shown it was from the IP address assigned to her. Fair? The courts seem to think so. i bet she doesn't
One of the more difficult things in proving who the culprit is in a computer-related investigation is to tie the crime to the actual offender. Identifying the computer that was used in the commission of the crime is only half the battle...does this really prove who typed the keypad?
Best Answer Nope. unles they can get a clear finger print off the keyboard all they can do is go as far as the computer. even if they can get a fingerprint off a keyboard it just says that a person used they computer,and that doesnt mean they were the one there at the time of the crime. most often the owner of the computer is the one who bears the brunt of monitoring the usage of the computer in question. or at least the person the IP is registered to. The courts are using antiquated rules in a modern world and trying to sort it all out when most of the law makers cannot grasp the technology used Case. A single mother was arrested,jailed and hauled into court. Why? someone downloaded 6 songs off a file sharing network. the songs were not on her hard drive or any other drive that she had. She was convicted. The judge said it was enough that they could prove that she didn't have permission from the copyright holder to download the songs and they went to the IP address that was listed to her. even tho they couldn't actually prove she was the one who did the downloading. She now has a multi hundred thousand dollar judgement and a conviction. For six songs no one could find or prove SHE downloaded.. it just had to be shown it was from the IP address assigned to her. Fair? The courts seem to think so. i bet she doesn't