On 4th February 2009 Artur Harutyunyan, 26, one of two co-defendants debit-card skimming operation that took more $500,000, from at least 70 victims, pleaded guilty in a U.S. District Court in Wilmington (Delware)
On 4th February 2009 Artur Harutyunyan, 26, one of two co-defendants debit-card skimming operation that took more $500,000, from at least 70 victims, pleaded guilty in a U.S. District Court in Wilmington (Delware)
The 2008 the FBI reported an increase theft of data and obtaining information from computers – hacking/computer spying.
The FBI also stated that this now threatens US security.
Article
Computer spying and theft of personal information have risen notably in the past year, costing tens of millions of dollars and threatening U.S. security, the FBI’s cyber division head said on Wednesday.
FBI Assistant Director Shawn Henry told reporters that organized-crime groups are drawn by the ease of reaching millions of potential victims.
He said as many as two dozen countries have taken an “aggressive interest” in penetrating the networks of U.S. companies and government agencies.
He declined to specify countries, but U.S. intelligence agencies have voiced concern over Russia and China’s abilities to electronically spy on the United States and disrupt U.S. computer networks.
As one possible example of Russia’s electronic spying prowess, Georgia accused Moscow in August of conducting “cyber warfare” to shut down Georgian government websites at the same time as it carried out a military offensive.
U.S. federal agents are stepping up efforts to fight computer crime, and working with foreign counterparts where the rising wave of computer attacks has awakened international interest, Henry said.
“Over the past year the malicious activity has become much more prevalent,” Henry said. “The threat continues to increase.”
An attack method growing in popularity is “botnets,” in which malicious software spreads via viruses to computers of unwitting individuals and companies forms networks that can then be used for data theft or shutting down a system,
In 2007 James Earl Edmiston, a computer forensics expert, pleaded guilty to two cases of perjury in relation to evidence he had provided.
James Edmiston was a computer forensics expert, and had provided evidence for cases involving child pornography, however it was found that he was lying about his qualifications, which are provided in court, and as such he was lying to the court. The case was heard in California – Full Article The Register.
Early this year a case in Florida raised an interesting case, involving child pornography v consensual sex.
Two teenagers, 16 and 17, were involved in a consensual sexual relationship.
The 16 and 17 year old took pictures of themselves, with a digital camera, of some of their sexual activities, and then emailed each other the pictures . Some how the police became aware of this case and decided to arrest and prosecute the teenagers involved.
In Florida both the teenagers were above the legal age of consent, and therefore there was no offence of underage sex (or similar). However, the couple involved were below the age for sexual photography (as they would be in the UK, under Sexual Offences Act 2003), as a result the material was deemed to be pedophilic in nature, and the couple were involved in making and distributing it – even though there was no allegation of anything other than consensual sex, or that anyone other than the couple (until the police were called) had seen the images.
The couple appealed, but the Florida Appeals court, upheld the conviction.
This case would be a difficult one to judge, because of the effect of case law it is not just the merits of this case that must be considered, but all future cases. For example, if the judge, at appeal, had said “not guilty, because they are consensual”, then any person involved in distrubting, creating, or possesing images of 16 year old’s having sex would have the defence that the individuals were consenting, and the court would have to prove otherwise. Which can be difficult when those appearing in the photographs can not be traced.
The problem then gets worse, if peadophile is in possesion of pictures two 13 years old having sex, he could argue that they are 16 (they just look young), and that it is consensual. The prosecution would need to find the victims in the photograph to prove that they are both under 16 and not consenting, which is difficult, and can be impossible in many cases, given the international nature of the images.
Therefore the judge’s probably did not have any choice but to uphold the case, which is unfortuante for the couple involved.
