Contact Me Before Assigning to Another Writer.

¶ … CONTACT ME BEFORE ASSIGNING TO ANOTHER WRITER. The Role Federal Agencies Fighting Digital Crime in United States, a number law enforcement agencies, including Secret Service, FBI, Department Homeland Security,, roles fight computer crimes terrorism.

Law enforcement can be understood as a thorough process in which the police act step-by-step and enforce the law in order to ensure justice and the decrease of crime. Precise and adequate investigation is what marks one of the most important responsibilities and duties in this respect. This is because the outcome of the investigation decides not merely upon the well being of victims but indeed secures that the system is just in applying the law. Certain procedures need to be followed accordingly in order to facilitate problem solving and careful attention is required when collecting forensic evidence. These are but a few of the requirements that are proficiently mandatory in assessing and fighting crime. However, police forces are challenged today by an extension of general crimes that first emerged with the development of information technology. Thus, digital crime pervaded with the advancement of communication and evolution of the IT industry, making it more demanding to counteract the negative effects of technological era. Furthermore, given that new technologies emerge on a daily basis, police agencies must also be able to respond to these developments accordingly. This is why constant evaluation and update is not merely necessary but indeed obligatory if the combating of digital crime is to succeed. What's more, in fighting digital crime, it is understood that police must have access to similar advanced tools which the perpetrators used to carry out the crime. What we mean by this is that digital crime is indeed likely to be assessed properly by using the same tools which were used to practice it in the first place. Understanding that existing resources cannot be allocated evenly to every federal agency, a tight collaboration in this respect can indeed prove more effective in protecting the nation against digital crimes. However, with different federal agencies being distributed randomly across the United States, it is understood that some form of communication is required that would allow easy access of information between the parts. In today's era of technological information, most of the American law agencies, such as the Secret Service, the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security, have taken on roles of cybersecurity. Nevertheless, how agencies conduct the investigations in cases of digital crimes is most often subject to their exercising of power. In this respect, due to the fact that the area upon which the agencies can exercise executive, judicial, and legislative power is specifically defined to cover the government's interest, it is understood that their power is limited to that specific area of interest. However, the limitation of power of one agency over another should not be perceived as a downside to the independent nature of the agencies because indeed, by independently exercising their power, coercive influence is diminished.

In matters of assessing digital crimes, neither the Secret Service nor the FBI or Department of Homeland Security is free from abiding to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) and the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. Both of the laws were adopted to ensure the privacy in electronic communications and, as a result, neither one agency has the right to access information without first assessing the appropriate jurisdiction and, where necessary, obtain additional legal authority. This is to say that any information which is obtained illegally and in violation of the laws cannot stand in trial and is thus invalid, even if the individual in cause is indeed guilty of having committed the crime. However, there are gaps between what the Privacy Act of 1986 refers to and its implementation in ensuring the privacy of individuals. Indeed, previous to its adoption it had been acknowledged that, ?although use of some surveillance techniques requires a court order, many do not require any authorized approval and some are not even covered by judicial interpretation of the fourth amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Congress, 1985, p. 12) More than two decades after, the Federal Bureau of Investigation considers that any data stored longer than 180 days is not necessarily subject to warrant approval but may indeed be accessed with either a subpoena or order issued by a court (FBI, 2012, 18.6.8.2.3 (U) Retrieval, p. 18) Thus, breaches in conducting investigations in cases of digital crime appear when discrepancies exist between how an agency exercises its authority and law implementation. What's more, joint investigations can indeed suffer due to different methods of applying the law. And this is partly a consequence that results from the ECPA being somewhat relative in terms when addressing this or that issue. Indeed, as the 2012 FBI report has acknowledged, in cases of joint investigations, one agency is subordinate to the other which is to say that it must conform ?to the appropriate investigative file, (FBI, 2012, 18.6.2.5.1.8 (U) Joint Investigations, p. 18). In this respect, one agency's investigative methods may be questioned by another. Thus, while we do not see how integrated aligning would be possible, we nevertheless believe that federal agencies can work to strengthen the terms of their collaboration so that joint investigations may indeed provide satisfactory results and be subject to efficient investigative procedural process.