The Impact Of Traditional Policing Vs. Cyber Policing

Introduction

The Internet of things is a trend where everyday objects have network connectivity, allowing them to send and receive data. It depends on a great deal of data to function as devices are being setup to track and collect data. (Mohn, 2016) E.g. smartphones, online banking, home security systems etc. As these are important to us, we can’t over look how crime will play a vital role and affect lots of people due to its popularity and the fact that it will be a part of lives as we grow technologically.

With the inevitable transition to the internet of things, how can we deal with potential cyber crimes that will occur due to the development of IOT, which will affect the everyday lives of the people? We deal with crime now, through the

Large businesses could benefit from this because it would prevent them from engaging in settlement deals after a breach that might affect important data of its customers. As the trend continues to expand, the risk of individuals getting hacked of their personal data increases and without a designated department to help trace and capture hackers, I believe it won’t reduce the eagerness to be a part of the trend, but it would increase the likelihood of being a victim of it.

Traditional policing Vs Cyber policing

When it comes to cyber crimes we can’t put a face to the crimes being committed, it’s easier to find ways to prevent hackers from gaining access to important data than searching and putting them in handcuffs. Traditional police theories will not work for cyber crimes, so cyber police theories need to be developed. Faceless-oriented policing comprises of guardians who see the internet being utilized as a faceless venue to commit crimes and what benefits their investigation of these crimes is that they view the cyber investigator and the offender both as faceless entities. (Walker, Brock, & Stuart, 2006) Most cyber criminals engage in the routine activities approach to crime, which suggests that criminal behavior often occur due to these three components: motivated offender; suitable target; and absence of a capable

allow almost anyone access to the internet virtually anonymously and untraceably. The cyber investigator can attempt to obtain the IP address, which would lead investigators to the actual computer used to commit a crime. (Walker, Brock, & Stuart, 2006) However, when that computer is in a net café, with literally hundreds of potential users, finding the one person who committed the crime just becomes infinitely more difficult to achieve because the criminal knows that there are open ports to gain free unlimited access to the internet.

As the use of the internet leaves a footprint on every location that you travel while using it, IP addresses can also be obtained through a cloning process called ‘spoofing’. When that happens, a person obtains the IP address of a person who is using the internet at a particular time. So when criminal activities are observed and there is an attempt at prosecution, the law enforcement agency may find that its culprit, thought to be in Asia, is actually sitting in a house right beside it. (Walker, Brock, & Stuart,