Explain in detail Carter’s Classification of Computer Crimes. Understand the following dynamics: The advancement of computer technology and networking expanded communic

Classification in general involves the process of arranging or assigning things into classes or groups that share some common characteristics. Students are no doubt familiar with these processes since they commonly confront them within the assigned texts of almost every type of academic class. Criminal justice students, for example, are exposed to various classification schemes within criminology courses focused on the major theories of criminal motivation, including “learning” theories, “control” theories, and “social structure” theories. These courses more generally categorize traditional “street crimes” into the categories of “property” offenses and “violent” offenses.

The emergence of computer crime as a major problem several decades ago forced scholars and law enforcement officials to rethink these traditional classification schemes and come up with ways to organize these newer forms of criminality. Where do computer crimes fit among crimes in general? How can we meaningfully discuss the wide variety of different types of computer crimes without confusing important issues related to determining causes and/or the motivations underlying different types of cyber crime? The classification of computer crimes serves to further define the topic of study and keep those of us who are interested in understanding it “on the same page” conceptually. The classification or grouping of computer crimes also provides more opportunities to demonstrate the topic through specific and noteworthy examples. Finally, classification should ultimately fulfill the needs of law enforcement. The classification of computer crimes can be used to understand the criminal motivations of perpetrators of different types of computer crime in order to help in apprehension. These groupings should ultimately be used to develop specific and effective strategies to mitigate unique types of computer crime.

This section reviews three separate systems for the classification of computer crime. Carter (1995) developed one of the earliest systems to classify computer crime. This scheme is widely known and exists in some form or another within almost every introductory text on computer crime, but Carter’s scheme is now approaching 25 years of age. This section also covers two other systems that were developed to classify computer crime: one identified by Gordon and Ford (2006) and the other by Anderson and his colleagues (2012)—the classification scheme used to derive estimates of the costs of computer crime covered in the previous section. These two classification schemes address significant changes in the nature and scope of computer crimes that have occurred over the last 25 years—particularly the too-obvious-to-ignore fact that the Internet now serves as the context for the perpetration of most forms of computer and cyber crimes.

Carter’s Classification of Computer Crimes

Carter (1995) developed his classification of computer crimes just prior to the emergence of the Internet as the widely available and utilized medium for global communications and the sharing of digital information.47 (https://jigsaw.yuzu.com/books/9780134846583/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP70010151570000000000000000005BD.xhtml#P700101515700000000000000000061D) His scheme as a result refers to the various categories of computer crime as they would be perpetrated within local hardware or networks rather than within the global system of interconnected computers we now refer to as the “online” or “connected” environment. Carter’s scheme retains some appeal because it has been widely disseminated and used to understand the varieties of computer crime. His scheme also marks some of the more fundamental divisions within the large subset of offenses referred to collectively as “computer crime,” and here we attempt to demonstrate his various categories through the use of more up-to-date examples. His scheme also is among the most significant in terms of defining how scholars began to organize the “new” forms of criminality within what was then the emerging “digital age.”

Carter’s classifies computer crimes into four types including crimes in which the computer serves as (1) the target of the crime, (2) the instrument of the crime, (3) incidental to the crime, and also (4) crimes associated with the prevalence of computers.

The Computer as Target

Crimes where the computer itself is the target include the denial of expected service. This type of crime seeks to deny the legitimate user or owner of a computer system access to his or her data or computer. The denial of service (DoS) is a straightforward intentional criminal act. Although any resource may be denied to the rightful user, the most prominent example of this crime targeting the computer is the network DoS attack, commonly referred to as a “DoS attack.” More recent and significant DoS attacks occur over the Internet and involve a multitude of computers that launch simultaneous attacks referred to as a “distributed denial of service” (DDoS) attack.

The significance of DoS attacks was previously demonstrated in a recent conflict between Russia and Estonia, which was caused by the removal of a Russian war monument from a memorial garden in Estonia.48 (https://jigsaw.yuzu.com/books/9780134846583/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP70010151570000000000000000005BD.xhtml#P700101515700000000000000000061F) Russian citizens in Estonia and elsewhere were enraged by this action, leading to protests and violence in the streets of both Estonia and Russia. Computer-based attacks quickly ensued against government and private resources in both nations by computer hackers and citizens alike. In particular, Russian hackers so severely limited access to Estonian government and financial systems that the government had to temporarily host files on servers in the United States to continue business without interruption.49 (https://jigsaw.yuzu.com/books/9780134846583/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP70010151570000000000000000005BD.xhtml#P7001015157000000000000000000621) The damage the DoS attacks caused to the Estonian economy was so severe that the country was temporarily crippled as a result. DDoS attacks more recently have at times dominated the news cycle. Several Web sites a

nd organizations affiliated with the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, were victimized as part of a massive DDoS attack that lasted for several months. Web sites affiliated with the 2016 presidential campaigns of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were also the subject of significant DDoS attacks.

50 (https://jigsaw.yuzu.com/books/9780134846583/epub/OPS/xhtml/fileP70010151570000000000000000005BD.xhtml#P7001015157000000000000000000623)

Box 1.1

lists what have arguably been the largest or most “successful” DDoS attacks thus far.