Organized Crime and Detection: Finding and Maximizing Criminal Data - Research Paper Example

?Organized Crime and Detection Organized Crime and Detection: Finding and Maximizing Criminal Data Organized Crime and Detection 2ABSTRACT: Organized crime and terrorist activity in the Computer Age takes place on multiple levels, in both the virtual and physical worlds. Preventing criminal activity in the modern era requires the gathering, coordination, analysis and interpretation of massive amounts of data. Law enforcement has advanced database technologies and computer software analysis programs designed to work in concert with more traditional detection tools. In order to safeguard America’s economic integrity and physical safety, it is necessary to continue developing robust information technologies. Organized Crime and Detection 3 Organized Crime and Detection: Finding and Maximizing Criminal Data The classic image of fedora-wearing agents breaking in on clandestine organized crime operations is so firmly embedded in American popular mythology that it’s sometimes difficult to accept things were ever quite that way. The very nature of crime in America has undergone a radical change, one that closely parallels the explosive growth of technology, particularly computer and Internet technology. Regardless of the change in landscape, the modus operandi of organized crime in America has always been, and continues to be, concealment and secrecy. There is no more fertile ground for stealthy criminal activity than the murky, pseudo-reality of the Web. Organized crime goes high tech Cyber space has given criminal organizations a vast new expanse in which to operate, a place where advancements in GPS tracking and DNA scans are of no use. “Secrecy is a key part of organized crime strategy and the Internet offers excellent opportunities for its maintenance. Actions can be hidden behind a veil of anonymity that can range from the use of ubiquitous cyber-cafes to sophisticated efforts to cover Internet routing” (Williams, 2002). Underworld enterprises are far more apt to flourish in an intangible world where complexity and constant technological change are the rule. It is here that the most important technological advances in the field of law enforcement must be deployed. Criminal enterprises can target and exploit individuals, corporations and governments with equal impunity and anonymity, attacking from a virtual world where the ability to crack Organized Crime and Detection 4 codes has supplanted the ability to crack safes. Nevertheless, the Internet can also be a potent weapon for criminals and terrorists looking to mislead and misdirect law enforcement authorities in the commission of illegal and often lethal acts in the temporal world. The benefits of the Computer Age have aided communication, commerce and security efforts immeasurably, but it has also provided criminals with a larger, more varied source of targets to exploit. Consequently, “criminal organizations (are) exceptionally good at environmental scanning in the search for new criminal enterprises and activities. In this context, the Internet and the continuing growth of electronic commerce offer enormous new opportunities” (Ibid, 2002). Building a better mouse trap Law enforcement agencies at all levels are challenged by a never-ending need to match innovation with innovation but, in many cases, innovation isn’t enough: preserving the nation’s economic and commercial integrity, and the protection of human life, often requires nothing less than the development of ground-breaking technologies. In the 21st century, staying a step ahead of the bad guys is a truly high-tech proposition. Simply understanding how the Internet makes it possible to put new faces on old crimes can be challenging, as can determining the best way to apprehend and prosecute the perpetrators. For example, in recent years, criminal organizations have developed the means to crash business systems and interrupt everyday transactions, the restoration of which may come at the high price of extortion. Money laundering has also become a common feature of Web-based crime. It is an insidious problem, one that can mean the diversion of millions from government agencies and Organized Crime and Detection 5 corporate giants. It can also take the form of small-scale theft, in which stolen checks are sent from off-shore sources to agents within the U.S., who simply deposit the checks into personal checking accounts and wire the funds to a prearranged destination. Those who carry out such schemes are, in general, non-descript citizens or computer hackers rather than high-profile criminals who leave a palpable trail for police to follow. In this new reality, cooperation among law enforcement agencies is absolutely essential. City- and county-level departments must be able to share information with the FBI, and each must be willing to coordinate activities. The old “silo” mentality, in which local officers and federal agents jealously guarded their own turf, has been rendered obsolete by technological threats that can eat away at the foundation of American society. Virtual weaponry for a Web-wired world The basis for success in the virtual war against organized crime is a matter of compiling, collating and manipulating information. It seems a straightforward task, but on closer examination it is an endeavor as massive and overwhelming as the Web itself. “Knowledge management is concerned with simplifying and improving the process of sharing, distributing, creating, capturing, and understanding knowledge” (Gottschalk, 2010). Turning this information into knowledge is the first step in fashioning weapons that law enforcement can use to detect and prevent cyber-based crime. Gottschalk posits a multi-stage process in which law enforcement must create a cooperative and competent environment that is conducive to high-tech law enforcement. Simply put, all officers and agents must be prepared to embrace the Organized Crime and Detection 6 technology needed to meet the challenge, to speak the language of the Information Age and think as cyber criminals do. Gottschalk’s model, seen below, illustrates the levels of information acquisition and sharing that must be achieved if law enforcement agencies are to be prepared for the diversity and level of threats that criminals pose online (Ibid, 2010). Figure 1.11. (Gottschalk, 2010) This scenario begins with the “arming” of officers with virtual weaponry they need to begin turning information into actionable applications. This involves providing all officers with efficient record-keeping and timesaving data management aids. Once they achieve a sufficiently high degree of competency with the requisite IT tools, the mass of collected and stored data must be “trafficked” by someone who ensures that “knowledgeable persons within the agency/organization are accessible to others for advice” (Ibid, 2010). From there, data is Organized Crime and Detection 7 collected and stored in centralized databases and other IT-based sources, which are made available to external agencies. Finally, the information is ready to be extracted, analyzed and transformed into knowledge that can be applied directly and practically against Internet-based criminals and criminal organizations (Ibid, 2010). Information is power Determining patterns of criminal behavior is a cornerstone of law enforcement but requires an exhaustive body of data if effective comparisons are to be made and accurate predictions of future criminal behavior are to be extrapolated. In a high-tech, data-driven world, law enforcement agencies must look far afield if they are to compile sufficiently large data sets. As has been mentioned, inter-agency sharing and cooperation is critical: it must also take place on an international scale. There are no borders in cyber space and Web-based criminal initiatives make “national security” a truly global concern. Under these circumstances, information is more than power, it is sheer survival. An international consortium called The Honeypot Project has, since 1999, explored the advantages of a widespread and coordinated international effort to gather massive amounts of useful data culled from illicit Internet activity. Originally aimed at combatting spam, this alliance is comprised of law enforcement and academic institutions in 10 countries, including three participants in the U.S: the South Florida Honeynet Project, Azusa Pacific University and Georgia Technical Institute. The alliance collects data through the “honeypot,” an international information system resource that make possible the collection of high-value data Organized Crime and Detection 8 sets. The honeypot’s information-sharing advantages are considerable, making it possible to “reduce false positives, catch new attacks, (identify) false negatives, while requiring minimal resources” (Savona, 2004). Essentially, the honeypot system is an enormous virtual “net.” However, it allows for a relatively small field of view, yielding considerable data but in too-small doses. The alliance has upgraded in recent years, developing a new “honeynet” architecture, “made up of live systems, which presents a high level of interaction and is designed to capture in-depth information” (Ibid, 2004). Every bit of information that passes through the honeynet is captured and analyzed. The most significant advantage of this technology is that the information captured is not theoretical, but empirical, applicable and results-oriented (Ibid, 2004). The Honeypot Project has proven that there are distinct advantages to a centralized system of data collection in countering multi-million dollar organized mail and e-mail fraud in the U.S. and abroad. Networking toward a common goal The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 jolted American law enforcement agencies into recognizing the absolute need for sharing and coordinating criminal data. Criminal information networking systems were in various stages of development in 2001. Appriss Inc., a U.S. company that networks criminal data, was just beginning to develop a nationwide law enforcement system (see JusticeXchange below). At the local level, law enforcement agencies in California and Pennsylvania have acted on their own initiative. In San Diego County, the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) collects data from 38 state, local and Organized Crime and Detection 9 federal agencies, merging the information in one searchable, Web-based location. Pennsylvania’s Internet Justice Network, or JNET, performs a similar function, breaking through walls that not long ago prevented agencies from acting in concert. “Law enforcement agencies are under the judicial branch and the executive branch,” said JNET Director Linda Rosenberg. “County and municipal police often don’t report to states. No one person is in charge” (Walsh, 2001). Local initiatives such as ARJIS and JNET are at the forefront of a movement designed to circumvent the system’s inherent lack of leadership and coordination of information. Recently, the Obama administration proposed a similar solution to the problem of money laundering and the financing of terrorist organizations. The government’s idea is to establish a centralized database among banking institutions along the lines of ARJIS or JNET, though on a much grander scale. The plan would require banks to report all electronic transfers into and out of the country, an arrangement that would help law enforcement officials to identify the kind of questionable transactions that may precede a terrorist attack. The plan is the U.S. Treasury Department’s response to the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which mandated that the Treasury secretary enact new regulations aimed at clamping down on “cross-border transfers if deemed necessary” (Nakashima, 2011). “By establishing a centralized database, (the) regulatory plan will greatly assist law enforcement in detecting and ferreting out transnational organized crime, multinational drug cartels, terrorist financing and international tax evasion,” said James Freis, director of the Treasury Department ‘s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (Ibid, 2011). Organized Crime and Detection 10 Network link analysis The Treasury Department and FBI have made impressive strides since 2001 gathering criminal and terrorist information. Extrapolating all of that data and developing actionable plans is another matter. In their treatise on criminal network analysis methodology, Xu and Chen explain that sometimes more is less. The problem is that “intelligence and law enforcement agencies often are faced with the dilemma of having too much data, which in effect makes too little value. On one hand, they have large volumes of raw data…on the other hand, they lack sophisticated network analysis tools and techniques to utilize the data effectively and efficiently” (Xu and Chen, 2005). Sophisticated analysis techniques have been developed to help deal with the sheer volume of information; enhance data accuracy and consistency; and categorize and channel information into networks that can be processed logically. A chart approach was used to develop an accurate overview of the hijacker network in the wake of the September 2011 attacks. Public information about the associations between the hijackers was gathered and used to develop a matrix that helped to integrate these relationships. Though useful in charting a structural outline of an organization, more robust network analysis tools were needed to deal with data that contains overwhelming minutiae. To that end, computer software programs have been written that can automatically produce graphical representations of criminal networks (Ibid, 2005). The COPLINK analysis approach, for instance, can automatically develop useful crime relationship networks because it can sift through a large amount of relationship data, while simultaneously handling focus and content (Ibid, 2005). Organized Crime and Detection 11 While all of these tools have their place, each is limited to providing graphic representations of criminal organizations. Further generations of network link analysis “weaponry” will be needed to provide more detailed structural information about criminal networks and about how each functions on a day-to-day basis. A ‘Hobit’ tale The need to close the information gap has translated into a number of different applications. One such has been implemented in Sweden, where law enforcement authorities have developed a geographically based system that holds promise for the U.S. The Hobit system is a geographic occurrence and crime information management program that tracks the time, location and nature of crimes and uses the information to develop likely scenarios. Law enforcement can use these computerized scenarios to develop prevention strategies. “The system gives the police an improved opportunity to map out crimes. When and where crimes are committed can be processed and sought out much faster thanks to this new system” (Gottschalk, 2010). Hobit is a system that is proven capable of the kind of multi-tasking that law enforcement agencies and intelligence organizations will need in order to capture, share, understand and, above all, act on highly detailed information (Ibid, 2010). JusticeXchange Sharing criminal information refers to the ease with which it can move vertically along the law enforcement continuum. Efficient, networked information must be instantly accessible to county/city, state and federal agencies if effective coordination is to take place. Thousands of Organized Crime and Detection 12 law enforcement agencies nationwide utilize an integrated source of information called JusticeXchange. To date, JusticeXchange networks approximately 40 million booking records, including warrants, photos and persons-of-interest background data. Officers can use the database for everything from setting up watches for wanted persons to link analysis. “(JusticeXchange) takes the information in our computer system and sends it to a central repository where it can be assessed by criminal justice agencies online all over the United States” (Young, 2008). LERPNet – Thwarting a retail theft ring The usefulness of centralized data sources is not limited to law enforcement agencies. In 2007, the National Retail Federation and Retail Industry Leaders Association combined their data into a single, searchable source in order to combat an organized shoplifting ring, which has stolen as much as $10,000 per day from the nation’s stores (McMillan, 2007). The industry’s collective data source, called the Law Enforcement Retail Partnership Network (LERPNet), enables retailers to exchange information that helps prevent shoplifting and allows them to share data with law enforcement officials. LERPNet features detailed information about diversionary and evasion tactics employed by perpetrators; witness statements; and photos and video (Ibid, 2007). Its success includes a high-end department store in California, which had lost approximately $400,000 in merchandise to a shoplifting ring. The store shared its information with other stores in the area, helping build an effective case against the thieves (Ibid, 2007). Organized Crime and Detection 13 Tracking terrorism in the Heartland In 2006, intelligence officials foiled what proved to be incipient terrorist plots in Toledo, Ohio, thanks to the cooperation of the area’s Muslim community and the acquisition of financial information pertaining to the two groups. One cell was accused of aiding the insurgency in Iraq; another of supporting Hamas. Investigators were able to leverage centralized data pertaining to the two operations, revealing transactions which led to the arrests of key individuals. After Muslims in the Toledo area tipped off FBI agents, tracking and examination of financial records enabled officials to apprehend the ringleaders (Institute for Preventive Strategies, 2006). Flatfoots online – detecting organized crime at its (new) source Information is a double-edged sword. The same information used to apprehend criminals in the virtual or temporal world can be used to mislead and evade law enforcement officials. As such, simply gathering data is no longer sufficient. That data must be qualified, analyzed, tested and interpreted; transformed into carefully focused tactics designed to thwart criminal activity. For that to happen, all must have the means to access and share information. For today’s law enforcement officials, following leads and assigning guilt requires the ability to think and assess problems on multiple levels. To that end, database technology and data analysis programs are the most powerful means of developing solutions. Organized Crime and Detection 14 References Gottschalk, P. (2010). Policing Organized Crime: Intelligence Strategy Implementation. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group. 213-15. McMillan, R. (2007). Data Sharing Boosts Fight Against Organized Retail Theft. CIO. CXO Media. Nakashima, E. (2011 May 26). Money Transfers Could Face Anti-terrorism Scrutiny. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. Preventing Jihad in Toledo. (2006). Institute for Preventive Strategies at The Center for Rural Development. 2-3. Savona, E.U. (2004). Crime and Technology: New Frontiers for Regulation, Law Enforcement and Research. Dordrecht, NK: Springer. 26. Walsh, T. (2001). Data Sharing Tightens Net for the Law. Government Computer News. Falls Church, VA: 1105 Government Information Group. Williams, P. (2002). Organized Crime and Cyber Crime: Implications for Business. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University. 1-2. Xu, J. and Chen, H. (2005). Criminal Network Analysis and Visualization: A Data-Mining Perspective. Communications of the ACM. 48(6). Young, K. (2008 Dec. 2). Jacksonville PD Updates Info Exchange Capabilities. Jacksonville Progress. Jacksonville, TX. Read More