Showing posts with label Cybercrime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cybercrime. Show all posts

Feb 24, 2016

Texas Cybercrimes Lawyer



Recent media coverage has been rife with stories of large-scale data breaches, hacks and online financial crime. New trends in cyber crime are emerging all the time, with estimated costs to the global economy running to billions of dollars.
In the past, cyber crime was committed mainly by individuals or small groups. Today, we are seeing highly complex cyber criminal networks bring together individuals from across the globe in real time to commit crimes on an unprecedented scale. Criminal organizations turning increasingly to the Internet to facilitate their activities and maximize their profit in the shortest time. The crimes themselves are not necessarily new – such as theft, fraud, illegal gambling, sale of fake medicines – but they are evolving in line with the opportunities presented online and therefore becoming more widespread and damaging.

Most states have enacted internet and computer crimes statutes: many of these statutes not only provide for criminal prosecution but also for civil liability. In Texas, cyber crime is defined by the Texas Computer Crimes Statute (Penal Code, Title 7, Chapter 33) to include:
  • Knowingly accessing a computer, computer network or computer system without the consent of the owner;
  • Knowingly soliciting a minor under the age of 17 over the internet, text message, or other electronic system, to meet in person for the purpose of engaging in sexual behavior with the defendant;
  • Knowingly accessing a computer system, network, program, software or machine that is part of a voting system that uses direct recording electronic voting machines and tampers with the votes or the ability of someone to vote.
  • Creating a web page or leaving messages on a social networking site using the persona of another without the person's consent and with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten someone; or
  • Referencing the name, domain address, phone number or any other identifying information of a person without that person's consent, intending to cause the recipient to think the message is truly coming from that person, with the intent to harm or defraud someone.
The penalties for computer crimes depend on the nature and seriousness of the crime committed:
For gaining access to a computer without the consent of the owner the penalty may range all the way from a "Class B" misdemeanor (up to 180 days in a county jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000) up to a first degree felony (five to 99 years in a state prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000). The factor influencing the degree of the penalty imposed is the value of money or property that the defendant benefitted from and/or was lost by the victim.
For soliciting a minor, the crime is charged as a third degree felony (two to ten years in state prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000). However, if the minor is under 14 years of age, then it may be a second degree felony (two to twenty years in a state prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000).
For tampering with a voting machine, the penalty is a first degree felony. This is a very serious penalty with a sentence between five to 99 years in a state prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.
Online harassment is usually charged as a third degree felony; however, if the crime involves falsifying an electronic message with the intent to harm or defraud, the defendant may instead be charged with a "Class A" misdemeanor (not more than one year in a county jail and/or a fine of no more than $4,000). If the message was intended to summon a response by emergency personnel, it will be elevated to a third degree felony.

In addition to state laws, the federal government has entire sections and task forces which are dedicated to computer crimes. Computer crimes are most often classified as federal offenses when they involve "crossed" state lines or actions which are unlawful under federal law.
In 1986, Congress passed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) . This law has been amended and expanded as internet technology has advanced, and it continues to form the basis for federal prosecutions of computer-related criminal activities. Other relevant federal statutes include the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 (ITERA), and certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The federal computer fraud and abuse statute protects federal computers, bank computers, and computers used in interstate and foreign commerce. It shields them from trespassing, threats, damage, espionage, and from being corruptly used as instruments of fraud. It is not a comprehensive provision, but instead it fills crack and gaps in the protection afforded by other federal criminal laws. In general subsection 1030(a) criminalise:
Computer trespassing (e.g., hacking) in a government computer, or on any computer if it results in exposure to certain governmental, credit, financial, or computer-housed information;
Damaging a government computer, a bank computer, or a computer used in, or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., a worm, computer virus, Trojan horse, time bomb, a denial of service at tack, and other forms of cyber attack, cyber crime, or cyber terrorism);
Committing fraud, an integral part of which involves unauthorized access to a government computer, a bank computer, or a computer used in, or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce;
Threatening to damage a government computer, a bank computer, or a computer used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce;
Trafficking in passwords for a government computer, or when the trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce, and
Accessing a computer to commit espionage.
In general, violations are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years (not more than 20 years for second and subsequent offenses) and/or a fine of not more than $250,000 (not more than $500,000 for organizations). However, the general espionage sentencing guideline may also apply in some cases, which calls for a base sentencing level of 30 (carrying an initial sentencing range beginning at 8 years' imprisonment) and of 35 (an initial sentencing range beginning at 14 years) if top secret information is involved.
Further, if a violation is committed for terrorist purposes the minimum sentencing level is 32 and the criminal history category is VI which means the sentencing range begins at 17.5 years' imprisonment (and begins at 24.33 years' imprisonment if top secret information is involved).

There are a number of possible opportunities in preparing a legal defense against computer crimes charges. Statutes of limitations may prohibit prosecution for many—but not all—computer crimes if more than 5 years have passed since any alleged criminal act occurred. Additionally, because government agents usually either physically search a defendant's computers or electronically access their files, the legality of those searches may be brought into question. Information illegally obtained by government agents without a warrant or consent will often be suppressed if a defense attorney is able to prove that the defendant's rights were violated. In many computer crime "sting" investigations, federal agents have been known to urge or solicit individuals to commit computer crimes, and this kind of influence by law enforcement may constitute entrapment. If a defense attorney can prove that a defendant would not have committed a crime if not for the urging of law enforcement, a jury may find that the defendant was entrapped, and no conviction or is then possible. An attorney experienced in computer crime defense will be able to sort through the complex evidence these cases often involve, determining how best to challenge the government and protect your rights.


If you have been charged with an internet based cyber crime you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Contact Parnham & Associates today at (713) 224.3967 or use our convenient online submission form. Depending on the circumstances, we have many options in mounting a strong defense for you.

Nov 3, 2014

Houston Criminal Attorney: Child Pornography Convictions



As computers have become a part of daily life, so have prosecutions involving the use of computers as a vehicle for child pornography. Otherwise innocent people may find themselves caught up in overzealous government investigations of internet sex crimes.
Internet sex crimes such as possession of child pornography or online solicitation make media headlines, especially when business owners, teachers, or other prominent citizens are facing these accusations. Using the internet to solicit sexual acts from a minor is an incredibly serious offense. Any sex crime charge, even if false, can be extremely damaging. That's why it's important to seek immediate and aggressive legal representation.

Some pornography web sites can install software on your computer or come looking for you without your knowledge, and can then send you to another web site containing potentially illegal content. In addition police officers often pose as minors and seek to entice visitors to Internet chat rooms. In many of these situations, there are several legal means by which to challenge the legality of the this process.

Federal law defines “child pornography” in 18 USC Section 2256(B) (8): as "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

In addition, the Texas Penal Code Section 43.26 states that a person commits an offense if "the person knowingly or intentionally possesses visual material that visually depicts a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made who is engaging in sexual conduct; and... the person knows that the material depicts the child".

Strict child pornography laws are important in the fight to keep our children safe from predators and others who attempt to exploit their innocence for criminal purposes. But because the laws are overly broad, they often have the opposite result and can easily be used to convict innocent people.

One example is a fad among teenagers known as "sexting", which involves sending or receiving sexually explicit text messages or photos via cell phones. Although most people understand the difference between a teen's poor decision and an adult exploiting a child for sexual purposes, the law makes no such distinction; in fact, even if the minors consensually shared personal images, both the sender and receiver can end up in juvenile jail and be forced to register as sex offender for the rest of their lives. In addition to identifying the child to the public, sex offender registration will impact their ability to get a job, live in certain areas and travel freely throughout their adult life.

Another commonly held assumption by law enforcement is that if a pornographic file shows up on your computer, it must be yours. In reality, that isn't necessarily the case and with proper legal defense it can be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the file was yours.
In fact there are multiple ways for media to to be downloaded to a person's computer without their knowledge. One of the most obvious, of course, is simply for another user to download files on a shared hard disk drive. But with the expansion of the internet and related technology, especially P2P or file sharing software such as BitTorrent and Limewire, people are increasingly at risk of not only unintentionally downloading illegal materials but also sharing them over the P2P network. A common example is the downloading of multi-part file packages such as .zip, .rar or .7z. These are compressed directories containing multiple files, and although the downloader may only be interested in part of the content they seldom know exactly what the package contains. Additionally, files from anonymous sources may often be intentionally  mislabeled or misidentified.

Another possible means of unknowingly spreading or accepting illegal digital media is through computer viruses or hacking. Illegal "botnets" have become a serious internet issue and can be used to literally take over a computer without the owner's knowledge or consent.
When a user's computer is infected with certain types of malicious software, or "malware" -which may lurk in virtually any email, website or digital file- modules are installed which allow the computer to be surreptitiously controlled by a third party. These robot networks of infected computers, or "botnets" can then be directed to connect to IRC channels, download and disseminate files, send mass email messages (spam), or to repeatedly connect to a specific URL, instigating a denial of service (DDOS) attack. In some cases the hacker may even take command of peripheral devices such as a connected webcam, all without the knowledge of the computer's owner.


Serious issues are also connected with the way your computer records and stores the media files that your web browser encounters while you're surfing the internet. Unbeknownst to many people, older versions of  browser software such as Internet Explorer and Firefox can, by default, automatically download and save a copy of every media instance -digital photograph, "Flash" video, and graphic- that they encounter. These may include pop-up and pop-under advertisements that the user doesn't actually see. Although modern web browsers include better controls over what the user allows to be saved by default, they are often complicated to use and poorly documented. These images may stay in your browser history indefinitely without your knowledge.

One tool that a defense attorney may use in fighting child pornography charges is metadata- information attached to every digital file which can be used to trace its origin. .JPEG images, a popular file format,  usually contains a wide variety of information including the camera's make and model, focal and aperture information, timestamps and sometimes even GPS coordinates.

Internet crime cases are often highly complex and technical. The specific penalties that a defendant faces for a federal computer crime conviction will vary depending upon the particular offense: imprisonment may be a common denominator for all computer crimes, heavy fines and victim restitution are likely in a case involving fraud and sex offender registration is mandatory in a case involving child pornography.

Criminal defense strategies applied in these situations need to be created for the particular offense, evidence involved and based upon the defendant’s needs. Contact Parnham & McWilliams today at (713) 224-3967 or click here for our convenient online submission form.
We will work tirelessly to ensure the best possible outcome for your case.

Nov 30, 2012

Addressing the Issues of Cyberharassment



In general, criminal activity has followed the global rise in personal usage of the internet; as more of our information becomes digitized, the risks of theft and fraud grow proportionately. With the rise of virtual social networking a new issue has evolved: personal attacks involving intimidation and harassment through the various digital networks that are now a part of our lives.

Prior to the advent of public internet access various pieces of legislation had been enacted on both State and Federal levels to deal with harassment. Although freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment, a spoken or written "true threat" is criminalized due to the intent to harm or intimidate. The US Supreme Court definition of "true threat" is "statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group". Unfortunately the Court has not clearly defined a test for determining what types of speech constitute a true threat, and as a result the lower courts have been left to adopt various tests to determine whether speech constitutes a true threat.

Social Networking in the Digital Age 

Beginning in the late 1980s Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) began to gain popularity on the then fledgling internet as a text-based means of social interaction. Because the majority of users were limited to telephone modems connecting to local hubs, BBS tended to be geographically localized and topic specific, and therefore relatively easy to moderate. Serious issues involving harassment seldom arose as individual users were readily identifiable. However, by the 1990's the advent of extended services such as CompuServe and AOL not only provided instant e-mail communication to a large segment of the public, but also offered a plethora of open forums in which strangers were able to interact under relative anonymity. Instances of harassment and intimidation by individual users began to escalate, and because of the sheer volume of traffic these incidents became increasingly difficult to regulate. As new technology was introduced users were provided with options such as live chat, video conferencing and instant messaging which are virtually unregulated and often lack sufficient security to ensure privacy.

By the early 21st century true digital "social networking" as we now know it had come into use with the introduction of portals such as MySpace which were specifically designed to encourage users to share personal information. Backed by large scale media campaigns these systems have now attracted millions of users who often fail to realize their vulnerabilities and lack of privacy. Combined with advances in internet search capabilities which allow access to large amounts of information on virtually anyone who is active online, this has led to an unprecedented increase in online harassment and predation.


Cyberharassment, Cyberstalking and Cyber-Bullying 

Three terms are generally accepted in addressing intimidation and harassment over digital networks:

Cyberharassment itself is defined as speech or text that directs obscenities and /or derogatory comments at specific individuals, focusing for example on gender, race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation, however on a federal level it is usually used in a context specifically dealing with obscenities of a sexual nature. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.
Cyberharassment differs from cyberstalking in that it may generally be defined as not involving a credible threat. Some states approach cyberharassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone statutes. On the Federal level, the Interstate Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) criminalizes the making of threats via Internet.


Cyberstalking is the use of electronic means to stalk or harass an individual or a group of individuals and often (but not exclusively) applies to cases in which the victim is an adult. It may include defamation, monitoring, threats or gathering information that may be used to harass. Cyberstalking is separate from spatial or offline stalking, however the two are often combined and both are criminal offenses. Cyberstalking is a criminal offense that comes into play under state anti-stalking laws, slander laws, and harassment laws. The current US Federal Anti-Cyber-Stalking law is found at 47 USC sec. 223. A majority of states also have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within spatial stalking or harassment laws. In addition, most law enforcement agencies have cyber-crime units and often Internet stalking is treated with more seriousness than reports of physical stalking. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.  

Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet and related technologies to harm other people, in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner and often (but not exclusively) applies to cases in which the victim is a juvenile. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person." There are laws that only address online harassment of children or focus on child predators as well as laws that protect adult cyberstalking victims, or victims of any age: currently, there are more than 45 cyberstalking (and related) laws on the books.
School safety is also an increasing focus of state legislative action: school bullying and harassment policies are being supplemented to provide students protection from cyberbullying.

Federal Cyberstalking Laws 

Federal law provides a number of important tools to combat cyberstalking. As previously mentioned, the Interstate Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) forbids the transmission of "any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another" and this has been determined to include threats via the telephone or Internet. Violations are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. However, 18 U.S.C. 875 applies only to communications of actual threats: it would not apply in a situation intended only to harass or annoy another (absent some threat). Also, it is not clear that it would apply to situations involving the use of public forums such as chat rooms to encourage others to harass or annoy another person.

Certain forms of cyberstalking may also be prosecuted under the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 223), which includes a provision making it a federal crime to use a telephone or telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten any person at the called number. Although this statute is broader than 18 U.S.C. 875 in that it covers both threats and harassment, Section 223 applies only to direct communications between the perpetrator and the victim and also would not apply to a situation involving messages in public forums. Moreover Section 223 is only a misdemeanor and punishable by not more than two years in prison.

The Interstate Stalking Act (18 U.S.C. 2261A) makes it a crime for any person to travel across state lines with the intent to injure or harass another person and, in the course thereof, places that person or a member of that person's family in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Although a number of serious stalking cases have been prosecuted under Section 2261A, the requirement that the stalker physically travel across state lines makes it largely inapplicable to cyberstalking cases.

Finally, the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act (18 U.S.C. 2425) makes it a federal crime to use any means of interstate or foreign commerce (such as the Internet) to knowingly communicate with any person with intent to solicit or entice a child into unlawful sexual activity. While this new statute provides important protections for children, it does not cover harassing phone calls to minors absent a showing of intent to entice or solicit the child for illicit sexual purposes.

Current statutes address some forms of cyberstalking, but there are major gaps in the federal law. The Department of Justice has expressed misgivings about the adequacy of federal law to respond to cyberstalking, as the law generally deals only with direct communication between the perpetrator and the victim; when the perpetrator persuades third parties to be become participants and vehicles of the harassment the law is inadequate. In addition, while a federal stalking law has passed, it involves instances of interstate travel; the perpetrator must travel across state lines making the law frequently inapplicable.

Cyberbullying and State Legislation 

Current research defines cyberbullying as "an aggressive, intentional act or behavior that is carried out by a group or an individual repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself". Though the use of sexual remarks and threats are sometimes present in cyberbullying, it is not the same as sexual harassment and does not necessarily involve sexual predators: it also typically occurs among peers. In 2011 the National Crime Prevention Council reported that cyber-bullying is a problem that affects almost half of all American teens. Several high profile cases of teen suicide have been directly linked to cyberbullying, including the suicide of Ryan Halligan and the suicide of Megan Meier, the latter of which resulted in United States v. Lori Drew which charged Drew of violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030) over the alleged "cyberbullying".

During the summer of 2006, Missouri residents Lori Drew, her daughter, and Drew's employee, Ashley Grills, allegedly decided to create a MySpace account for a non-existent 16-year-old boy in order to discover whether Meier was spreading false statements about Drew's daughter. Drew allegedly used the MySpace account to contact Meier, initiate a virtual relationship, and finally to send negative messages which were subsequently multiplied by other MySpace users, culminating in Meier's depression and suicide.
Although state prosecutors declined to press charges due to lack of evidence, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California undertook prosecution of federal charges in connection with the case and Drew was indicted by the Grand Jury on four counts. The first count alleged a conspiracy arising out of a charged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the others alleged that Drew violated the CFAA by accessing MySpace servers to obtain information regarding Meier in breach of the MySpace Terms of Service.

The case was heard by a jury which only found Drew guilty of a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA. U.S. District Judge George H. Wu formally granted Drew's motion for acquittal, overturning the jury's guilty verdict. In his opinion, Judge Wu stated that allowing a violation of a website's Terms of Service to constitute an intentional access of a computer without authorization or exceeding authorization would "...result in transforming section 1030(a)(2)(C) into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that would convert a multitude of otherwise innocent Internet users into misdemeanant criminals" and granted Drew's motion for acquittal.

Following United States v. Lori Drew, Missouri updated its laws to include electronic and internet harassment; many other states (as well as many counties and cities) rapidly followed suit, although the legislation varies widely in scope. Currently 38 states have enacted "cyberstalking" or "cyberharassment" laws, or have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws: however, most stalking and cyberstalking statutes require proof of a “credible threat” of violence which might not be present in instances of peer related bullying. Similar to speech and harassment laws at the federal level, individual states continue to wrestle with defining the problem and what legal actions to take when a violation occurs. Nonetheless, 34 states have enacted explicit legislation dealing with "cyberbullying". Some specifically proscribe cyberbullying as a prohibited act within the operative provision of the law, others target the broader act of bullying and include cyberbullying within the statutory definition.

Current cyberbullying laws also primarily focus on the public school setting by requiring school boards to set policies that prohibit cyberbullying. As the safety of schools is increasingly becoming a focus of state legislative action, one of the major areas of contention seems to be whether school districts can interfere in the behavior or speech of students that occurs away from campus. Many cases dealing with freedom of speech on and off school grounds have worked their way up to the United States Supreme Court.

However, states are realizing that speech or behavior committed off?campus can result in a clear disruption of the school environment and public schools equipped with trained guidance counselors may be better suited than the juvenile-justice system to address cyberbullying among youth.

Lacking clear guidance from the Supreme Court, lower federal and state courts have disagreed whether online speech created off-campus is protected. If courts determine online expression created off-campus is beyond the reach of public schools, some current and proposed cyberbullying laws may be rendered unconstitutional. Because most cyberbullying occurs off-campus, limiting cyberbullying laws to speech created on public-school campuses would seriously undermine their effectiveness in addressing the problem. Until the Supreme Court clarifies the authority of schools over online speech, legislators and educators must respond to cyberbullying in a way that avoids restricting students’ free speech rights.


References:
Prosecuting Computer Crimes: Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division, Office of Legal Education Executive Office for United States Attorneys
18 USC § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
Cyberbullying Enacted Legislation: 2006-2010 Legislation by State, NCSL
The History of Social Networking; September 6, 2012 by Gordon Goble (DigitalTrends.com)
The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-314)
State of Texas PENAL CODE TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY CHAPTER 33. COMPUTER CRIMES