The factors that have limited local law enforcement efforts against digital crime
Digital crime has presented distinctive challenges for local enforcement agencies. It has been observed that local law enforcement efforts against digital crime have been limited by various factors. The first factor is the inconsistent digital crime patterns making it hard for local law enforcement agencies to address these offenses. Further, there is no standard definition of the term digital crime and accurate statistics to inform the law enforcement agencies about the type, nature, and frequency of the offenses. The second factor is the possibility of concealing digital crime. Local law enforcement agencies experience difficulties in establishing the individuals behind the digital crimes that have resulted in framing in the past (Brenner, 2019). The third factor is the physical constraints that are associated with digital crimes due to anonymity, the speed at which cybercrimes are committed, and lack of a trail to determine the offenders (Brenner, 2019). The final factor is the extensive nature of digital crime that makes it difficult for local law enforcement agencies to address the crime.
The best practices for collection, preservation, transportation, and storage of electronic evidence
The best practices for the storage, transportation, preservation, and collection of electronic evidence are dependent on department procedures (Cohen, 2010). The processes are based on the experience and basic guidelines followed by technical consultants and investigators.
The Importance of Chain of Custody as it Relates to Computer Crime
It is imperative to maintain and establish chain of custody in the preservation of the evidence from conservation while preserving its integrity (INFOSEC, 2019). Failure to protect evidence results in challenging the evidence that is presented in court that could be termed as inadmissible.
