Cybercrime Case Considering Victim-Offender Relationship

December 2015, a mass shooting took place in San Bernardino, CA, where 22 people were injured and 14 were killed, including the perpetrators, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. During the investigation, Farook’s iPhone was recovered, but its contents were inaccessible due to a password reset. A federal court ordered Apple to develop software to unlock the phone, but Apple refused, citing a violation of privacy (Rubin, Dave, & Winton, 2016).
In cases such as this, which perspective takes precedence? Do those who commit heinous crimes forfeit their right to privacy, or is that a freedom that cannot be infringed upon? Questions such as these can be difficult to answer but are often posed in cybercrime investigations and prosecutions.
In this week’s Discussion, you are asked to consider a case of cybercrime where you must consider the victim-offender relationship, any threats or risks faced by the victim(s), privacy issues, and/or how you could apply a risk assessment for the victim(s). As you consider these and other issues within your case study, think about how you, as a forensic psychology professional, could contribute your knowledge and skills to the investigation and prosecution.
Within your chosen case study, address three of the following issues:
Explain the privacy rights of the perpetrator.
Explain the rights of the victim(s).
If a computer is seized in this investigation, identify what evidence is admissible.
Describe who has precedence in this case with regard to rights: the victim or the perpetrator. Justify your answer.
Explain how the perpetrator is attempting to intimidate the victim in the case.
Explain defense strategies that are used and how they could be presented. Indicate how the strategies could be counteracted.
Explain how a risk assessment might be utilized in this case.
Analyze the impact to the victim.
Week 4 Case Studies
Case 1
Susan, a mother of three young children, recently divorced her husband of 7 years, who had been emotionally and physically abusive. The divorce was especially acrimonious, requiring her to seek a restraining order because she feared for the safety of her family. She relocated to another nearby town, changed her phone number and e-mail address, and started a new job. One day, she starts receiving threatening e-mails from an unknown source. Susan seeks out help from local law enforcement, who inform her that whoever is sending the e-mails is using TOR software, making it impossible for them to determine its origins. She is convinced that the e-mails are from her ex-husband, but she can’t prove it. Shortly after, she begins noticing that items in her backyard are being moved around, and her cat is missing.
Case 2
The Fuller family decides to go on a 2-week vacation in a beach town in Florida and stay in a rental house. They check AirBnB, but the houses advertised are either too expensive or not available for the time they need. They are, however, able to locate a company that offers beautiful house rentals at lower costs, and three happen to be available. Renters are required to pay half the rental fee and a cleaning deposit with their application, and the remainder one week prior to arrival. A cancellation fee would also be assessed if the Fullers cancelled their trip. Of course, the Fullers were not going to cancel because this is exactly what they were looking for. The Fullers fly to Florida very excited about their vacation, rent a car, and arrive at their vacation home. The door is locked, and the passcode they were provided to open the door fails. Perplexed, the father goes into the backyard to see if a door might be open, when suddenly a man opens the door and asks what he is doing in his backyard. Explaining they had come for their vacation, the Fullers were informed that the house is not, nor had it ever been, on the market to rent. The Fullers are victims of an Internet scam, and there is no way to recover their money, as the checks have all been cashed.
Case 3
It is 6:00 a.m., and Mr. Peters, his wife, and his children are asleep when they wake to the sounds of a loud crash and shouting from their living room. Before they can even arise from their bed, police officers rush into the Peters’ bedroom, guns pointing at them, ordering them to the floor, where they are handcuffed and brought into the living room with their two young children. The house has been under surveillance for weeks, as the inhabitants are suspected of downloading dozens of gigabytes of child pornography. Upon searching the house and examining the Peters’ computer, no child porn is found. The IT specialist determines that someone is using their home as a way to route the pornography elsewhere. A drive around the neighborhood reveals a house two blocks away with several video cameras along the eaves of the house. It turns out that the owner of the house, an IT specialist for a school district, is the actual perpetrator. This case has many ramifications for the perpetrator, the child victims, and the Peters family.