Computer Forensics Has Changed the Way Many Criminals Are Being Tried in Courts Today

Computer forensics has changed the way many criminals are being tried in courts today.

In recent history, computers have made great strides in power and capability. As they have been integrated into various functions of society, computers have also brought about a revolution in the handling of many tasks. The criminal system has long been plagued with issues, many of which are brought because of poor handling. Forensic evidence has always been difficult to gather, and as such, court cases often go without prosecution. Computer forensics has changed the way many criminals are being tried in courts today.

In the court of law, when attempting to prove guilt or innocence, time and place are considered two of the most important elements. Most criminal cases will focus on placing the suspect in the correct time and place, either with an alibi or a motive. With modern computing technology, finding these timestamps has become easier than ever. It is very uncommon to enter a facility that does not have some sort of low level security camera feed. Using these and testimony, placing a suspect is almost too simple. Of course this isn't conclusive evidence all on its own. With modern matching algorithms (often done with finger prints, or more recently, the face), computers can determine to almost pin point accuracy where and often when a suspect was in a certain location.

Of course, in the domain of crime, it is not all physical. Recently, cyber attacks have become more common place. Incidents such as the attacks on Amazon, GoDaddy and even some Iranian missile bases all prove that no one place online is safe. With the growing simplicity and understanding of computer usage, it is becoming easier to be anonymous and go for an attack. All three of the above incidents were initiated with what is called a DDoS. DDoS (or, Distributed Denial of Service attacks) use large networks of machines (often unknowingly hijacked) in order to bombard a server with requests. As a result, it is very difficult to place where these attacks are initiated from. However, as with most requests made on the internet (outside of dark nets), it is possible to trace these. Afterwards, the information can be forwarded to local authorities, and arrests can be made.

There have been some problems introduced alongside computers as well. In the example above, it is noted that unknowing computers are sometimes used in attacks. This is known as a zombie network. Even if these computers are noted in logs, should the unknowing user been liable? While the use of his/her machine was unethical, how does the law prove intent? Furthermore, is it even viable to go after each and every user of DDoS style software, where by nature of definition, is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands of machines? As seen in the follow up to Operation Payback, a large scale DDoS campaign led by Anonymous, a group of anonymous online users, the