PAPER MUST BE 10-12 PAGES IN LENGTH (DO NOT GO BY WORD COUNT) USE SUBHEADING BETWEEN SECTIONS. USE 12 POINT FONT DOUBLE SPACED. USING PROPER APA CITATION THROUGHOUT. USE REFERENCES PROVIDED. MUST HAVE 8-10 SCHOLARLY REFERENCES. ATTACHING THE INTRODUCTION THAT IS TALKED ABOUT IN THE INSTRUCTION FROM WEEK 8. (JUST NEEDS A LITTLE WORK ON CONTENT PLEASE) LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. CYBERBULLYING IS THE TOPIC!!

Final Project

For the Final Project, you provide an in-depth analysis of a cybercrime. You select a cybercrime to use for the Final Project in Week 8, where you review how this type of crime evolved, how it gained national attention, and how it was influenced by technology. As you continue your analysis of the cybercrime, you examine legislation, penalties, and how law enforcement might prevent and address the cybercrime.

Final Project

10-12 pages: Not including title page and references

Your Final Project must include the following elements:

Introduction:

You submitted a first version of this Introduction in Week 8. Incorporate Instructor feedback before resubmitting the Introduction as part of your Final Project.

• Describe the type of cybercrime you selected.
• Explain the evolution of the cybercrime, including when the cybercrime gained national attention and any circumstances or cases that might have prompted the national attention.
• Explain how technology has influenced the evolution of the cybercrime.

Body:

• Describe legislation related to the cybercrime.
• Explain limitations and/or gaps related to the legislation.
• Explain penalties in your state or country of residence for engaging in the cybercrime.
• Explain the degree to which the penalties you identified are adequate for penalizing the offender.
• Explain challenges law enforcement might face in the efforts to prevent and address the cybercrime.

Conclusion:

• Explain how law enforcement might utilize technological solutions to prevent and address the cybercrime.
• Explain how law enforcement might utilize technology to benefit society and effect social change.

Although the Final Project (10–12 pages) is not to be submitted until Day 7 of Week 11, you should become familiar with the project requirements and have them in mind as you proceed through the course. Many of the Discussions and Application Assignments relate to and can be of use to your Final Project.

Journal Articles, Online Articles, and Book Excerpts

• Alison, L., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., van den Heuvel, C., & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic solutions to offender profiling and behavioural investigative advice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 115–132.
• Anderson, K. B., Durbin, E., & Salinger, M. A. (2008). Identity theft. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 171–192.
• Audal, J., Lu, Q., & Roman, P. (2008). Computer crimes. American Criminal Law Review, 45(2), 233–274.
• Bailey, J. (2004). Private regulation and public policy: Toward effective restriction of Internet hate propaganda. McGill Law Journal, 49(1), 59–103.
• Barkacs, L. L., & Barkacs, C. B. (2010). Do you think I’m sexty? Minors and sexting: Teenage fad or child pornography? Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 13(2), 23–31.
• Barnett, C. (n.d.). The measurement of white-collar crime using Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation website: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/nibrs_wcc.pdf
• Basu, S., & Jones, R. (2007). Regulating cyberstalking. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, (2).
• Bichler, G., & Balchak, S. (2007). Address matching bias: Ignorance is not bliss. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(1), 32–60.
• Bloss, W. P. (2009). Transforming US police surveillance in a new privacy paradigm. Police Practice and Research, 10(3), 225–238.
• Carucci, D., Overhuls, D., & Soares, N. (2011). Computer crimes. American Criminal Law Review, 48(2), 375–419.
• Chainey, S., Tompson, L., & Uhlig, S. (2008). The utility of hotspot mapping for predicting spatial patterns of crime. Security Journal, 21(1–2), 4–28.
• Coakley, M. (2009). Privacy protection, safety and security: A state law enforcement perspective. The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 26(4), 1–11.
• Coenen, R. D., Greenberg, J. H., & Reisinger, P. K. (2011). Intellectual property crimes. American Criminal Law Review, 48(2), 849–903.
• Cooley, A. H. (2011). Guarding against a radical redefinition of liability for Internet misrepresentation: The United States v. Drew prosecution and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Journal of Internet Law, 14(8), 1, 15–28.
• Creepy crawlies: Cyber-stalking. (2011). The Economist, 399(8730), 63–64.
• Croall, H. (2009). White collar crime, consumers and victimization. Crime, Law and Social Change, 51(1), 127–146.
• Cullen, F. T., Hartman, J. L., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Bad guys: Why the public supports punishing white-collar offenders. Crime, Law and Social Change, 51(1), 31–44.
• Diffie, W., & Landau, S. (2009). Communications surveillance: Privacy and security at risk. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 42–47.
• Drogin, E. Y., & Young, K. (2008). Forensic mental health aspects of adolescent “cyber bullying”: A jurisprudent science perspective. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36(4), 679–690.
• Ebenger, T. (2007). The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for private e-mail. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(4), 47–64.
• Foderaro, L. W. (2010, September 29). Private moment made public, then a fatal jump. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html?_r=0
• Foley, J. (2007). Are Google searches private? An originalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in online communication cases. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22(1), 447–475.
• Franken, Blumenthal introduce mobile privacy legislation. (2011). Telecommunications Reports, 77(13), 12–13.