Prosecuting Cybercrime:  The Jurisdictional Problem In this discussion, you will consider the many jurisdictional obstacles that confront investigators in their cyber crimes investigations.   For a frame of reference, consider this scenario:   Bob lives in California and decides to take a weekend trip to Las Vegas. Bob packs his suitcase and the sets off, but stops to buy marijuana while still in California.   Just after Bob crosses the border from California into Nevada, he is stopped for speeding.  The police find enough marijuana to charge him with a felony.   The state of Nevada wants to prosecute Bob because he was stopped there.  The state of California wants to prosecute Bob because he originally picked up the marjijuana in their state.  The federal government wants to prosecute Bob becase marijuna possession and trafficking are federal offenses.  Who has jurisdiction? Using this frame of reference, consider what investigators face when they try to apprehend cyber criminals.  A cyber criminal in Holland hacks a database and steals thousands of customer's data. The data theft effected U.S. citizens as well as citizens from other countries.  U.S. investigators do not have jurisdiction in Holland, so they work with Interpol/Europol. This is not a fast process, so by the time they get a warrant to apprehend the cyber criminal, he's gone. For this discussion forum, you will consider the jurisdictional problems when it comes to cyber crime. Please review the article at the link below and post your thoughts on the single most difficult hurdle when it comes to prosecuting cyber crime. Your initial post should be no less that 250 words. .

1. Prosecuting Cybercrime: The Jurisdictional Problem
In this discussion, you will consider the many jurisdictional
obstacles that confront investigators in their cyber crimes
investigations.
For a frame of reference, consider this scenario:
Bob lives in California and decides to take a weekend trip to
Las Vegas. Bob packs his suitcase and the sets off, but stops to
buy marijuana while still in California.
Just after Bob crosses the border from California into Nevada,
he is stopped for speeding. The police find enough marijuana to
charge him with a felony.
The state of Nevada wants to prosecute Bob because he was
stopped there. The state of California wants to prosecute Bob
because he originally picked up the marjijuana in their state.
The federal government wants to prosecute Bob becase
marijuna possession and trafficking are federal offenses. Who
has jurisdiction?
Using this frame of reference, consider what investigators face
when they try to apprehend cyber criminals. A cyber criminal
in Holland hacks a database and steals thousands of customer's
data. The data theft effected U.S. citizens as well as citizens
from other countries. U.S. investigators do not have
jurisdiction in Holland, so they work with Interpol/Europol.
This is not a fast process, so by the time they get a warrant to
apprehend the cyber criminal, he's gone.
For this discussion forum, you will consider the jurisdictional
problems when it comes to cyber crime. Please review the
article at the link below and post your thoughts on the single
most difficult hurdle when it comes to prosecuting cyber crime.
Your initial post should be no less that 250 words.