robert morgester deputy attorney general of california deputy attorney general of california
TRANSCRIPT
Robert MorgesterRobert Morgester
Deputy Attorney General
of California
Deputy Attorney General
of California
California’s InitiativeOn High Tech CrimeCalifornia’s InitiativeOn High Tech Crime
Combining local and state resources to efficiently combat
high tech crime
Combining local and state resources to efficiently combat
high tech crime
High Technology Crime Defined:High Technology Crime Defined:
“High technology crime is those crimes in which technology is used as an
instrument in committing, or assisting in the commission of , a crime, or
which is the target of a criminal act.” (Pen. Code, § 13848(a).)
“High technology crime is those crimes in which technology is used as an
instrument in committing, or assisting in the commission of , a crime, or
which is the target of a criminal act.” (Pen. Code, § 13848(a).)
New Wine, Old BottlesNew Wine, Old Bottles
Many high tech crimes are multi-jurisdictional
-“Somebody else’s problem”
Complexity of high tech crime presents unique training, technical, investigative, and prosecutorial challenges
Traditional funding sources never contemplated this new type of crime
Impact of High Technology CrimeIn California
Impact of High Technology CrimeIn California
Annual losses Revenue lost: $6.564 billion Jobs lost: 19,141 Wages lost: $923 million Tax revenue lost: $358 million
Office of Criminal Justice Planning, High Technology Crime In California, 1999
Today’s Solution: High Tech Crime Task Forces
Today’s Solution: High Tech Crime Task Forces
Program established by the legislature in 1997 Solution crafted and supported by industry and law enforcement
1999 funding: 1.2 million dollars 2000 funding: 3 million dollars 2001 funding: +4 million dollars 2002 funding: +14 million dollars
Requirements (pen. Code § 13848-13848.6)
Two or more counties Local and state law enforcement and prosecutors
Federal law enforcement participation Targeting high technology crime
Today’s Solution: High Tech Crime Task Forces
Today’s Solution: High Tech Crime Task Forces
Benefits Pooling of limited resources Larger jurisdictional coverage Offers trained officers with legal and technical
support to a defined geographic area Governments and private industry more willing
to provide funds to an organized approach
1999
Sacramento Valley
Silicon Valley
Los Angeles Basin
Task Forces cover only 8 of California’s 58 Counties
1999
Sacramento Valley
Silicon Valley
Los Angeles Basin
Task Forces cover only 8 of California’s 58 Counties
1999 Jurisdictional Coverageof Task Force Investigations1999 Jurisdictional Coverageof Task Force Investigations
47 counties 16 states
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Washington
3 foreign countries Canada, Costa Rica, and
Germany
Impact of Task Force InvestigationsImpact of Task Force Investigations
Cases included hardware theft, software piracy, stalking, identity theft, hacking, phreaking, homicides, and terrorist threats.
Victim loss investigated exceeds 126 million dollars
Excess of 14 million dollars in stolen property has been recovered
One investigation had over 200,000 possible victims
2000-2001
Sacramento Valley
Satellite Lab Stanislaus
Silicon Valley
Los Angeles Basin
North Bay
San Diego
2000-2001
Sacramento Valley
Satellite Lab Stanislaus
Silicon Valley
Los Angeles Basin
North Bay
San Diego
Program ResultsMarch 1999 To June 2001
Program ResultsMarch 1999 To June 2001
3,441 Cases investigated 876 cases filed
410,397 victims in cases filed 596 convictions
$332,646,760 monetary loss $7,282,777 grant funds expended
Tomorrow's ChallengesTomorrow's Challenges Training
Investigation
Prosecution
Computer Forensic
Funding
Robert M. MorgesterDeputy Attorney General
Robert M. MorgesterDeputy Attorney General
