Assignment
On
“Crimes, Corruption, Data Hacking and Forensic” - from Digitalisation Perspective
Course Title: Management Information System
Course Code: BA-3213
Prepared To
Irin Sultana
Senior Lecturer
Department Of Business Administration
Prepared By
Saif Hasan
ID : 20201053101
Department of Business Administration
North Western University, Khulna
Date of Submission: 14th September, 2021
1|Page
Table of Contents:
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2|Page
Desscription
Introduction
Crime
Corruption
Data Hacking
Forensic
Notes
References
Page No
03
03-05
05-09
09-13
13-15
16
17-22
Introduction
Crimes, Corruption, Data hacking and Forensic are different issues depending on the occurrence.
Crimes and Corruption evolved from ancient times due to various reasons but they will have
treated as heinous act of mankind to each and every society. But the thing is when we developed
ourselves from ancient to modern era by using technologies then at the same time we
unintentionally gave chance to digital fraud to our society. Cause, when a person does one negative
thing then it will cause them harm in inside their head. But the thing is when the person does the
thing again and again then it gradually won’t affect the person itself because it already affected
inside then h/she ignored it and repeatedly did the thing. When a person did wrong thing again and
again then h\she became remorseless. That’s the being problem in the whole society nowadays.
We don’t actually think much about ours fault where we constantly being in pressurized by our
demands whether right or wrong. So now in consequences we are being trapped or trapped
ourselves digitally and physically.
So, I will be talking about the Crimes, Corruption, Data Hacking and Forensic from the
digitalization perspective step by step and part by part.
Crimes
According to Wikipedia, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority. The
term crime does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,
though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes.
As the technology is used largely in the last decades; cybercrimes have become a significant
international issue as a result of the huge damage that it causes to the business and even to the
ordinary users of technology.
Digital Crimes
Digital crimes or cybercrimes is not a secret particularly during the last ten years. People are
depending on computers or mobiles devices to do their work every day, they also use them in
social networks to communicate with their friends and families, all these activities produce a
massive amount of data and information on computers/ mobile devices or pass through different
kinds of computer networks. Which crime involves a computer and a network that is called Digital
Crime or Cyber Crime. The computer may have been used in the commission of a crime, or it may
be the target.
As many technological advances play an important role in a wide range of criminal activities,
none has likely had greater impact or influence than the internet. Just as internet can be used to
enhance and augment the daily lives of everyday citizens, and the functioning of businesses and
services, it has not only given rise to a completely new form of crime, but can facilitate or assist
criminality across almost all other crime areas.
3|Page
Characteristics of Cyber Crime
According to FBI and INTERPOL the characteristics are pointed down below:









Commission of an illegal act using a computer, its systems, or applications
Unlawful acts wherein the computer is either a tool or a target or both
Crimes Perpetrated in Computer Environment
Criminals are young and smart with technology
Trans-National /Inter State criminals
Jurisdiction Issues
Strong Audit trail
Mostly non-violent crimes
Veil of Anonymity
Digital Crime Environment:
Digital crimes were differed and varied since 1960(in that time the telecommunications systems
were affected by attacks) to now. In the early era of information systems, computer crimes were
committed by some employees, also physical attacks on computer system was common in the time
between 1960 and 1980.
In 1980 malicious software was begun to appear against personal computers. In the beginning of
1990s the internet had been a significant factor of increasing digital crimes; criminals were access
to poorly protected systems using unauthorized way usually for financial gain, credit-card fraud
for example was grown rapidly in the middle of 1990s. By the end of 20th century and the beginning
of 21th credit-card fraud was involved into broader category called identity theft. Criminals were
thieving identities of other people to do illegal activities. In 2008 it was being the fastest growing
form of fraud.
Cell phone crimes are being increasing these last few years, beside these, nowadays a new type of
criminal activities is being done on cloud computing.
Types of Digital Crimes:
 Assault by Threat: Threat that lives of others or Attempt to vilify other people by using
computers, networks or phones.
 Child Pornography: By using computers, networks and other digital devices in Sexual
exploitation of children.
 Cyber laundering: By electronic transfer of illegal money to hide its source or destination.
 Cyber theft is using a computer to steal: By using a computer in Criminal activities, for
example: DNS cache poisoning, espionage, identity theft, fraud, malicious hacking and
plagiarism.
4|Page
Digital Evidence:
As society digitalized the criminals have also advanced themselves but, whatever the scenario is
the police will always give counter to criminal activities and in such a way the police is reviewing
its age old tactics of crime detection and investigation and adapting the new technology for crime
investigation and detection. There is no complete crime; the offenders have to leave traces behind
them. Since these crimes are digital crimes, these traces will be mostly digital evidences. These
evidences will help significantly to find out the identity of the offender.
Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in
digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. These different types of digital data are
useful in the process of investigation. Sources of digital data can be divided into three categories:
 Open computer systems: are computer systems that known to the majority of people such
as laptops, desktops, and servers. The increasing of storage space in these computer
systems guarantees that we can obtain a large amount of digital evidences (e.g. one file
could contain a significant amount of digital data).
 Communication systems: Traditional and advance telephone systems, wireless
telecommunication systems (SMS/MMS messages,) and the internet (e-mail) are rich
sources of digital evidences. The content of messages transferring between these
communications systems is important in the investigation.
 Embedded computer systems: many embedded computer systems like Mobile Devices,
Navigation systems, Microwave ovens and others systems can contain many valuable
digital evidences.
Corruption
According to Wikipedia, Corruption, as it is defined by the World Bank, is a form of dishonesty
or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted with a
position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's private gain.
The impact of corruption and organised crime on Southeast Asia is a serious drain on resources,
estimated at $73.4 - $110.4 billion USD annually (UNODC 2019). The connection between
corruption and digitalization has not been widely researched. On top of that, due to a lack of
longitudinal data, the amount of research conducted on digitalisation is considerably less as
compared to corruption. Now that internet, mobile communication, and other technological
diffusion is of high density, one might argue that this diffusion also generates more digitalisation
of government processes. Digitalisation increases the digital ‘trail’, which in turn could lead to a
higher chance of getting caught in the act of performing corrupt practises.
5|Page
Causes of Corruption
Per R. Klitgaard [Robert Klitgaard is an American academic, former president of Claremont
Graduate University and former dean of the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, where
he was also the Ford Distinguished Professor of International Development and Security. He
currently serves as university professor at Claremont Graduate University] corruption will occur
if the corrupt gain is greater than the penalty multiplied by the likelihood of being caught and
prosecuted:
Corrupt gain > Penalty × Likelihood of being caught and prosecuted
Klitgaard has also coined a metaphorical formula to illustrate how the amount of corruption
depends on three variables:
 monopoly (M) on the supply of a good or service,
 the discretion (D) enjoyed by suppliers, and
 the supplier's accountability and transparency (A) to others.
The amount of corruption (C) could be expressed as: C = M + D – A.
According to a 2017 survey study, the following factors have been attributed as causes of
corruption:

Greed of money, desires.

Higher levels of market and political monopolization

Low levels of democracy, weak civil participation and low political transparency

Higher levels of bureaucracy and inefficient administrative structures

Low press freedom

Low economic freedom

Large ethnic divisions and high levels of in-group favoritism

Gender inequality

Poverty

Political instability

Weak property rights

Contagion from corrupt neighboring countries

Low levels of education

Lack of commitment to society
6|Page

Extravagant family

Unemployment
After reviewing 10-15 papers, three kinds of research were identified:
(1) observational studies of digitalization, corruption, and other variables
(2) studies of focal digitalization phenomena in a context of corruption and
(3) studies of digitalization as an anti-corruption tool. Observational studies that assess
relationships between corruption proxies such as ‘corruption perception’ or ‘control of corruption’,
digitalization-related variables, and socioeconomic or demographic variables formed the bulk of
articles in sample.
This group is followed by studies of focal digitalization phenomena in a context of corruption such
as adoption and use, failure, unrealized implementation outcomes of technology. The last group of
relatively few papers explicitly explore the role of digitalization as an anti-corruption tool.
Research
Description
Observational studies
of
digitalization,
corruption, and other
variables
Quantitative studies that adopt statistical or econometric approaches to draw
inferences or to establish relationships between variables. They assess
relationships between corruption proxies such as ‘corruption perception’ or
‘control of corruption’, digitalization-related variables, and socioeconomic
or demographic variables. Studies commonly exploit publicly available
cross-country corruption data e.g., Transparency International’s corruption
perceptions index (CPI), and the World Bank’s control of corruption index
(CCI), to test hypotheses that may or may not be sensitized by theory, or to
develop explanations. Corruption related datasets are combined—as
dependent or independent variables—with datasets on digitalization and
related variables to assess associations, and less commonly, causation.
Studies of focal
digitalization
phenomena in a
context of corruption
Mostly qualitative case studies where consideration of corruption is not
sustained, and comes up only in relation to some focal digitalization
phenomena such as adoption and use, failure, unrealized implementation
outcomes, etc.
Studies
of Mostly qualitative studies that explore the question of whether and how
digitalization as an digitalization might work as an anti-corruption tool. A frequent thread in
anti-corruption tool
such research is the role of technology in enabling transparency and
accountability, based on a theoretical assumption that corruption arises from
the agency problem, manifesting through information asymmetry and
unchecked monopoly power. Corruption is not considered directly in such
7|Page
studies (largely due to methodological and empirical constraints of
observing and measuring corruption) but through perceptions of it, or in
relation to the potential role of digital technologies in its constraint, such as
for transparency, accountability, or some other means (rather than an actual
role observed in empirical settings).
Anti-corruption strategy
Despite an established view that structure and processes follow strategy (Chandler, 1962), not all
organizational reforms involving digital technologies in developing countries are strategic. While
some technology implementations might be guided by an organizational or national strategy,
others might be ‘me too’ (copycat) implementations, tactical (ad hoc), or aspiring to some set of
‘best practices’, no matter how ill-fitting (Andrews, 2012).
In the literature on controlling corruption there are two notable countries, Hong Kong and
Singapore, that have managed to stamp out corruption within a relatively short period of time
(Klitgaard, 1991). In the case of Singapore, often cited as a poster child of anti-corruption, the
reform efforts, often linked to digitalization, were based on an explicit national anti-corruption
strategy that was aligned with the country’s socioeconomic development plans (Hanna & Knight,
2012; Hin, 2007; Lim Kah Hwee, 2016; Yang & Wang, 2013). Singapore’s anti-corruption
strategy framed corruption primarily as an issue of legal and ethical violation and envisaged
digitalization as playing a role in strengthening monitoring, compliance, and law enforcement to
improve trust and confidence in public organizations (Quah, 2001).
The use of digital technologies was also part of an overall strategic vision to digitalize all
government agencies and to transform the public sector (Ha, 2013; Hin & Subramaniam, 2005).
Singapore’s case illustrates the importance of having (1) an underpinning anti-corruption strategy
to guide the development and deployment of digital technologies and (2) a holistic national anticorruption strategy that integrates digitalization as part of broader public sector reforms and (3)
the establishment of an independent anti-corruption watchdog organization with strong
investigative and enforcement powers to work alongside administrative reform efforts (Klitgaard,
1991).
For example, in the areas of international trade and customs clearance, Singapore’s development
and deployment of the TRADENET platform—an EDI system to integrate multiple stakeholders
and to streamline processes—was aligned with the country’s strategy to become a world-leading
port nation with high efficiency and low corruption to overcome its natural disadvantage of small
size while leveraging its ideal geographic location for shipping (King & Konsynski, 1995; Teo,
Tan, & Wei, 1997). Just a few years after TRADNET implementation Singapore became a
remarkable success story not only for its world-leading port sector but also as the least corrupt
8|Page
nation in Asia and one of the least corrupt in the world that is noted for the integrity of its public
servants (Civil Service College (Singapore), 2015). Digitalization was carried out alongside
wholesale reforms and strict law enforcement that ensured the routine jailing of corrupt
government officials and individuals (Singapore Customs and Corrupt Practices Investigation
Bureau, 2018).
Other developing countries such as Ghana and Mauritius that subsequently adopted Singapore’s
TRADENET as a best practice (De Wulf, 2005) have not had underpinning anti-corruption
strategies as ambitious or encompassing as Singapore’s. In Ghana’s case, TRADENET was
implemented within a remit of improving efficiencies in trade clearance but despite the potential
of the technology, corruption continued to persist and co-exist alongside other improvements
within customs and the ports (Addo, 2016; Addo & Senyo, 2020).
Hacking
A hack is a form of material practice that creates a difference in computer, communication and
network technologies. Hacks are material practices because they require a whole infrastructure of
computers, wires, programming languages, etc. and of positions of the body (such as the ability or
not to touch–type). From this basis the repeated practices of entering commands into a computer
can occur, creating moments when a hack happens. To place this initial definition into the world
we can look at, in turn, the two central types of material practices of hacking and their
communities: cracking and free programming (free software and open source). To understand the
nature of hacking we need to engage with these two types of hacks, which I will do by outlining
their key features. From this it will also be possible to see a central dynamic that both share and
which, I argue, constitutes hacking as hacking. Once these are understood a range of related
practices that draw on this central dynamic can also be added, to ensure that richness and diversity
of hacking is visible. Following this it will be possible to draw some key lessons from the nature
of hacking and to pose these in relation to issues of technological determinism in the digital age.
Hacking and cracking
Cracks are alterations to the technologies of computers and networks that turn the existing state of
such computers and networks against their current uses, opening up illicit and unintended access
to the cracker. The essentials, though not the richness, of cracking can be explained in the
interaction between acts and community. Acts can be briefly outlined through four different types
of cracks: day zero exploit, day zero+one exploit, social engineering and script–kidding. The acts
are different types of “cracks”, and the community in which these actions are taken can be
understood as being driven by a particular interaction between peer recognition and peer education.
Hacking, free software and open source software
The free software and open source movement (FOSS) always existed alongside crackers but was
for a time barely in public view, particularly during the early 1990s when sensational accounts of
cracks dominated media understandings of hacking. However, in the last 10 years the
9|Page
understanding of hacking as programming has become important again. Here we find experts
making programmes in collaborative and open ways, with a novel understanding of property. Such
programmes are significant particularly in the backrooms of IT, where they construct much of the
virtual world; for example, BIND is the dominant DNS server and Apache runs around 60 percent
of Web sites (Netcraft, 2007). On top of these numbers are some qualitatively important
programmes such as the Emacs text editor and the GNUC compiler. In addition are some minority
programmes, such as the Firefox Web browser or GNU/Linux operating system, which are
growing in importance and already have both significant symbolic effects (in proving the ability
of FOSS methods to create complex, stable programmes) and market effects (providing significant
alternatives in quality and freedom to commercial dominance).
Two quick examples will help to stake out the territory occupied by FOSS. Both Linux and Apache
are collaborative software writing projects. Apache began when a number of administrators of
existing Web sites met to improve their work and began to integrate different programmes they
were using. From this beginning a collaborative network of programmers developed which
contributes code to the ever developing Web server programme called Apache. Programming is
distributed among volunteers, who may also work for corporations willing to donate programmer
time, but decisions are controlled through a council and formal voting rules [9]. Linux began as a
project by Linus Torvalds to add some functionality to an existing programme of his (a terminal
emulator). By the time he had added more functions, he realised he had a working kernel (the
central “butler” of an operating system) that could be added to various existing free software
programmes to create a complete operating system that is now usually called simply Linux (though
the combination of Torvald’s kernel and free software programmes mean it might be more
accurately called GNU/Linux). Torvalds released the Linux kernel and from the beginning began
to receive corrections from other users that he was happy to integrate. From this beginning Linux
is now structured with anyone able to look at the code and contribute changes, though the scale
has grown so vast that there are now a series of “lieutenants” around Torvalds who oversee specific
areas of code, with Torvalds remaining at the top as the final arbiter of what goes into the new
versions of the Linux kernel [10].
The massive programming efforts that characterise Linux, Apache and a series of other
programmes — from full office software suites in OpenOffice, to powerful graphics programmes
in GIMP and so on — are part of a movement and community. Weber’s (2004) influential work
on the nature of open source identified the three components of FOSS to be property, community
and politics. I have adapted these three to community, object and property because I believe that
politics permeates property and community to such an extent that it cannot be sensibly separated.
I also think that Weber underestimates the role of the object of programming. While still largely
agreeing with much of Weber’s work, I argue the three components of FOSS are a community of
collaborative experts, the importance of objects and new meanings of property.
Free software and open source programmers often refer to themselves as being part of a movement
or a community and they may well discuss how one of their defining characteristics is total access
10 | P a g e
to source code, both to view and change it. Source code refers to the series of instructions that
make up any functioning software programme, access to the code means access to the ability to
fundamentally understand how a programme works and to intervene into the programme changing
how it works. This access creates the FOSS characteristic of voluntary selection into tasks that are
perceived to be important, interesting or likely to generate esteem. Such a form of contribution is
codified by Raymond’s (2001) famous comparison of the cathedral and the bazaar as different
models for programme production. Raymond compared the solo programming efforts of “genius”
programmers, who produced to a single conception like building a cathedral, to a babbling bazaar
in which all kinds of small scale programming efforts go on in parallel finally, somehow,
producing overall programmes. Though there are intermediate forms, as Apache demonstrates with
its combination of distributed programmers but formalised council and voting, Raymond’s bazaar
captures how FOSS has developed into a distributed, collaborative programming effort from a
wide range of coders. The community is composed overwhelmingly of those who can programme
and so presumes a quite particular form of expertise.
The second element of FOSS is the importance of objects, or as hackers sometimes put it “does it
run?”. One often under–appreciated facet of FOSS is the way it has a particular object around
which there are possibilities for the resolution of social and technological debates. How do the
communities of distributed, collaborating experts organise themselves to focus on particular
projects and so to achieve things like Linux or Apache? A key answer is that controversies revolve
around whether programmes “run”; this is not in a simple technological sense but “to run” becomes
a framework within which a controversy or direction can be resolved.
There are cultural factors at work in what it means to “run” but the object that is a software
programme produces a way of closing debate by executing a command and drawing some
conclusions from whatever happens next. “Does it run” captures how FOSS has a means of
resolving disputes and moving projects forward by focusing cultural and technological concerns
on specific and tangible tests of software. That the object is a software programme whose inner
workings are open to change means that FOSS produces a dynamic relationship to the opening and
closing of its particular technologies. This dynamism is driven not just by collaborating experts
who have a particularly protean form of technology at their fingertips but also derives from the
third component of FOSS, its re–conception of property.
Risks of digitalisation for young people
Conclusions on smart youth work (2017: 3) identify both the potential and risk of digital youth
work “[…] in raising the awareness and competences of young people, especially those with fewer
opportunities, their families, youth workers, youth leaders and other stakeholders supporting
youth”. The main risks identified in this study that concern, not only digital youth work, but
digitalisation overall, are: cyber bullying, exposure to harmful online content, information bubbles
and lack of critical thinking, and questions of privacy and data protection.
11 | P a g e
Cyber-bullying
Limited digital skills and competences make young people more prone to cyber-bullying. Cyberbullying is a form of violence that young people can be exposed to, and it may include:








sending or posting abusive or threatening messages;
creating and sharing embarrassing photos or videos;
sharing secrets about someone online without their consent;
intentionally leaving someone out of an online activity or friendship group;
voting on someone in an abusive poll;
creating a website with mocking or critical content about someone;
hijacking online identities or creating a fake profile to damage another’s reputation;
sending explicit messages or encouraging a young person to send a text, then sharing that
more widely
 cyber-stalking: continuously harassing and denigration including threats of physical harm
Firth (2017:19).
Approaches to reduce risks
Based on the list of the risks streaming from the youth digital social inclusion we can envisage
several steps that can be performed in order to enhance youth digital social inclusion. When it
comes to managing youth work targeted at social inclusion, there are several approaches which
can has a positive impact on the young people’s lives:
 identifying young people’s needs and aspirations, and placing their insights in the social,
cultural and geographical context;
 making a plan and establishing a network of available and skilful youth workers to be
engaged online;
 continuously working on the digital competences of the youth workers, young people and
their career’s;
 meeting the identified training needs;
 writing guidance for youth workers;
 providing strategic financial investment;
 ensuring policy commitment;
 challenging resistant mind-sets and false narratives, such as the ‘digital native’.
General Ideas for keeping the HACKERS away
 Don’t access personal or financial data with public Wi-Fi.
This may seem like a no-brainer, but you’d be surprised how many people check their bank
accounts or make purchases with a credit card while using public Wi-Fi. It’s best to do those things
on a secure connection.
 Turn off anything you don’t need.
12 | P a g e
Hackers can use certain features on your phone to get at your information, location or connection.
So, instead of keeping your GPS, wireless connection and geo-tracking on all the time, just turn
them on when you need them.
 Choose your apps wisely.
Only download apps from trustworthy sources that have established a good reputation. Make sure
you update your software and apps regularly and get rid of old apps you don’t use.
 Use a password, lock code or encryption.
Make sure your passwords are at least eight characters long, with a mix of upper and lower case,
and include numbers or other characters, and never use the auto-complete feature for passwords.
You can use the storage encryption feature on your phone to protect your private data, and set your
screen to timeout after five minutes or less.
 Be skeptical about links and attachments.
If you’re not sure about the source, don’t use the link or open the attachment.
 Trace or erase.
Make sure your data is secure if your mobile device is stolen or lost. You can set up your device
to lock itself after a pre-set number of failed log-in attempts.
Forensic
A number of models, methodologies and frameworks have been developed for digital forensics in
the past decade. These developments all focus on particular aspects of the digital forensic process
resulting in inconsistencies in the presentation of the digital evidence acquired via the digital
forensics process. The developed framework and accompanying methodology outlined in this
paper addresses the existing issues of inconsistency within the digital forensics field and addresses
the drawbacks of previous designs. It presents a methodology governed by a framework of
standards to acquire digital evidence. Digital forensics refers generally to the acquisition,
preservation, analysis and presentation of digital evidence produced from digitally related crimes.
Digital forensics as explained by, “is the discipline that combines elements of law and computer
science to collect and analyze data from computer systems, networks, wireless communications,
and storage devices in a way that is admissible as evidence in a court of law”. The goal of digital
forensics, as simply stated by, “is to identify digital evidence for an investigation”. The fact that
digital forensics has a legal connotation cannot be overemphasized. Forensic science has been used
in other fraternities for centuries however digital forensics is still in its developmental stages and
faces a number of challenges. A digital forensics investigator must ensure that all aspects of the
process are in line with the law or the resulting evidence may face major challenges when presented
in court.
13 | P a g e
The actual definition of the term “Digital Evidence” and what it refers to is often debated in the
digital forensics community. The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence defines digital
evidence as being “any information of probative value that is either stored or transmitted in digital
form”.
The 2IIR Framework
The need for standardization in the field of digital forensics cannot be overstated and thus the
results of the survey served to inform the development of the 2IIR framework and an
accompanying methodology. The 2IIR frame work is governed by a set of standards and is
accompanied by a methodology derived from the framework. It consists of three phases and four
core areas. The main aim is to bring coherence to the professional and occupational functions of
the digital forensics field. The framework of standards is arranged into three interrelated sections:
 Initiation [I]
 Investigative[I]
 Reporting [R]
Initiation
Aim: To set the stage for an investigation that will produce digital evidence that is legally
admissible in a court of law.
Investigative
Aim: To produce digital evidence that is able to withstand the rigors of a court of law. The methods
used to produce this evidence should produce the same results if used by another practitioner.
Reporting
Aim: To produce a comprehensive report of findings. A report that is comprehensive to all
personnel involved including those from non-technical fields.
For digital evidence that is retrieved through the digital forensics process to be considered robust
enough to stand up in court it must be able to satisfy legal testing criteria such as those outlined in.
To satisfy the ideals of there are certain criteria that must be met:
 Empirical testing: Referring to whether the theory or technique used is refutable, and/or
testable.
 Has the theory used has been subjected to peer review and has it been published?
 What is the known/potential error rate?
 Are there the existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its
operation?
14 | P a g e
 What is the degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant
scientific community?
Meeting the criteria set out in presents a challenge to the field when different organizations and
groups develop their own methodologies and the non-existence of standards. Thus there needs to
be standardized framework complete with a set of standards which digital forensics practitioners,
internationally, will use as a bench mark when carrying out their duties. This framework must not
only satisfy technical and legal criteria but also adhere to ethical expectations, education and be
flexible enough to meet the needs of a dynamic field. The proposed framework is flexible enough
to be adapted for the various divisions in digital forensics for example, mobile forensics, network
forensics, cloud forensics and computer forensics.
15 | P a g e
Notes
1. Himanen, 2001, p. 141.
2. Wark, 2004, pp. 3–4.
3. Wark, 2004, p. 72 f/n.
4. More detailed evidence for the following account can be found in Jordan (2008).
5. Shimomura, 1996, pp. 86–91; Littman, 1996.
6. Weblog, 2008; Wall, 2007, pp. 130–141; Mitnick and Simon, 2005, pp. 221–245.
7. Jordan and Taylor, 2004, pp. 111–114.
8. Howard, 1997, section 16.6.
9. Weber, 2004, pp. 186–187.
10. Torvalds, 2001; Weber, 2004, pp. 163–168.
11. Weber, 2004, pp. 1–4.
12. Moody, 2002, pp. 166–167.
13. Weinberg, 1986, p. 32.
14. Winner, 1977, p. 76.
15. Hutchby, 2001, pp. 14–23.
16. Hutchby, 2001, p. 26.
17. Hutchby, 2001, p. 27.
16 | P a g e
References:
International Journal in Foundations of Computer Science & Technology (IJFCST), Vol.5, No.3,
May 2015 Comparative Studies in Society and History, 50(02): 424–453.
Chandler, A. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial
Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chang, H.-J. 2001. Institutional Development in Developing Countries in a Historical
Perspective: Lessons from Developed Countries in Earlier Times. Siena, Italy.
Charoensukmongkol, P., & Moqbel, M. 2014. Does Investment in ICT Curb or Create More
Corruption? A Cross-Country Analysis. Public Organization Review, 14(1): 51–63.
Choudrie, J., Zamani, E. D., Umeoji, E., & Emmanuel, A. 2017. Implementing E-government in
Lagos State : Understanding the impact of cultural perceptions and working practices.
Government Information Quarterly, 34(4): 646–657.
Ciborra, C., & Lanzara, G. 1994. Formative Contexts and Information Technology: Understanding
the Dynamics of Innovation in Organizations. Accounting, Management and Information
Technologies, 4(2): 61–86.
Civil Service College (Singapore). 2015. Upholding Integrity in the Public Service.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1): 3–21.
Cordella, A., & Iannacci, F. 2010. Information systems in the public sector: The e-Government
enactment framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1): 52–66.
Corojan, A., & Criado, J. 2012. E-government for transparency, anti-corruption, and
accountability: Challenges and opportunities for Central American countries. Handbook of
research on E-government in emerging economies: Adoption, E-participation, and legal
frameworks: 328–330. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Damoah, I., Akwei, C., Amoako, I., & Botchie, D. 2018. Corruption as a source of government
project failure in developing countries: Evidence from Ghana. Project Management Journal,
49(3): 17–33.
Davis, J. 2004. Corruption in Public Service Delivery : Experience from South Asia’s Water and
Sanitation Sector. World Development, 32(1): 53–71.
de Graft, G. 2007. Causes of Corruption: Towards a Contextual Theory of Corruption. Public
Administration Quarterly, 31(1): 39-44,46-86.
17 | P a g e
De Wulf, L. 2005. Tradenet in Ghana Best Practice of the Use of Information Technology.
Dehning, B., Richardson, V. J., & Zmud, R. W. 2003. The Value Relevance of Announcements of
Transformational Information Technology Investments. MIS Quarterly, 27(4): 637–656.
AFP, 2005. “Hacker attacks in U.S. linked to Chinese military: researchers” (12 December),
at http://www.spacewar.com/news/cyberwar-05zzq.html, accessed 1 June 2007.
P. Bronson, 1999. The nudist on the late shift: And other tales of Silicon Valley. New York:
Secker and Warburg.
P. Himanen, 2001. The hacker ethic: A radical approach to the philosophy of business. New
York: Random House.
J.D. Howard, 1997. “An analysis of security incidents on the Internet 1989–1995,” PhD
dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, at http://www.cert.org/research/JHThesis/, 10 October
2007.
I. Hutchby, 2001. Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet. Cambridge:
Polity.
T. Jordan, 2008. Hacking: Digital media and technological determinism. Cambridge: Polity.
T. Jordan and P. Taylor, 2004. Hacktivism and cyberwars: Rebels with a cause? London:
Routledge.
L. Lessig, 2001. The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York:
Vintage Books.
J. Littman, 1996. The fugitive game: Online with Kevin Mitnick. Boston: Little, Brown.
D. Mackenzie and J. Wajcman (editors), 1999. The social shaping of technology. Second edition.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
K.D. Mitnick and W.L. Simon, 2005. The art of intrusion: The real stories behind the exploits
of hackers, intruders & deceivers. Indianapolis, Ind.: Wiley.
G. Moody, 2006. “‘A lawyer who is also idealist — How refreshing’,” Guardian (30 March),
at http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1742104,00.html, accessed 3 July 2007.
G. Moody, 2002. Rebel code: Linux and the open source revolution. London: Penguin.
Netcraft,
2007.
“January
2007
Web
server
survey,”
at http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/01/05/january_2007_web_server_survey.html,
accessed 15 February 2007.
18 | P a g e
R. Norton–Taylor, 2007. “Titan rain: How Chinese hackers targeted Whitehall,” Guardian (5
September), p. 1, and at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/04/news.internet,
accessed 1 July 2009.
E. Pilkington and B. Johnson, 2007. “China flexes muscles of its ‘informationised’
army,” Guardian (5
September),
p.
12,
and
at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/05/hacking.internet, accessed 1 July 2009.
E.S. Raymond, 2001. The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an
accidental revolutionary. Revised edition. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly.
T. Shimomura, with John Markoff, 1996. Take–down: The pursuit and capture of Kevin Mitnick,
America’s most wanted computer outlaw — by the man who did it. New York: Hyperion.
P. Taylor, 1999. Hackers: Crime in the digital sublime. London: Routledge.
D. Thomas, 2002. Hacker culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
L. Torvalds, with D. Diamond, 2001. Just for fun: The story of an accidental revolutionary. New
York: HarperBusiness.
S. Turkle, 1984. The second self: Computers and the human spirit. London: Granada.
D. Verton, 2003. Black ice: The invisible threat of cyber–terrorism. New York: McGraw–Hill.
D.S. Wall, 2007. Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. Cambridge:
Polity.
M. Wark, 2004. A hacker manifesto. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (This text is
written as numbered epigrams without number pages, references are therefore to the epigrams.).
S. Weber, 2004. The success of open source. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Weblog,
2008.
“‘In
the
wild’
social
engineering,”
at http://www.roundtripsolutions.com/blog/2008/02/08/320/in-the-wild-social-engineering/,
accessed 3 March 2008.
G. Weimann, 2006. Terror on the Internet: The new arena, the new challenges. Washington
D.C: United States Institute of Peace Press.
A. Weinberg, 1986. “Can technology replace social engineering?” In: A. Teich
(editor). Technology and the future. London: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 30–39.
L. Winner, 1977. Autonomous technology: Technics–out–of–control as a theme in political
thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
19 | P a g e
M. Yar, 2006. Cybercrime and society. London: Sage.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, University of Washington Technology & Social Change
Group, International City/County Management Association (2011). Building Digitally Inclusive
Communities: A Guide to the Proposed Framework. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and
Library
Services,
available
at:
https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/DICFrameworkGuide.pdf, accessed 7 December 2019.
James C. (2009), “Young people, ethics, and the new digital media – A synthesis from the
GoodPlay project”, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media
and Learning.
Khan, Seema (2009), Topic guide on Social Exclusion, Governance and Social Development
Resource Centre, Birmingham. Kovacheva, Siyka (2014), Youth partnership policy sheet on
social Inclusion Erasmus + Inclusion and diversity strategy in the field of youth.
Lampert C., Donoso V. (2012), “Bullying”, in: Livingstone, S.; Haddon, L., Gorzig, A. (Eds.):
Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in Comparative
Perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 141-150.
Levente, S.; Nagy, A. (2011), “Online youth work and eYouth — A guide to the world of the
digital natives” in Children and Youth Services Review 33(11): 2186-2197, available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251530625_Online_youth_work_and_eYouth_A_guid
e_to_the_world_of_the_digital_natives, accessed 3 December 2019.
Hewling, M. O., Sant, P. (2011), Digital Forensics: The need for integration. Proceedings of
Digital Forensics & Incident Analysis (WDFIA 2011)
US CERT 2008 Available from: UK Copyright Law, A summary. Available from
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/uk_law_summary (Accessed on, January 21, 2012)
Carrier B. D., Spafford E., (2004) “An event based Digital forensics Investigation Framework”
Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security.
Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) of the National Center for Forensic
Science (NCFS). Best Practices for Computer Forensics V2, 2006a. Retrieved From the World
Wide
Web
on
07/07/12:
URL
http://ncfs.org/swgde/documents/swgde2006/Best_Practices_for_Computer_Forensics%20V2.0.
pdf
Chaikin D., (2007) Network Investigations of Cyber Attacks: The limits of digital evidence,
Springer Science and Business Media
Mason, D., Carlin, A., Ramos, S., Gyger, A., Kaufman, M., Treichelt, J., (2007). Is the open way
a better way? Digital forensics using open source tools. The Computer Society. 1-10.
20 | P a g e
Salemat S. R. Yusof R. Sahib S. (2008) Mapping Process of Digital Forensic Investigation
Framework. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security Vol. 8 NO 10
Available from www.sciencedirect.com
Perumal S., (2009) Digital Forensics Model Based on Malaysian Investigation Process, IJCSNS
Vol. 9 No. 8 Available from www.sciencedirect.com
Kruse W. Heiser J. G. (2001). Computer Forensics: Incident Response Essentials (1st ed.),
Addison Wesley Professional. USA
Pollitt M., (1995) Principles, Practices, and Procedures: An approach to standards in computer
forensics. Available from; www.digitalevidencepro.com/resources/principles.pdf
Casey, E. (2004). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime, Forensic science, Computers and the
Internet. Academic Press, London, UK
Cuardhuain S. O., (2004) An Extended Model of Cyber Crime Investigation. Journal of Digital
Evidence. Vol. 3. Issue 1
Yong-Dal S., (2008) New Digital Forensics Investigation Procedure Model. Proceedings of
Fourth International Conference on Networked Computing and Advanced Information
Management. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4624063
Ricci I. S. C. (2006) Digital Forensics Framework that incorporate legal issues. Available from
www.sciencedirect.com Accessed on October 20, 2011
Kuchta K. J., (2000) “Computer Forensics Today” Law, Investigations and Ethics Available
from: http://www.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus/
Mercer L. D., (2004) Computer Forensics, Characteristics and preservation of Digital Evidence.
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Available from: http://www.liv.ac.uk/library/ohecampus/
Hewling M., (2010). Digital forensics and the UK Legal Framework. MSc. Dissertation,
University of Liverpool.
Fulbright and Jowoski L., (2006) Third Annual Litigation Trends Survey Findings. Available
from: http://www.fullbtight.com/mediaroom/file/2006. Accessed on April 13, 2012.
Aeilts T., (2011) Defending against cybercrime and terrorism FBI law enforcement Bulletin.
Available at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fbi/universities_fight_terrorism.pdf
Bhaskar R., (2006) State and Local Law Enforcement is not Ready for Cyber Katrina.
Communications of the ACM
Nance K., Hay B., Bishop M., (2009) Digital Forensics: defining a Research Agenda.
Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Available at :
http://assert.uaf.edu/papers/dfResearchAgenda_HICSS09.pdf
21 | P a g e
Garfinkel S., (2010) Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digital Investigations 7 S64
– S73. Available at: http://dfrws.org/2010/proceedings/2010-308.pdf
THE END
22 | P a g e