Forensics. Computer Trace. Part 5
Cybercriminals in Law Enforcement: Myths and Reality
The topic of involving cybercriminals in the fight against cybercrime sparks much debate and discussion, especially against the backdrop of growing threats in the digital space. At first glance, the idea seems tempting: who better to know the dark side of the internet than someone who lived and acted within it? But in practice, this approach is far from simple or safe.
Many believe that a former hacker possesses unique knowledge and skills that could become a valuable asset for law enforcement. They understand how criminals think and operate, are familiar with black markets, systеm vulnerabilities, hacking techniques, and defense evasion. However, it’s important to remember that knowledge is only part of the equation. The other part consists of personal qualities, beliefs, and motivations. And this is where the main problem lies.
Knowledge can be acquired through education and practice, but changing someone’s internal motivation, their anarchic mindset, or tendency to break rules is extremely difficult. A cybercriminal often doesn’t just seek profit — they enjoy the act of hacking, the demonstration of power over a systеm, the very idea of defying the rules. These personality traits don’t simply disappear just because the individual is now on the “other side.”
This is why, worldwide, it is a standard practice not to employ criminals in law enforcement agencies. At most, they may be given one-time tasks, act as informants or consultants, but always under close supervision. The example of Eugène-François Vidocq, a former thief who became head of the French police and recruited a team of former criminals, is more of a historical exception than a model to follow. His successes were impressive, but the cost of such an approach in terms of trust and risk is too high for modern legal systems.
At one time, the author also considered the possibility of involving hackers in information security work. Practice showed that there were few real specialists among cybercriminals. Most of them had only basic skills, insufficient for serious work in cybersecurity. Moreover, at that time, the legal income of IT professionals far exceeded that of the majority of cybercriminals. The only exception were carders, but their activities did not require advanced technical knowledge.
Today, the situation has changed. The volume of money circulating online has grown significantly, as have opportunities for illegal profit. Cybercrime has become more professional, and truly qualified specialists have begun to choose this path. However, this also means that legal incomes in IT and online business have also risen. Honest work remains an attractive alternative.
It’s important to understand that we may soon face a generation of cybercriminals who possess not only knowledge but also talent, strategic thinking, and ambition. This poses a threat not only to individual companies or users but to entire infrastructures, including government systems and financial markets.
Therefore, involving cybercriminals in combating crime should be limited: they can be useful as sources of information or temporary consultants, but not as full-time law enforcement personnel. Trust and security cannot be compromised for short-term effectiveness.
In conclusion, relying on cybercriminals to fight cybercrime is a risky strategy. Society must develop its own experts, invest in education, promote ethics in the IT community, and create conditions where honest work is just as rewarding as illegal activities. Only then can we ensure a stable and secure digital environment.