LAPD: Lost in Cyberspace : Force lacks computers to net computer criminals

We have expressed the hope that 1996 becomes the year Angelenos own up to the costs of a first-class criminal justice system.

Most recently, for example, we noted a critical need to upgrade the Los Angeles Police Department’s infrastructure with new police stations and a new downtown headquarters.

Consider the fact that the need for new facilities alone would require an initial bond issue request for more than $430 million. That’s the clearest sign that this city has allowed the LAPD to slip into second-class status.

Simply put, we are expecting the LAPD to prevail even though it is inadequately armed. We don’t know how much local computer crime is occurring, but the LAPD seems unprepared in any event.

The department’s Computer Crime Unit, for example, was formed in 1986. The city did not buy it a computer until December 1994.

It was staffed by two detectives, was supposed to expand to four and is down to one investigator. It was that detective who had used his own computer and his own account with a major online network to conduct his investigations. And since this detective is involved in a major fraud case, he only works computer crime on a part-time basis.

One result is that the LAPD’s juvenile division does not have a computer or printer that could monitor computer bulletin boards and Internet sites that proffer child pornography or--worse--are used by pedophiles to lure unsuspecting youngsters.

The LAPD has no ability to monitor so-called “pirate” bulletin boards where information such as personal account numbers, credit card numbers and much more can be exchanged for illegal purposes.

You name it--hacker break-ins, potential software piracy, thefts of computer components and peripherals, cellular phone fraud, computer gambling, prostitution rings on electronic bulletin boards, airline ticket fraud--the LAPD either has no central unit to address it, lacks the equipment to investigate it or would be forced to leave the matter to that one very overworked detective.

All of this is illuminating in several respects.

The Congress, for example, is concerned about supplying the laws to prosecute computer smut when it hasn’t been determined that existing laws are insufficient to the task. The nation won’t know enough about that until it has a body of information based, in part, on investigations by law enforcement agencies and subsequent prosecutions. And here we are, in the nation’s second-largest city, with a Police Department that lacks the tools to conduct those investigations.

It simply doesn’t make sense, particularly when the LAPD’s bunco-forgery division, for example, says it would only need six detectives, three Pentium-chip computers, one color printer and little more.

City Councilwoman Laura Chick will attempt to deal with the LAPD’s computer crime needs in the coming weeks. That’s welcome news. Right now, the department’s poor capabilities reflect the public’s unwillingness to support its local police in a meaningful way: the one that begins with a dollar sign.

The LAPD’s Computer Crime Unit was formed in 1986. The city did not buy it a computer until December 1994.