*Classification Models for Preventing Juvenile Crimes Committed with Malware Apps DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107188*

guardians and regulatory bodies to notice and counter the waves of the juvenile crime at an early stage may suddenly aggravate the effective supervision and 'the perceived level of misunderstanding of various forms' of the act [8]. Notwithstanding, social orientation, parenting, policing and social policy can begin to face strict criticisms in most civic settings if more and more youths are alleged of the juvenile crimes committed with malware apps [7, 8]. Agitations that will be calling for serious awareness through media and political participations may begin to surge in order to wakeup parents, guardians and police in their duties so that they can perfectly monitor vulnerable juveniles that may adopt malware apps to perpetrate crime or be victims of the crimes. The severity of the above problems is worrisome due to the inabilities of most governments and agencies to design suitable preventive interventions that will decisively curtail the emerging developments in the software industry. For these reasons, parenting and parental care as well as the efficacies of several social policies across the globe is generating increasing criticisms [8].

Another critical consideration is that most of the users of modern apps (especially employees) have little or no choice to determine the level of their participation and the information that they must supply to enable them use some of the modern apps that currently exist in the software industry. The reason is that most employers rarely involve their employees in the selection and evaluation of modern apps for supporting process flow at workplace. Instead, some employers often obliged their employees to use and wholeheartedly adopt them especially for scheduling, management of task, workplace meetings, virtual events (e.g. conferences, workshops and lectures), official reporting and chatting with colleagues or bosses, etc. with the view of boosting productivity, sales and profitability. Given the fact that Internet and all computer apps have inherent vulnerabilities, bugs and vulnerabilities that may not be conspicuously known to software experts to fix, on these reasons, the security of the entire components of the above apps and the level of the protection they can offer to the end-users that have trusted (or were compelled to trust) and sincerely adopted them begin to attract the attentions of criminologists, legal and security experts [8, 18].

Industrial dispute and conflict resolution among software companies, victims and service providers and how to amicably resolve them are now raising serious legal and technical debates especially, if it appears that computer apps that users sincerely trusted have aided or assisted criminals to achieve their malicious motives. The above legal and software issues are raising legal dilemma about the issues of compelled (or obligated) liability due to an assurance from a third party applications and the actual organization that an employee that incurs harm from computer apps can actually sue between their employer and the vendors of computer apps that seems to have aided the crime. Some school of thought may believe that service providers can be penalized by law for not doing their jobs well. The fact is that employees may be punished for refusing to embrace the modern apps obliged by his/her employer. So, another school of thought may argue the above scenario on the basis of the 'commission' or 'omission' as a possible element of the crime. In this circumstance, the question of whether the law is justified to penalize or absolve the employer and or their service providers, and then dismiss or award compensation(s) to the employee requires deep legal technicality of these new kinds of cybercrimes [12–14].

Despite of the existing standards of software methodologies, it is impossible to rigorously protect different computer apps in the same way and especially given the fact that computer apps are designed and manufactured by different vendors [19]. For instance, copyright, Intellectual Property (IP) and trade laws usually prohibit

two different software companies from copying their designs, underlying theories, principle and cryptographic algorithms that they adopt to protect the passwords and messages in transit. Thus, some computer apps will surely have inbuilt security features than another [19]. So, the level of computer crimes that intruders can commit with them equally varies. The fear is that collaborative empirical reviews had earlier warned that the above problems can increasingly metamorphosed into complex problems that will compound the detective and preventive interventions for various kinds of juvenile crimes committed with malware apps in the next decade if the global society erroneously allows them to escalate to high levels [8, 17]. Consequently, the initial motives of the designers of computer apps have begin to suffer wider criticisms in a recent time.

Another puzzling dilemma that can be confronting most software and legal experts is to establish the correlations between the elements of the above juvenile crimes with malware apps and the circumstances that surround the vulnerable children that are rarely buttressed and made explicit by empirical studies on juvenile crimes over the year [17]. For this reason, the objectives of this chapter are split into three groups. The chapter intends to explore the causes of juvenile crime committed with malware apps. The chapter also intends to state various 'act' that can constitute infringement and classified as juvenile crimes committed with malware apps. The chapter intends to adopt the above objectives to propose empirically proven classification models to simplify and explicate the above legal and social dilemmas.

By using mixed methods and quantitative interviews, 60 teenagers (between the ages of 10 and 17) and 20 grown-up children (between the ages of 18 and 22) together with 5 professionals were recruited to explore the above social problems. Quantitative analysis of logs of Snort Intrusion Detection Systems (SIDS) was incorporated into the mainstream of the sessions of the interactions with the above participants. Thereafter, we thematically analyzed the results obtained. One of the contributions of this chapter is that it has extended the generic elements of juvenile crimes and further suggested various determinants of the circumstances that may surround vulnerable children to commit juvenile crimes with malware apps. The chapter has further empirically substantiated the correlations between the determinants of the circumstance that may surround vulnerable children and the elements of juvenile crimes with malware apps. The paper also introduced new legal discourses and then offered suggestions to lessen parenting hurdles and how to countering the weaknesses that may be inherent in the policing and social policies on the above category of global crimes. The remainders of this chapter are organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the domain of coverage of modern computer apps. The section also opens up new legal dilemmas on computer apps. Section 3 explains the rudiments of juvenile crimes committed with malware apps. The section further itemizes the generic elements of most crime scenes. Section 4 discusses the methodology of the survey. Section 5 states and analyses the results and their implications. Section 6 concludes the chapter. The chapter also offers suitable areas that researchers can explore to extend the research that is reported in this chapter.
