My name is Shameka Gibson-Capers. I am a freshman at Old Dominion University. I am working towards my Bachelor’s in Cybersecurity with double minors in Business Analytics and Risk Management Insurance.

​Upon graduation I aspire to become a Network Security Engineer. I am also in the very early stages of creating a nonprofit offering STEM training to children in underserved communities.

​When I am not working or in school I enjoy traveling and DIY home improvement projects. I’m currently in the process of designing my new master bath.

“The uniqueness of cyberspace disrupts traditional law enforcement methods significantly. Anonymity allows offenders to hide behind fake identities, encrypted networks, or VPN’s making it difficult to trace suspects. Global reach creates jurisdictional challenges, as crime may involve victims, serves, and perps in multiple countries with different laws. Rapid dissemination means harmful content or fraudulent schemes can spread instantly, overwhelming investigators. Traditional scams required physical presence or direct contact, but online phishing or identity theft can be executed remotely targeting thousands at once. This scale and distance make evidence collections, suspect identification, and prosecution far more complex than traditional crimes.

The lag in criminal justice research likely stems from structural and cultural factors within academia. Criminal justice has historically been rooting in social science approaches, while cybersecurity requires technical expertise in area like computer science and network analysis. Many scholars lack the training needed to study cyber issues effectively. Additionally. academic publishing can be slow to adapt, and topics like cybersecurity may not fit neatly into established research frameworks or journals. 

Courses like Cyber and Surveillance Law and Governance helps bridge this gap by combining legal analysis, public policy, and technical understanding of surveillance technologies. It requires knowledge of how systems collect and process data while also examining privacy rights, legal standards, and ethical concerns. 

I believe the criminal justice system should develop specialized cyber units for complex investigations while also retraining all personnel to handle digital evidence. Cybercrime is now embedded in everyday offenses. So, digital literacy is essential across all roles.” 

“Computers don’t necessarily change why people commit workplace deviance, but they dramatically expand how they can do it. In traditional white-collar settings, opportunities for misconduct were often limited by physical access, oversight, and the need for face-to-face interaction. With the introduction of computers into everyday business operations, employees can now manipulate large amounts of data, transfer funds instantly, and access sensitive information remotely. These systems create opportunities for crimes like identity theft, data breaches, and financial fraud that simply weren’t possible—or were much harder to execute—before digital tools became central to the workplace.

The line between white-collar crime and cybercrime becomes blurred when employees use legitimate system access in illegitimate ways. An employee in a customer service or billing department might have authorized access to clients’ personal and financial data. Instead of using that access strictly for work tasks, they could copy or sell that information for personal gain. From the outside, their actions might look like routine system use, which makes detection more difficult and highlights how “normal” access can be weaponized.

Anonymity also plays a major role in shaping decision-making. Digital environments can create a sense of distance between the employee and the crime, making actions feel less personal or risky. Unlike physically stealing money from a register—where there is a clear, visible act—cyber deviance often feels hidden behind screens and usernames. This perceived anonymity can lower the perceived risk of being caught while increasing the potential reward, ultimately making deviant behavior seem more appealing or justifiable to some employees.”

“I believe everyone has a right to live their lives anyway they see fit. If people elect to DNA testing for ancestry purposes I do believe they are within their right to do so. The digitization of DNA for the purposes of personal or medical reasons do not outweigh the lifelong security risks for me. Thus, the reason I refuse to submit to DNA testing. I do not want to have to worry for the remainder of my life if my information could potentially be hacked or sold one day. However, I do believe that if other people do not see this as a risk should have the right to have their information digitized. I do not believe my person opinion should have a bearing on the masses. 

I do not believe an employer should have access to your DNA profile for any reason. There are enough things that employers can use to discriminate against employees. Adding employers having access to your DNA profile does not need to be another reason they can use against its employees. My genetic makeup should have no bearing if I can do the job. If I’m unable to do the job then simply do not hire me for it. With the digital access people have to much access to others information already. A lot of that information is information they do not need. I am absolutely against this becoming a thing. 

People are the easiest inroad for hackers. We must continue to do trainings, multifactor authentication, and frequently change passwords. Going from word passwords to human passwords is a bad idea. If DNA were to be used to hack a system a persons data would be compromised for forever. The exposure would be permanent. If passwords were leaked a company can force a reset but, if peoples DNA were leaked there would be no mass reset that could be done. The damage would be irreversible. A person isn’t able to get new DNA because their former DNA was compromised. I believe we need to stick to the current methods we have for safety.”