|
|
| Are cyber crimes any different to the activities that we currently recognise as crimes? Discuss using examples. |
Abstract
Today we know that sustainable economic social development depends on preserving the environment. Indeed, preserving the environment is a prerequisite to the survivability of the human race. Without clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, we will all surely die. Similarly, in order to obtain the benefits of technology, it is more important than ever for us to use technology to protect personal freedom. Freedom to use technology is necessary and it consists of control over misuse. To balance the use and misuse of technology needs governance.
Contemporary exercise of web has raised many legal questions for example: If web based society is the way of the future, what legal system should govern them? Can Legal practitioner or judiciary find a way to conceive of virtual legal systems, applied to cyber-world, which might or might not correspond to today’s real-world nation-states? How can law be construct in a community such as the Internet, which lacks a command of sovereign that the type of Austin proposed as essential for the source and implementation of law[1], or even the rule of recognition of HLA Hart?[2] What would alternative (ADR) for the legislatures and courts of such communities?[3] Might the legal doctrine of such virtual legal systems include not merely the biological and juristic persons with which legal practitioner are familiar, but also the virtual personae often adopted by hardened Internet users and electronic function player, which may differ in name, sex and race from the corresponding “real world” persona of that individual?”[4]
The problems of regulation on the Internet are simply stated. First, It allows novel activities: e-mail, electronic discussion groups, simple transfer or viewing of text, images, sound and video. These activities may fall foul of laws of obscenity or defamation in some or all of the jurisdictions in which it is available. Second, the Internet is a distributed system that straddles geographical and jurisdictional boundaries; the regulation of such activities is likely to fall within two or more national ‘legal’ jurisdictions. It may therefore be difficult to choose and appropriate jurisdiction.
In this essay at first I would try to search the Identification of the Internet that the term cyber crime developed. Prediction of exact cyber crime is not possible but the practice will divulge new problems. Some wrong activities over the Internet are found. I would try to list them on second part. These activities show some darken side of cyberspace. Vying new technologies creating new debates that I do my best to contour in conclusion.
Essay:
"The world isn’t run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It’s run by little ones and zeros, little bits of data. It’s all just electrons.... There’s a war out there ... and it’s not about who’s got the most bullets. It’s about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think, it’s all about information."[5] - FAS
Darker side of human activities that maintain with silicon chip-based technology is known as cyber crime. Authentic common definitions of cyber crimes have not been available by virtue of evolving practice during hitherto. Everyone agrees that cyber-crime exists but no one agrees as to what it is.[6] One definition of cyber-crimes was undertaken by the United Nations, “the computer has also created a host of potentially new misuses or abuses that may, or should, be criminal as well”[7]. Criminal exploitation over the society is impacts by computer technology in two ways. One of impacts is commission of existing crimes are facilitating by it, such as illegal drugs supply and terrorism. Another impact is that a new range of activities has also given birth such as computer hacking and the development and distribution of computer viruses. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 encompasses a new offence of unauthorised access to computer programs or data (hacking) in the web age. This has been fragmented as committed either inadvertently or fraudulently.[8]
Adaptation to the pace of technological change is not always easy or possible for legislation to be draft in a sufficiently flexible form. Universal identification of the Internet has been recognized in practice. Neither the Act nor the directive essays has an authentic definition of the word ‘Computer’.[9] According to Andrew Terrett the Internet[10] is: “ ‘…is a huge electronic resource’; ’The Internet is a network of computers that allows people to communicate with other people from all over the world’; ‘ It’s is a hacker’s paradise and a computer security nightmare’; ‘ It’s the future of commerce’; ‘ It’s a jargon-ridden techno-jungle.”
In Cyberspace, there are not only no national or local boundaries to contain the scene of a crime and determine the method of its prosecution, there are no clear cultural agreements on what a crime might be[11].
Anyone with access to the Internet may acquire gain of a wide variety of communication and information retrieval methods. These methods are constantly evolving and difficult to categorize precisely. But, as presently constituted, those most relevant to this case are electronic mail (“e-mail”), automatic mailing list services (“mail exploders,” sometimes referred to as “listservs”), “newsgroups,” “chat rooms,” and the “World Wide Web.” All of these methods can be used to transmit text; most can transmit sound, pictures, and moving video images. Taken together, these tools constitute a unique medium—known to its users as “cyberspace”—located in no particular geographical location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the Internet. Cyberspace undeniably reflects some form of geography; chat rooms and Web sites, for example, exist at fixed “locations” on the Internet. Since users can transmit and receive messages on the Internet without revealing anything about their identities or ages.[12] It is not currently possible to exclude persons from accessing certain messages on the basis of their identity[13]
Cyberspace is malleable. Thus, it is possible to construct barriers in cyberspace and use them to screen for identity, making cyberspace more like the physical world and, consequently, more amenable to national laws. This transformation of cyberspace is already underway. Internet speakers (users who post material on the Internet) have begun to terrestrial cyberspace itself through the use of “gateway” technology. The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) project is designed to facilitate user-based zoning by encouraging Internet speakers to rate the content of their speech using codes recognized by all screening programs.[14]
Some new vocabulary concerning the criminal activity over the Internet has emerged, for Example: “computer hacking”, “time-bombs”, “logic-bombs” and “computer viruses” “software piracy”. Enormous computer frauds, worldwide hacking and massive harm to computer systems caused by viruses, terrorism and economic espionage etc. are in practice.
>
In the ACLU Vs. RENO[15] case judge Buck Walter believe that the unique nature of the Internet. At its inception, the Internet was identified as a publication rather than broadcast but during the practice the identification became unsatisfactory.
A number of the Internet associated offences are considered. Traditional definitions of the ingredients of the crime are already recognized in our legal exercise. The Internet has had three different levels of impact upon criminal, or harmful activity.[16]
>
o the internet has become a vehicle for existing patterns of harmful activity, such as hate speech, bomb- talk, stalking and so on,
o it has formed an environment which provides new opportunities
for harmful activities that are currently covered by existing criminal or civil law; examples would include paedophile activity, but also fraud,
o the nature of the environment, particularly with regard to way that it accelerate the distance of time and space, has produced entirely new forms of (unbounded) harmful activity such as the unauthorised appropriation of imagery, software tools and music products etc.
The found main criminal exploitation over the Internet are[17]:
o Cyber-trespass [Unauthorized access to computer material and Unauthorised modification of computer programs or data (Cyber-pranksters, Cyber-vandals, Cyber-spies, Cyber-terrorists)]
o Cyber-theft [the appropriation of intellectual properties also includes identity, the appropriation of cyber-cash/cyber-bucks]
o Cyber-obscenity
o Cyber-violence [cyber-stalking, hate speech, denial of rights]
Cyber-trespass
>
Access in computer data, without the consent of data owner called “Hacking”. Authentic meaning of ‘Hacking’ has not been defined. It is a common expression over the Internet world and can be applied in many contexts. Hacking is one of the sorrows of the Internet. Individual who engages in intrusion activity is known as a computer hacker. Well knowledge of software or protected password required to Hacking and Hacker’s work is known as an intellectual challenge. Hackers intimidate the security systems over the Internet. It is the result of advanced software and software is in development process to protect Hacking. Some activities of Hackers agitate the worldwide peace. “Bevan and pryce (a schoolboy) revealed that “oversold threats” regarding the implications of breaches of security into major United States defense computers won funding from congress.[18] Bevan, for example, was accused by United States military sources as being ‘a greater threat to world peace than Adolf Hitler’ [19]. The truth was subsequently found to be much less dramatic. However, the new funding led to the development of new military and intelligence ‘info war’ units, which have subsequently sold their security services to private corporations.”[20] Ideas of the software formula for security and ideas to intrusion are combating each other, which has been developed the Internet, and is carry on.
David Bainbridge describes a 'hacker' as: "A computer hacker now means a person who gains access to a computer system without permission, usually by guessing or surreptitiously discovering which passwords will allow him access. A hacker may simply inspect the contents of the system he/ she has ‘broken into’ or may go on to alter or erase information stored in the system. ‘Computer hacker’ used to mean a person who was very enthusiastic about computers and who would spend most of his waking hours at a computer terminal.”[21]
A survey was held by the US Corporation and government agencies (the FBI’s Computer Intrusion Squad and the Computer Security Institute) that the report was 30 percent of respondents admitted outsiders had penetrated their systems in 1998, while 55 percent reported unauthorized access by insiders.[22]
o Unauthorised access to computer material – Advanced web technology facilitate for a person from a remote computer to gain access all over the world in his own home or office via connected a telecommunication network. Hackers may do several different activities after intrusion in a computer or network system. He/ she might read, copy or disseminate information that may be highly confidential, he/ she might erase or modify information or programs stored in the computer system, or download programs data.
Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990[23] is designed directly at hackers who invade access to computer programs or data that had not encompasses in any other conventional Act. It articulate that a person is guilty of an offence if:
o he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
o the access he/ she intends to secure is unauthorised; and
o he knows at the time when he/ she causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
· Unauthorised modification of computer programs or data over the Internet - The Computer Misuse Act 1990[24] endeavour to control unauthorised modifications of computer programs or data. Day by day escalating practice of the Internet experiencing the familiar problem that essential to control. 'Modification' is significantly defined in section 17(7), 17(8) in the interpretation section, as any program or data held in the computer concerned is altered or removed; or any program or data is added to its filling. A modification is unauthorised if, the person whose act causes it is not himself entitled to determine whether the modification should be made and he/she does not have consent to the modification from any person who is so entitled.
· Cyber-pranksters- Two cases occurred in 1997 when the web sites of both the Conservative and Labour parties were entered and defaced. Images were transformed and replaced and texts were changed so as to misrepresent the sites. The Spice Girls WWW site was probably the most well known cases it is hard to ascertain whether or not these actions are merely pranks.[25]
>
· Cyber-vandals- The University of York case in particular, revealed the evidential problem of establishing the actual identity of the perpetrator.[26]
>
· Cyber-spies- Cyber-espionage is where entry and exit to secret sources of information is effect as discreetly as possible in order to avoid detection.[27] The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 was signed into the American law to help protect against misappropriations of that technology.[28]
>
According to Ira Winkler, the president of the information security advisors Group, several cases have been prosecuted under the Economic Espionage Act, in which insiders essentially stole information from the company and gave it to either a domestic or a foreign competitor.[29]
· Cyber-terrorists- Cyber-terrorism is the wilful destruction of material following entry to a site. In its extreme form it becomes information warfare, which is defined as when intruders enter state computer systems with the intention of causing damage to its contents and thus causing considerable damage to a target society.[30]
Computer viruses over the Internet –
Computer virus is terrible menace of the 21st century, which is self-reproduction software program that spreads throughout a computer system and changes ordinary programs. Virus has made happen enormous economic destruction. Internet is not virus free.[31]
>
A virus program known as ‘love bug’ is greatest harmful hitherto. This virus spreads so quickly, because when recipient click on email and open up the attachment, it opens up his/her address book and mails everyone in address book. If recipient have a thousand people who have on average 50 people in their address book, it gets sent on to 50,000 people and it shot down all recipient’s computers who opens this virus attached email. Some anti-virus software uses heuristic analysis to detect viruses, meaning that the code does not have to be a known viruses, it simply has to have code similar to known viruses to trigger the software.[32]
At the first time a person had appeared in court was R v Pile (1995 May), as a result of intentionally install computer viruses to a system and the court had no inconvenience in finding a breach of S.3.[33]
Cyber-theft
Three types or groups of cyber-theft are identified, theft of cyber-credit, cyber-cash and cyber-piracy (the appropriation of intellectual properties).[34] The offence of theft is defined by section 1 of the Theft Act 1968[35] as a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it. Owner does not deprive permanently by the piracy offences in the Internet.
>
The question ‘is software goods?’ arise concerning software theft. The Divisional court held that confidential information was not 'property' within the meaning of S.4 of the theft Act 1968 in the Oxford v: Moss case.[36]
Sir Iain Flidewell Stated that software could constitute goods in the St Albans city and district council v: International computers Ltd[37] case. The question was the alteration and deletion of computer data by a 'hacker' could constitute criminal damage within S 1(1) of the criminal Damage Act 1971, in this case. Scottbaker J had stated that, by itself hardware could do nothing the really important part of the system is the software, in the same case [1995].
>
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988[38] is the main source to prosecute computer software pirates that has been used gradually more. At last this form of crime are taking seriously by Magistrates and judges, using custodial sentences in some cases. For example, an Oxford computer dealer was locked up for six months and charged £5,000 for making unauthorized copies of a popular word processing package with the intention of selling them.[39]
Felony sanctions for copyright infringement were authorised in the America, at first in 1982 that extended to include computer software, which provides, a five-year sentence and fine up to $250,000- for an organisation found guilty of an offence, and for a second or subsequent copyright offence, a ten year prison term is authorised.[40]
Copyright infringement is strictly prohibits by law. Copyright infringement without the permission of the copyright owner is authorized felony in the UK, in relation to a substantial part of the work. Copyrights protect expression or idea in spite of protecting ideas. In the same way, the digital signature, trademark and patent rights over the cyber space, has been accepted by the courts.
The concept of taking a substantial part about the copyright law is accepted in the UK, whilst the USA be concerned about unauthorized copying in terms of substantial similarity.[41]
Cyber-obscenity
In 1995 research published as “The Carnegie Mellon Survey” (Rimm, 1995) suggested that as much as half of all Internet use may be related to the consumptions of pornography, mostly in relation to the usenet discussion groups.[42]
Computer Decency Act 1996 of the USA has been determined as unconstitutional in the court.[43] Pornography has defined by the obscenity laws of individual legal jurisdictions in Britain. Individual class as obscene in the United Kingdom may acceptable to the citizens of many Scandinavian countries.[44]
>
Cyber-violence
>
If cyber-stalking violates the individual, then cyber-hate violates social or ethnic groupings. The Internet is the site of some very disturbing hate-speech. Bomb-talk is also worrying form of cyber-violence. It provides the technologies by which to carry out the ideas circulated by hate-speech.[45]
Conclusion
>
Electronic media is a new vying technology of 20th century that following on 21st century. Some problems created by electronic practice have been identified. Prediction of accurate identification is not possible. To minimize criminal activities, we have already existing so many laws.
A modern style of global practice has given birth by the Internet in society. Our obtainable common legal system and exercise are divided into territorial jurisdiction. Self-security is mainly crucial means of protection and conceive of care must be taken to develop strong.
>
A massive variety of criminal offences by the means of or linking the Internet can be committed. Data protection Act 1998[46] and Computer Misuse Act 1990[47] cover the criminal law qualified to forms of criminal exploitation over the Internet which was leap between the traditional crimes and the assistance of computer. These Acts encompass the British territory and Brussels Convention of 1968 and Lugano Conventions[48] covers little more.
>
New method of audio and visual supply via the Internet, that new technology creating day by day are in discussion for traditional definitions of copyrights. The hearing case in the America, ‘Mp3.com vs. RIAA’[49] or RIAA vs. Mp3.com[50] are example of new complication over the Internet about crime, in which the American court have to determine that the new technology of ‘Mp3’ via Internet is crime or not.
Bibliography
>
J. Austin (1790-1859), the Province of Jurisprudence Determined; and the uses of the study of jurisprudence: London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (1955)
David S. wall, “Policing and the Regulation of the Internet,” Criminal Law Review Special Edition 1998, Sweet & Maxwell,
David, Bainbridge, Introduction to computer law, third edition (1996), Financial times -glossary of computer terms,
>
Diane Rowland & Elizabeth Macdonald, Ed. (1997) Information Technology Law, London: Cavendish.
>
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (1961), Oxford: Clarendon Press
>
Hedieh Nasheri and Timothy J Oheanrn, High-tech crimes and the American Economic Machine, International Review of Law computers & Technology, Volume 13, March 1999,
>
htpp://www.mp3.com/news/extra/mp3com-reaa-020800.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/digital-dilemma/chwhtml
>
http://kumite.com/myths/
>
http://www.fas.org/irp/index.html
>
http://www.umass.edu/dispute/.
>
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990614/14hack.htm,
>
John Perry Barlow, The Economy of Ideas Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net at http://www.eff.org/~barlow/library.html
>
Jonathan Rosenoer, Cyber Law- the Law of the Internet, 1997, USA: Springer.
L Edwards, L. & Charlotte waelde, Introduction Page-10,Law & the Internet Regulating Cyberspace, L Edwards, L. & Charlotte waelde, (ed) (1997) Oxford: Hart Publishing,
>
Supreme court of the USA, RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania,No. 96–511. Argued March 19, 1997—Decided June26,1997 http://www.aclu.org/court/
>
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 Published by The stationery Office Limited, Elezabeth 2, Chapter 18,
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] J. Austin (1790-1859), the Province of Jurisprudence Determined; and the uses of the study of jurisprudence: London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (1955)
[2] H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (1961), Oxford: Clarendon Press
[3] One model for “virtual courts” might lie in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, which are currently widely used to solve international commercial disputes. An experimental on-line dispute resolution system can be found at the University of Massachusetts Centre for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution: - http://www.umass.edu/dispute/.
[4] L Edwards, L. & Charlotte waelde, Introduction Page-10,Law & the Internet Regulating Cyberspace, L Edwards, L. & Charlotte waelde, (ed) (1997) Oxford: Hart Publishing,
[5] http://www.fas.org/irp/index.html
[6] David S. Wall, 1999,
[7] Wall, D.S. (1999) "Cybercrimes: New wine, no bottles?", pp. 105-139 in Davies, P., Francis, P. and Jupp, V. (eds) (1999) Invisible Crimes: Their Victims and their Regulation, London: MacMillan (United Nations, 1995: para 22)
[8] Section 1, Computer Misuse Act 1990, published by The stationery Office Limited. Elizabeth 2, Chapter 18
[9] Ian J Lloyd, (1997) Information technology law, Second edition- Page 54, London: Butterworths.
[10] Andrew Terrett, A lawyer’s Introduction to the Internet, L Edwards, L. & Charlotte Waelde, (ed) (1997) Regulating Cyberspace, Law & the Internet, Page-13:, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
[11] John Perry Barlow, The Economy of Ideas Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net at http://www.eff.org/~barlow/library.html
[12] Lessig, Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace, 45 Emory L. J. 901 (1996).
[13]Supreme court of the USA |
| There are no data records to display. |
|
Received Comments
|