Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Guarding Your Business pp 65–83Cite as

Cybercrime and the Law

Balancing Privacy Against the Need for Security

  • Chapter

Abstract

The proliferation of cybercrime, combined with the tragic events of September 11, 2001, has placed a premium on security, both from crime and from terrorism. At the same time, it has raised important issues concerning privacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See, e.g., The Bill of Rights, U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, http://www.archives.gove/exhibithall/charters/offreedom/billofrights/amendments1-10.html.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, e.g., A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, http://www.archives.gov/exhibithall/chartersoffreedom/constitution/constitutionhistory.html

    Google Scholar 

  3. See, e.g., First Amendment: Annotations, FindLaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See, e.g., Fourth Amendment: Annotations, FindLaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See, e.g., Fifth Amendment: Annotations, FindLaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw/com/data/consititution/amendment05/.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 277 U.S. at 473–474.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 389 U.S. at 352.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See 18 U.S. Code at 2510–2516.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-2 to CRS-3(April 15, 2002:, http://www.fas.org/ipr/crs/RL31377.pdf (“When approved by senior Justice Department officials, law enforcement officers may seek a court order authorizing them to secretly capture conversations concerning any of a statutory list of offenses (predicate offenses)”). U.S.C. 2516.9.

  10. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations § III (2002), http://www.cybercrime/gov/s&smanual2002.htm#III.

  11. This name is an acronym that summarizes the Act’s full title, which is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For a detailed treatment of the Patriot Act, see Charles Doyle, The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  13. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-4 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf. The concept of Title III predicate offenses is discussed in the previous section.

  14. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-4 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  15. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm. See 18 U.S. Code § 1030.

  16. See e.g., Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF, Analysis of the Provisions of the USA Patriot Act (October 31, 2001). http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorismmilitias/20011031effusapatriotanalysis/html.

  17. See, e.g., Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF Analysis of the Provisions of the USA Patriot Act (October 31, 2001). http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorismmilitias/20011031effusapatriotanalysis.html.

  18. See, e.g., Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF Analysis of the Provisions of the USA Patriot Act (October 31, 2001). http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorismmilitias/20011031effusapatriotanalysis.html.

  19. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-5 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf. See also U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm (revision of the statute means that “orders for the installation of pen register and trap and trace devices may obtain any non-content information—all “dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information”—utilized in the processing and transmitting of wire and electronic communications. Such information includes IP addresses and port numbers, as well as the ‘To’ and ‘From’ information contained in an e-mail header“).

  20. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm (“Pen/trap orders cannot...authorize the interception of the content of a communication, such as words in the’ subject line’ or the body of an e-mail”).

  21. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-4 (April 15, 2002). http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  22. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-4 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  23. See 18 U.S. Code at 3121–3127.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-4 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf. See also 18 U.S. Code §§ 3121–3127.

  25. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm. “Generally, when law enforcement serves a pen/trap order on a communication service provider that provides Internet access or other computing services to the public, the provider itself should be able to collect the needed information and provide it to law enforcement. In certain rare cases, however, the provider may be unable to carry out the court order, necessitating installation of a device (such as Etherpeek or the FBI’s DCS1000) to collect the information. Id.

  26. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  27. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  28. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  29. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  30. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  31. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  32. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  33. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  34. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, hrtp://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  35. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm. See 18 U.S. Code § 2702(c)(3).

  36. U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm.

  37. See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice—Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Field Guidance on New Authorities that Relate to Computer Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA Patriot Act of 2001, http://www.cybercrime.gov/PatriotAct.htm. See also 18 U.S. Code at 2510 & 2511.

  38. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  39. Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  40. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  41. Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf. See 50 U.S. Code 1801et seq.

  42. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  43. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  44. Nancy Chang, The USA Patriot Act: What’s So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?, Center for Constitutional Rights (November 2001), http://www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/usapatriotact.asp.

  45. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner, The Voice of the Community: A Case for Grand Jury Independence, 3 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & The Law 67 (1995), http://www.udayton.edu/∼grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm. See also Grand Jury Secrecy, Federal Grand Jury Website, http://www.udayton.edu/∼grandjur/feedback/nav/secrecygj.htm.

  46. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner, The Voice of the Community: A Case for Grand Jury Independence, 3 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & The Law 67 (1995), http://www.udayton.edu/∼grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm. See also Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, http://www.law.ukans.edu/research/frcrilll.htm; Grand Jury Secrecy, Federal Grand Jury Website, http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/feedback/nav/secrecygj.htm.

  47. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner, The Voice of the Community: A Case for Grand Jury Independence, 3 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & The Law 67 (1995), http://www.udayton.edu/∼grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm.

  48. See, e.g., Susan W. Brenner, The Voice of the Community: A Case for Grand Jury Independence, 3 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & The Law 67 (1995), http://www.udayton.edu/∼grandjur/recent/lawrev.htm. See also Grand Jury Secrecy, Federal Grand Jury Website, http://www.udayton.edu/~granjur/feedback/nav/secrecy.gj.htm.

  49. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-21 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  50. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-20 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  51. Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-21 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf (quoting Rule 6(3)(C)(i)(V) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure).

  52. Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-21 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf.

  53. See e.g., Fourth Amendment: Annotations, FindLaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/. See also Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, http://www.law.ukans.edu/research/frcrimIX.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See, e.g., Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-63 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.htm.

  55. Charles Doyle, The Patriot Act: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service CRS-63 (April 15, 2002), http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.htm.

  56. See, e.g., George A. Chidi, Jr. FBI Claims Keystroke Logger Is National Secret, Network World Fusion (August 27, 2001), http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0827fbikey.html; Robert Vamosi, We Know What You’re Typing... and So Does the FBI, MSNBC News (December 7, 2001), http://www.msnbc.com/news/669010.asp.

  57. Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Sneak and Peek Search Warrants, Flagpole Magazine (September 11, 2002), http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkesmore/36sneak/html.

  58. Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Sneak and Peek Search Warrants, Flagpole Magazine (September 11, 2002), http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkesmore/36sneak/html.

  59. Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Sneak and Peek Search Warrants, Flagpole Magazine (September 11, 2002), http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkesmore/36sneak/html.

  60. See 18 U.S. Code § 3103a (as amended by the Patriot Act).

    Google Scholar 

  61. See 18 U.S. Code § 3103a (as amended by the Patriot Act).

    Google Scholar 

  62. See 18 U.S. Code § 3103a (as amended by the Patriot Act).

    Google Scholar 

  63. See, e.g., Nat Hentoff, Burglars with Badges: The Return of “Black Bag Jobs”, Village Voice (December 3, 2001), http://villagevoice.com/issues/0149/hentoff.php.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Dayton School of Law, USA

    Susan W. Brenner

Authors
  1. Susan W. Brenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Sumit Ghosh , Manu Malek  & Edward A. Stohr ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brenner, S.W. (2004). Cybercrime and the Law. In: Ghosh, S., Malek, M., Stohr, E.A. (eds) Guarding Your Business. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48638-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48638-5_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-48494-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-306-48638-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation