High-Tech and Computer Crimes: Global Challenges, Global Responses

Singh, Subhash Chandra

doi:10.1007/978-981-10-6277-3_30

Subhash Chandra Singh³

1311 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

Information technology today touches every aspect of life, irrespective of location on the globe.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Amalia M. Wagner, “The Challenge of Computer-Crime Legislation: How Should New York Respond”, 33 Buffalo Law Review, 1984, at 782.
2.
The United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, International Review of Criminal Policy- United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Control of Computer Crime, 8th Congress, Vienna, April 27-May 6, 1999.
3.
Brian C. Lewis, “Prevention of Computer Crime Amidst International Anarchy”, American Criminal Law Review, 2004, at 1355; In general, computer crimes are crimes where a computer system itself is the target, while computer enabled crime is a traditional crime like fraud or theft that is facilitated by a computer.
4.
Elizabeth A. Glynn, “Computer Abuse: The Emerging Crime and the Need for Legislation”, 12 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1984, pp. 74–75.
5.
Gary J. Valeriano, “Pitfallsin Insurance Coverage for Computer Crimes”, 59 Defense Counsel Journal, 1992, at 512.
6.
Michael Edmund O’Neill, “Old Crimes in New Bottles: Sanctioning Cybercrime”, 9 George Mason Law Review, 2000, at 243.
7.
Laura J. Nicholson, “Comment, Computer Crimes”, 37 American Criminal Law Review, 2000, at 211.
8.
Michael Edmund, supra note 6, pp. 246–249.
9.
Id., at 242.
10.
Id., at 249.
11.
Carol C. McCall, “Computer Crime Statutes: Are They Bringing the Gap between Law and Technology”, 11 Criminal Justice Journal, 1988–1989, at 204.
12.
O. Edward, “Hackers from Hell”, Forbes, 9 October 1995, at 182.
13.
Message Labs Intelligence: 2010 Annual Security Report, Symantec.
14.
The Cost of Cybercrime, Detica, February 2011.
15.
Scott Charney and Kent Alexander, “Computer Crime”, 45 Emory Law Journal, 1996, at 934, stressing the need for an organized international response to the worldwide problem of computer crime.
16.
Ibid.
17.
G. Challice, The Australian Business Assessment of Computer User Security Survey: Methodology Report, Australian Institute of Criminology, Technical and Background Paper No. 32, 2009.
18.
Ibid.
19.
D. Lanham, M. Weinberg, K.E. Brown and G. Ryan, Criminal Fraud (Law Book Co. Ltd., Sydney, 1987).
20.
Even, for example, where nationals of one state are on trial overseas, the basic underlying principle is that the state cannot interfere in the judicial procedures of the other sovereign state on behalf of its national. Similarly, states cannot take measures on the territory of another state by way of enforcement of their own national laws without the consent of the latter. Antonio Cassese, International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001) at 53.
21.
I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003) at 306.
22.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences against Children) Act, 2010, section 272.
23.
D.G. Post, “Anarchy, State and the Internet: An Essay on Law Making in Cyber Space”, Journal of Online Law, 1995, at 3.
24.
The resolution was adopted by the General Assembly on December 14, 1990.
25.
A Paper for the 12th Conference of Directors of Criminological Research Institutes on “Criminological Aspects of Economic Crime”, Strasbourg, 15–18 November, 1976, pp. 225–229.
26.
The Council of Europe Recommendation No. R (95) 13 Concerning Problems of Criminal Procedural Law connected with Information Technology, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September, 1995.
27.
The Convention on Cybercrime, the Council of Europe, Budapest, 23/11/2001, which entered into force on July 1, 2004.
28.
The Additional Protocol is available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/html/189.htm [accessed on February 18, 2013], The Explanatory Report accompanying the Additional Protocol is available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/189.htm. [accessed on February 18, 2013].
29.
The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=189&CM=8&DF=05/06/2010&CL=ENG. [accessed on February 18, 2013].
30.
The following Member states have ratified the Additional Protocol: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Ukraine. See, Ibid.
31.
The 17 nations that have signed but not ratified the Additional Protocol are: Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland, and participating non-Member states Canada and South Africa. Seventeen participating states have not signed the Additional Protocol: Member states Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Monaco, Russia, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom, and participating non-Member states Japan and the United States of America. See, Ibid.
32.
U.S. Department of Justice, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, available at: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/COEFAQs.htm. [accessed on February 22, 2013].
33.
Supra note 27, Article 14(2)(c), See also Convention on Cybercrime, Explanatory Note 141 (“The Convention makes it explicit that Parties should incorporate into their laws the possibility that information contained in digital or other electronic form can be used as evidence before a court in criminal proceedings, irrespective of the nature of the criminal offence that is prosecuted”).
34.
Id., Article 18–21.
35.
The Group of 8 (G-8) was formed at an economic summit in France in 1975 and comprises of the eight leading industrialized countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States.
36.
Meeting of the Justice and Interior Ministers of The Eight, Communique Annex, Washington, D.C. (1997), available at: http://www.cybercrime.gov/principles.htm [accessed on February 28, 2013].
37.
Stein Schjolberg, “The History of Global Harmonisation on Cybercrime Legislation—The Road to Geneva”, 2008), available at: http://www.cybercrimelaw.net/documents/cybercrime_history.pdf [accessed on August 20, 2013].
38.
A 3-day Cybercrime Conference was held in Paris in May, 2000 which was attended by nearly 300 delegates including judges, police officials, diplomats, legal experts, leading businessman and industrialists from G-8 countries. The conference stressed on the desirability of a global law to tackle the hackers, software pirates, crooks and virus attackers who were making the life of internet users miserable. The members unanimously agreed that there was a need for an international convention to deliberate on cyber crime related issues and urgency of setting up an International Criminal Tribunal having global jurisdiction to deal with cyber crime and criminals.
39.
The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat.
40.
Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative, Project Description, Commonwealth Governance Internet Forum (August 2012). Available at: http://www.commonwealthigf.org/cigf/cybercrime/ [accessed on December 18, 2013].
41.
High-Level Panel Meeting on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, Commonwealth Internet Governance Forum, available at: http://www.commonwealthigf.org [accessed on December 18, 2013].
42.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. 31 (L 281); Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 15, 1997 Concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Telecommunications Sector, 1997 O.J. 1 (L 24) (January 30, 1998).
43.
Ibid.
44.
Ibid.
45.
Ibid.
46.
Ibid. The EU has issued a number of other documents relating to crime in cyberspace. See, e.g., Decision No. 276/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of January 25, 1999, Official Journal of the European Communities, L33/1 (Feb. 6, 1999) (adopting an action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks).
47.
The EU Directive 2013/40 on Attacks against Information System.
48.
The Third Interpol Symposium on International Fraud, Saint-Cloud, Paris, France, December 11–13, 1979.
49.
Stein Schjolberg, then Assistant Commissioner of Police in Oslo, Norway.
50.
Approved by Secretary General A. Bossard on April 30, 1980.
51.
The Conference was organized by Interpol in cooperation with Stein Schjolberg, It was attended by 66 delegates from 26 countries. The keynote speaker at the Conference was Donn B. Parker (SRI International, Menlo Park, California, USA) the “founder” of the combat against computer crime.
52.
Stein Schjolberg: EDP and Penal Legislation, A presentation at the Interpol Conference in December, 1981. In cooperation with SRI International, USA, The Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law, University of Oslo, and Interpol, Paris, he was working on a model law for computer crime laws that could be used as a remedy, or guideline for other countries.
53.
Available at: http://cisac.stanford.edu [accessed on February 18, 2013].
54.
The Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 46(1-A).
55.
Id., sections 65–74.
56.
Id., section 65.
57.
Id., section 66.
58.
Id., section 66-A.
59.
Id., section 66-B.
60.
Id., section 66-C.
61.
Id., section 66-D.
62.
Id. section 66-E.
63.
Id., section 66 F.
64.
Id., section 67.
65.
Id., section 67-A.
66.
Id., section 67-B.
67.
Id., section 71.
68.
Id., section 72.
69.
Id., section 72A.
70.
Id., section 73.
71.
Id., section 74.
72.
Id., section 76.
73.
Id., section 75.
74.
Janet Reno, On the Meeting of Justice and Interior Ministers of the Eight, December 10, 1997.
75.
Clifford Krauss, 8 Countries Joined in an Effort To Catch Computer Criminals, New York Times, December 11, 1997, at A12 (quoting Jack Straw, the British Home Secretary, as saying, “We’re using 19th-Century tools to face a 21st-century problem. One person can stay in the same place and commit crimes in several countries without leaving his armchair.”).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Legal Studies, Assam University, Silchar, India
Subhash Chandra Singh

Authors

Subhash Chandra Singh
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
B.C. Nirmal
Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
Rajnish Kumar Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Singh, S.C. (2018). High-Tech and Computer Crimes: Global Challenges, Global Responses. In: Nirmal, B., Singh, R. (eds) Contemporary Issues in International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6277-3_30

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6277-3_30
Published: 14 February 2018
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6276-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6277-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics