Introduction
To begin with, it should be emphasized that the development of the legislative sphere for regulation of the IT-sphere and cybernetics is far beyond the realities of technical advances. In other words, the legal framework lays behind technological advances, acts that we would not hesitate to call “wrong” or “immoral” are not always considered illegal. Originally, it is associated with the notion, that cyber technologies are developing faster than the legislative sphere can get adapted to these changes.
Cyber Crimes
Originally, there are several types of cybercrimes:
- Against persons
- Against Business and Non-business organizations
- Crime targeting the government
The fact is that all the three types are described in the legislation, nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the only common feature of all the crimes is to steal the hidden information and use it with the aim of personal advantage. Another fact that should be pointed out, is associated with that there is no proper definition of Cyber Crimes in the legislation, and, consequently, the defense against cybercrime is poor.
Originally, the problem is aggravated by the concept that cyber laws are developing too slowly in comparison with the tools and techniques of performing cybercrimes. Nevertheless, the solid basis has been already founded, and the problems, which are closely associated with cybercrimes, are persisted. Thus, following Balkin (2007), the sphere of cybercrimes is one of the most burning issues in criminology. The following notion should be emphasized:
Loss of evidence is a very common & expected problem as all the data are routinely destroyed. Further, the collection of data outside the territorial extent also paralyzes the system of crime investigation. Cyber savvy judges are the need of the day. Judiciary plays a vital role in shaping the enactment according to the order of the day. One such case, which needs appreciation, is the P.I.L. (Public Interest Litigation), which the Kerala High Court has accepted through an email. (Taylor, 2006, p. 284)
It is often emphasized, that the sphere of cyber criminology requires the improvement of investigative responsibility. The fact is that confusion often appears within the agencies, engaged in investigating these crimes, which causes delays and confusion in further legislative development. Taking into consideration the fact that the investigation of cybercrimes requires specialized skills, nevertheless, they are different from the skills, required for the investigation of computer-related crimes. It is evident, that the investigator will have to search the necessary information in the database or involve internet resources. The cybercrimes experts must be trained for handling sophisticated crimes, using specialized computer equipment and technical knowledge. Consequently, a department with a particular responsibility range should be created.
Conclusion
Finally, it should be emphasized that computer-related crimes and cybercrimes have developed into two separate branches of crime. In the light of this fact, there is a strong necessity to mention that the original responsibility, which should be imposed on special departments, is currently the new trend of cybercrimes legislation. From this perspective, it should be stated that the original range of cyber legislation should be expanded either for the more effective investigation procedures.
Bibliography
Balkin. J. M., Katz, E. (2007) “Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment”. NYU Press.
Reyes, A., O’Shea, K. (2007) “Cybercrime investigations: bridging the gaps between security professionals, law enforcement, and prosecutors”. Syngress publishing.
Taylor, R, W. (2006) “Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism” Prentice Hall.