It is expected that by the year 2010, the number of networked devices will outnumber the global population by six to one, dramatically changing the modern conception of the Internet (UNODC 2013). The unlimited access to information and communication technologies greatly supports the freedom of speech and expression at the same time with presenting significant risks to the individual or financial integrity of its users. Currently, the majority of the vital services such as electricity or the supply of water are rooted in the smooth operation of communication technologies. This, in turn, presents a possibility of undermining the integrity of the technologies, causing harm to the society. However, apart from provoking a general disturbance, one may use informational technologies for personal and monetary gain.
Definition, Statistics, and Examples of Cybercrime
The definition of cybercrime varies depending on the aim of using the notion. The core of the term ‘cybercrime’ lies in the ‘limited number of acts against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data or systems’ (UNODC 2013, p. 17). However, at the beginning of this assessment, it is crucial to mention that defining the term cybercrime is not as important as defining its scope as well as actions targeted at its investigation, prevention, and elimination (Reichel 2008).
According to the research conducted by Infosec Institute (2013), the average cost per victim of cybercrime globally constitutes $298 while the global price tag of just consumer cybercrime makes up approximately $113 billion. By analysing different countries and regions separately, it was found that cybercrime has no boundaries when it comes to global reach, although it depends on the level of technological integration, the severity of corruption in the country, as well as the availability of defense mechanisms that prevent the crime from occurring. The greatest cost of cybercrime is in the US ($38 billion), China ($37 billion), Europe ($13 billion), and Brazil ($8 billion) (Infosec Institute 2013).
The scope and the severity of cyberattacks grow exponentially with each year. For example, the 2015 attack on the UK phone and broadband provider TalkTalk (4 million customers) resulted in the compromisation of personal client information, which included names, postal and email addresses, phone numbers, and even credit card details (Ashford 2015). It is important to mention that this account of the data breach was third for the company; thus, the management did not take the issue of cybersecurity seriously even after two previous attacks.
International Laws on Cybercrime
The issue of cybercrime has increasingly become a concern for the global community because it is not restricted by geographic borders (Pakes 2010), and, therefore, cannot be controlled by governments separately. International legislation and enforcement are needed to address the problem of cybercrime and work towards minimising the impact of cybercrime and eliminating it once and for all. Although the problem of cyber attacks concerns many international authorities, it is hard to distinguish a set framework of globally enforceable laws that regulate cybercrime.
On the international level, the Group of Eight mandated that all law enforcement personnel should be professionally trained to detect and prevent cyber criminal activity. The United Nations General Assembly adopted two resolutions (in 2000 and 2002) on the use of information technologies with the criminal intent. However, the leading role in designing the international cybercrime legislation was played by the International Telecommunication Union (UN specialised agency), which facilitated the release of the Geneva Declaration of Principles, the Geneva Plan of Action (2003), as well as the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda (2005).
Regulation, Investigation, and the Prosecution of Cybercrime
The issue of regulating and punishing cybercrime on an international level has not been completely resolved yet due to the ‘differences in penal tolerance’ exhibited by the cultural and social peculiarities of different countries. For example, neo-liberal societies exhibit exclusionary attitudes towards criminals while corporatist societies, especially Scandinavian, pursue inclusive attitudes and see the need in helping criminals improve instead of imprisoning them (Nelken 2009). For this same reason, it is quite impossible to establish unifying cybercrime laws that will be mutually accepted by all international stakeholders. Nevertheless, it is important to discuss the most likely international bodies that should be responsible for the prosecution and the punishment of the cybercrime offenses.
When discussing cybercrime in the tradition of the common law, the police play a key role in investigating the crime independently (O’Connor 2012). When the police receive a cybercrime incident report, the key stage is determining whether a specific criminal law has been violated. While the principle of territoriality in crimes such as robberies or murders implies that a crime should be tried on the territory where it was committed, it is nearly impossible to make such a conclusion in information-based criminal offenses.
This happens because the crime usually occurs on one territory but in reality affects another. Therefore, many cybercriminals managed to evade the prosecution of their crimes due to the absence of unifying laws that can address the territorial and the technological characteristics of the offense. The majority of the cybercrimes, contrast to the violations of human rights and freedoms, do not invoke ‘the principle of universality’ as the key element for criminal jurisdiction (Broadhurst 2006). Moreover, the principle of sovereign equality that implies mutual respect to the lawmaking practices of other countries may also disrupt the process of prosecution and investigation of global cybercrimes.
As outlined by the research conducted by Brown (2015), there is a large range of barriers that limit the investigation, prosecution, and digital forensics interrogation of cybercrime. These barriers span across identification, access, wellbeing, liability, training, funding, admissibility, and other categories. To give an example, in the category of cybercrime identification, there is a great difficulty in attributing authorship or ownership to electronically stored information (Brown 2015). If it is impossible to identify to whom the stolen data belonged, the prosecution of cybercrime can be considered invalid.
Conclusion
To conclude, without a universally enforced law, a cross-jurisdictional conflict will become inevitable when prosecuting and investigating cybercrime. The international community should pay extra attention to addressing the following dilemma ‘what law should be applied to determine the legal effect of a person’s conduct when (s)he does an act in one state which produces harmful effects in another’ (Brown 2015, p. 61). Cases of cybercrime that require cooperation between different international stakeholders present a great challenge to investigating and prosecuting agencies that do not possess the necessary range of legal instruments to act upon cybercrime (Bermay & Godlove 2012).
The assessment of Cybercrime as a global issue has shown that the increase in technology-associated offenses is linked to the global stakeholders’ inability to establish universally applicable laws that will regulate the investigation and the prosecution of such crimes.
Reference List
Ashford, W 2015,TalkTalk warns customers about personal data breach, Web.
Bermay, F & Godlove, N, 2012, ‘Understanding 21st century cybercrime from the ‘common’ victim’. Criminal Justice Matters, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 4-5.
Broadhurst, R 2006, ‘Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber-crime’, Policing: an International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 408-433.
Brown, C 2015, ‘Investigating and prosecuting cyber crime: forensic dependencies and barriers to justice’, International Journal of Cyber Criminology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 55-119.
Infosec Institute 2013, 2013 – the impact of cybercrime, Web.
Nelken, D 2009, ‘Comparative criminal justice: making sense of difference’, European Journal of Criminology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 291-311.
O’Connor, V 2012, Common law and civil law traditions. International network to promote the rule of law, Web.
Pakes, F 2010 Comparative criminal justice, 2nd edn, Willan Publishing, Cullompton, UK.
Reichel, P 2008, Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach, 5th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
UNODC 2013, Comprehensive study on cybercrime, Web.