Cyber crime never entered the minds of the founding fathers, yet its prevalence has far outpaced the laws that govern it. Virtual crime is not provable under most criminal statutes. So what should be done?
Crimes of theft are punishable according to the value of the items stolen and the violence of the manner in which they were stolen. Theft of information presents the cyber criminal with the perfect loophole. The defense argues that words have no value and sitting in front of a keyboard typing is not violent. The veracity of those statements can be disproved easily.
If the information had no value, why did the hacker take money for the information? If the act was not violent, why are the ramifications of the action devastating to the victims?
Intellectual property laws protect only work product such as research and creative endeavors. An address is not considered work product, and is not protected. So what of the hacker who steals addresses from jewelry stores and sells them to jewel thieves? They are guilty of the facilitation of a crime, should one be committed, yet their actions are not criminal in and of themselves.
To sew this loophole closed would not require the drafting of years' worth of new legislation, but instead the adaptation of existing laws in minute ways. Consider the addition of the verbiage "or any personal, medical, corporate or financial information" to the standard property theft laws. This would encompass nearly all current cyber theft crime.
Take away the water that the phisherman bait with enticing emails. Phishing is the same crime as attempted robbery, larceny or burglary. Dropping a few phisherman behind bars, with payment of restitution and fines required, would reduce the number of retirees and barely-computer-literates parting with pensions and savings. Current mail fraud statutes should be expanded with the inclusion of "or electronic means". Another seam in place.
Defense will argue then that the crime was not committed in the jurisdiction of the Court prosecuting the defendant. With the simple addition of the verbiage "against any person, persons or corporate entity within the jurisdiction" to the standard theft laws. Another hole disappears.
Extradition will be the last stumbling block left to the global community. Should not the contract of all whose access the Internet include a clause whereby the user agrees that such access will not be against the laws of the jurisdiction of the sites to which the user visits? These laws are beginning to look less like a net.
With the addition of cyber crime to the existing laws, hackers who would never dream of robbing a store will not dream of robbing a database. Punishments would be equal for cyber crime as they are for flesh and blood crime.
What of the victims? The United States has laws governing the dissemination of pornography to minors and laws that protect the victims that are lured off of the Internet into flesh and blood crime. What about the victims whose credit has been thrashed? Restoration of their credit is the least that can be done for these victims, but the restoration of their reputation cannot be accomplished. What of their hardship while they had not the credit to conduct their lives?
Interpol's adoption of these laws would enable jurisdictions to successfully prosecute the civil actions under these laws. NATO's endorsement of these laws would add more venom to the punishments. As a global community, it is high time that we act as one to protect our citizenry, regardless of location.
Visit Virginia's Dream. International shipping available on request.
Posts
