Cybercrimes, also known as computer crimes, include using a computer to commit fraud, trafficking in child pornography and intellectual property, stealing identity, and violating privacy. In 2021, cybercrime would damage a total of USD 6 trillion in worldwide losses, making it the third-largest economy behind the United States and China. An essential part of protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure and cybersecurity is cybercrime prevention. This involves, in particular, the development of relevant legislation prohibiting the use of ICTs for criminal or other objectives, as well as actions that threaten the integrity of essential national infrastructures.
Hotspots for Cybercrimes
There are certain economies in the Former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe (FSU&CEE) that have become hotspots for cybercrime. Among the top ten economies from where most internet scams emerged in the early 2000s, six were from FSU&CEE. Cybercrimes have been happening all over the globe for a few centuries, yet the penalties are light compared to traditional crimes. The individuals committing such crimes primarily lie between the ages of 10-15 years old, and hence the judges only have a few benchmarks to refer to. Lawyers and judges are trying to decide on appropriate sentences for such offenses and offenders. The state and federal governments have enacted legislation criminalizing specific activities related to computers, networks, and the internet, each with its own set of restrictions and punishments. The penalties for cybercrimes range from one year in jail and a $6,000 fine to 99 years in prison and a $60,000 fine in Alabama, for example. Florida defines cybercrime as acts against intellectual property or computer users under its Computer Crimes Act.
Some cybercrime penalties may be excessive in comparison to the harm done. In contrast to the damage or irritation caused by the cybercriminal, the typical punishment is minor. With fewer cybercrime convictions than regular crimes, courts have few options when it comes to sentences. As a result, judges sentencing somebody for the first time for a cybercrime may not impose the appropriate penalty. Encouraging trends suggest that cybercrime sanctions will finally match the demand for justice. For the fight against hackers coming from across the Atlantic, the Department of Justice implanted a special prosecutor into the European criminal justice agency.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has assigned three other cyber assistants to international offices, and more are planned for the future. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a classic example of how politicians in the United States have responded by tightening and widening laws to counter the concerns. Researchers at the Center assess the impact of this and other laws and regulations on cybercrime, determining whether specific provisions accomplish their intended goals and have costly unforeseen outcomes. The purpose of this study is to generate broad generalizations regarding the kind of rules and regulations that decrease fraud and increase security.
India and Cybercrimes
India’s first cyber crime conviction occurred in 2013. Sony India Private Ltd, the company behind www.sony-sambandh.com, which targets non-resident Indians, filed a complaint. Sony items can be transferred to friends and family in India after NRIs pay online.
The firm guarantees delivery of the items to the intended recipients. According to the cybercrime case study, Barbara Campa purchased a Sony Color Television and cordless headphones on the website in May 2002. Arif Azim in Noida was requested to send the items using her credit card information. The credit card company cleared the payment, and the transaction was completed. Upon completion of the due diligence and inspection process, the business delivered the products to Arif Azim.
When Arif Azim accepted the item at the time of delivery, the firm took digital pictures. It was completed at that point, but the credit card company informed the firm after one and a half months that the purchase was unlawful. This is because the valid owner denied making it.
As a result, the Central Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation under the Indian Penal Code sections 418, 419, and 420. After the case was examined, Arif Azim was arrested. Researches have found that Arif Azim obtained the credit card number of an American citizen while working at a Noida contact center, which he exploited on the company’s website. The CBI recovered a color television and cordless headphones from a cyber fraud case that was one-of-a-kind. The CBI had sufficient evidence to establish their case; thus, the accused acknowledged his guilt. Cybercrime was found guilty for the first time by Arif Azim under Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the other hand, the court believed that because the accused was a young kid of 24 years old and a first-time offender, a liberal approach was required. As a result, the court sentenced the accused to a year of probation. The decision has enormous ramifications for the entire country. Apart from being the first cyber crime conviction, it has demonstrated that the Indian Penal Code may be effectively used for some types of cybercrime that are not covered under the Information Technology Act 2000. Second, a decision like this sends a strong message to everyone that the law cannot be manipulated.
Cyber Security is considered highly important; the international community must acknowledge a “staggering enforcement gap,” as highlighted in recent research by the Third Way. Not only is the current wave of cybercrime primarily unknown, but the odds of being successfully investigated and convicted for a cyberattack in the United States are currently believed to be as low as 0.05 percent. This is consistent with other findings from throughout the world. This is for a crime expected to cost $6 trillion to the global economy by 2021. In the case of violent crime, the corresponding likelihood is 46%. The international community must consider why this is occurring and what may be done to change it.
According to legal analysis, the outmoded Computer Misuse Act jeopardizes Britain’s cyber defenses by preventing investigators from dealing efficiently with online threats while over-punishing immature offenders. The Criminal Law Reform Now Network (CLRNN) report advocates for immediate modification of the rules regulating unlawful access to computers, denial of service attacks, and other digital crimes, thirty years after hacking became a criminal offense. The 144-page report, sponsored by academic attorneys from Birmingham and Cambridge universities, claims that the 1990 Computer Misuse Act “cries out for revision” and that public interest hacking defenses must be developed. According to the Globe Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2019, widespread loss of faith in the internet is the fifth most considerable strategic risk confronting the world. The paper outlines the scope of the security community’s issues and the new possibilities and alliances that may be formed to enable public good in this period of unprecedented technological change. The security problem of the twenty-first century will continue to be cybercrime.
The community must agree on what is vital shortly, focus on a shared vision of that future, and begin a genuine conversation about getting there. This is challenging but vital because it concerns what countries and companies agree on rather than what they disagree on. This might include a shared awareness of the need to close the cybercrime enforcement gap, combat transnational organized cybercrime before it becomes epidemic, and eliminate safe havens for cybercriminal networks. There must be a recognition that cybercrime is a global issue that necessitates a worldwide solution. No country or organization exists in isolation. A new generation of alliances between international, national, and corporate organizations is required for the globe as a whole. The difficulty in conducting investigations on attackers generally working overseas against different and dissimilar technological systems employing communications technology, which makes every attack global by default, is primarily to blame for the enforcement gap.
Cyber enforcement gap
Closing the cyber enforcement gap will necessitate greater global integration and interaction among nations from a policy and capacity standpoint. It also necessitates a greater level of collaboration between law enforcement and the commercial sector. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to create trust amongst entities and agree on common principles, the groundwork for a new global architecture. If this is not accomplished, the digital economy and conventional institutions that offer security and confidence across society would be jeopardized. While cybercrime is still in its early stages, hackers will continue to develop new ways to damage people in the future. Penalties and legislation must adjust to reflect this. Technology and legislation will continue to grow and change as law enforcement becomes more conscious of the need to combat cybercrime. Sentencing is still a shifting target; nonetheless, they will soon find it more difficult to conceal and avoid the law.
Housen-Couriel, Deborah. “The Evolving Law on Cyber Terrorism: Dilemmas in International Law and Israeli Law.” International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep09430.
Jabbour, K. T., & Devendorf, E. (2017). Cyber Threat Characterization. The Cyber Defense Review, 2(3), 79–94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267387
Powered by WPeMatico