Referenced in: § C. Challenges to
Fighting Cybercrime
1.
ITU Understanding Cybercrime, supra § 1
B, note 1.
2.
See, e.g., US Access Board, § 508 Standards for Electronic and Information
Technology, Final Rule, (21 Dec. 2000).
3.
Ibid., at 75.
4.
See, e.g., Kristin Finklea & Catherine A.
Theohary, Cybercrime: Conceptual Issues
for Congress and US Law Enforcement,
US Congressional Research Service (CRS),
(2015), p. 16 (provides that “For instance,
identity theft (18 USC § 1028(a)(7)) is a
crime whether it is committed solely in the
real world or carried out via cyber means.
The statute does not distinguish between
the means by which the crime is carried
out”), at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/R42547.pdf.
5.
For example, “wire transfer” and
“stalking”.
6.
Such as “place” and “document”.
7.
UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime
(Draft) [hereafter, “UNODC Cybercrime
Study”], (New York: United Nations,
2013), p. 58, at https://www.unodc.org/
documents/organized-crime/UNODC_
CCPCJ_EG.4_2013/CYBERCRIME_
STUDY_210213.pdf.
8.
One famous conception of just such
a scenario is in the 1968 cult-classic
film 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the
spacecraft’s computer, HAL—short for
“heuristically-programmed algorithmic
computer”—“decides” to terminate the
human team members when it becomes
apparent that the humans, who are
unaware of the mission’s real purpose,
may jeopardize that purpose. Stanley
Kubrick, dir. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Writ.
Arthur C. Clarke & Stanley Kubrick. Metro
Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), 1968. Film.
9.
United States v. Liberty Reserve et al., 13
Cr. 368, UNODC Cybercrime Repository,
at https://www.unodc.org/cld/case-lawdoc/cybercrimecrimetype/usa/2014/us_v_
liberty_reserve_et_al..html?&tmpl=cyb;
Indictment & Supporting Documents:
United States v. Liberty Reserve et al.,
(S.D.N.Y. 2013), at http://www.justice.
gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/May13/
LibertyReserveetalDocuments.php;
Emily Flitter, “US Accuses Currency
Exchange of Laundering $6 Billion,”
Reuters, (29 May 2013), at http://www.
reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/netus-cybercrime-libertyreserve-chargesidUSBRE94R0KQ20130529.
10. Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA
PATRIOT Act), No. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272
(2001) [hereafter, “USA PATRIOT Act”].
11. See infra § 2 B.
12. Technological neutrality refers to the
drafting of laws that are technologically
agnostic, that is, laws that do not
specifically refer to any particular
technology. Doing so not only assures
that online and offline conduct is
treated equally, but also assures that
the law is not so easily outdated by
technological progress. This strategy,
refraining from naming any device or
software or using a nonexclusive list,
punishes a criminal conduct as long
as the effect is felt. Moreover, not
naming a specific technology allows
laws to stay relevant even after new
device or criminal methodology is
developed. See “Technology Neutrality
in Internet, Telecoms and Data Protection
Regulation,” Hogan Lovells Global
Media and Communications Quarterly,
(2014), at http://www.hoganlovells.
com/files/Uploads/Documents/8%20
Technology%20neutrality%20in%20
Internet.pdf.
13. See, e.g., WDR, supra § 1 A, note
10, at 222, noting “Public safety and
security in the analog world is a public
good, ensured by governments. In
the cyberworld, governments also
have an obligation […] to ensure the
protection of data, communications,
and critical infrastructure.” See also ITU
Understanding Cybercrime, supra § 1 B,
note 1, at 82–84.
14. Supreme Court of Korea, Decision
2014 No. 8838 (13 Nov. 2014), at
http://www.law.go.kr/precInfoP.
do?mode=0&precSeq=176320 (in
Korean). See also Seoul Central District
Court, Decision 2014 No.323 (26 Jun.
2014), at http://www.law.go.kr/precInfoP.
do?evtNo=2014%eb%85%b8323 (in
Korean); Seoul Central District Court,
Decision No.4451, 4488 (Consolidation)
(15 Jan. 2014), at http://mobile.law.go.kr/
LSWM/mobile/precScInfo.do;jsessio
nid=plrVTdB8eoKZ1bXXaJl0wla9S2E4
4BfcfQGizaMGLE3jt081q9o0TtHznXov6J
FN.de_kl_a6_servlet_PRM?precSeq=176
605&precScNm=%ED%8C%90%EB%A1
%80&searchKeyword=&pageIndex=127
&name=precSc (in Korean).
15. Korea: Game Industry Promotion Act, at
http://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.
do?hseq=28802&type=sogan&key=8 (in
English).
16. Ibid., Art. 18-3(c).
17. Ibid.
18. Rohini Tendulkar, Securities Markets and
Systemic Risk: Joint Staff Working Paper
of the IOSCO Research Department and
World Federation of Exchanges, IOSCO
Research Department, at pp. 4 & 22, at
http://www.iosco.org/research/pdf/swp/
Cyber-Crime-Securities-Markets-andSystemic-Risk.pdf.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid. at 4.
21. United States v. Albert Gonzalez, D. Mass.
(No. 10223 & No. 10382).
22. Kim Zetter, “TJX Hacker Gets 20 Years in
Prison,” Wired, (25 Mar. 2010), at https://
www.wired.com/2010/03/tjx-sentencing/.
23. Edecio Martinez, “Albert Gonzalez,
‘SoupNazi’ Credit Card Hacker Gets
20 Years,” CBS News, (26 Mar. 2010), at
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/albertgonzalez-soupnazi-credit-card-hackergets-20-years/; Kim Zetter, “In Surprise
Appeal, TJX Hacker Claims US Authorized
His Crimes,” Wired, (7 Jul. 2011), at http://
www.wired.com/2011/04/gonzalez-pleawithdrawal/.
24. Do Punishments Fit the Cybercrime?,”
2010, InfoSecurity Magazine, (25 Aug.
2010), at https://www.infosecuritymagazine.com/magazine-features/dopunishments-fit-the-cybercrime/.
25. L. Thomas Winfree, Jr., G. Larry Mays
& Leanne Fiftal Alarid Introduction to
Criminal Justice (New York: Wolters
Kluwer, 2015
Page 57 | Chapter 1 | End Notes
Table of Contents