Introduction HIPCAR – Cybercrime/e-Crimes As such, there are several common definitions amongst these frameworks that need to take into account, where necessary, considerations of varying scope of applicability. Common concepts include: “electronic communications network” – which must be aligned to the jurisdiction’s existing definition in the prevailing Telecommunications laws; “electronic document” or “electronic record” – which must reflect broad interpretations so as to include for instance audio and video material; and “electronic signatures”, “advanced electronic signatures”, “certificates”, “accredited certificates”, “certificate service providers” and “certification authorities” – which all deal with the application of encryption techniques to provide electronic validation of authenticity and the recognition of the technological and economic sector which has developed around the provision of such services. In this context, Electronic Commerce (Transactions) establishes, among other things, the core principles of recognition and attribution necessary for the effectiveness of the other frameworks. Its focus is on defining the fundamental principles which are to be used in determining cases of a civil or commercial nature. This framework is also essential in defining an appropriate market structure and a realistic strategy for sector oversight in the interest of the public and of consumer confidence. Decisions made on the issues related to such an administrative system have a follow-on impact on how electronic signatures are to be procedurally used for evidentiary purposes, and how responsibilities and liabilities defined in the law can be appropriately attributed. With that presumption of equivalence, this allows the other frameworks to adequately deal with points of departure related to the appropriate treatment of electronic information transfers. The Cybercrime framework, for example, defines offences related to the interception of communication, alteration of communication and computer-related fraud. The Electronic Commerce (Evidence) framework provides a foundation that introduces electronic evidence as a new category of evidence. One important common thread linking e-Transactions and Cybercrime is the determination of the appropriate liability and responsibility of service providers whose services are used in situations of electronically mediated malfeasance. Special attention was paid to the consistency in determining the targeted parties for these relevant sections and ensuring the appropriate application of obligations and the enforcement thereof. In the case of the frameworks geared to improving regulatory oversight and user confidence, the model texts developed by HIPCAR deal with opposite ends of the same issue: whereas the Access to Public Information model deals with encouraging the disclosure of public information with specified exceptions, the Privacy and Data Protection model encourages the protection of a subset of that information that would be considered exempted from the former model. Importantly, both these frameworks are geared to encouraging improved document management and record-keeping practices within the public sector and – in the case of the latter framework – some aspects of the private sector as well. It is however notable that – unlike the other four model texts – these frameworks are neither applicable exclusively to the electronic medium nor about creating the enabling framework within which a new media’s considerations are transposed over existing procedures. To ensure consistency, frameworks are instead geared to regulating the appropriate management of information resources in both electronic and nonelectronic form. There are a number of sources of structural and logistical overlaps which exist between these two legislative frameworks. Amongst these is in the definition of the key concepts of “public authority” (the persons to whom the frameworks would be applicable), “information”, “data” and “document”, and the relationship amongst these. Another important form of overlap concerns the appropriate oversight of these frameworks. Both of these frameworks require the establishment of oversight bodies which should be sufficiently independent from outside influence so as to assure the public of the sanctity of their decisions. These independent bodies should also have the capacity to levy fines and/or penalties against parties that undertake activities to frustrate the objectives of either of these frameworks. > Model Policy Guidelines & Legislative Text 5