• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

What is cybercrime?

May 13, 2009 by Billy Barnes (IPilogue Editor)

It sounds like the subject of a Hollywood thriller or paperback science fiction novel. Hackers surrounded by glowing LCD screens watching as money drains from your bank account into theirs. Cybercrime: a new crime for the digital age. Or is it? Is cybercrime something new or is it just a new spin on the familiar old crimes?

Cybercrime has no established definition. On the broadest interpretation it could include any criminal act committed via computer or the Internet. But what distinguishes theft from your online banking account and theft by someone impersonating you in the branch or forging your signature on a cheque? For many crimes involving computers, the essential elements are the same as the traditional crime and recognizing a distinction when a computer is used does not make sense. A computer does not aggravate a theft in the way that a weapon does (by increasing the likelihood of bodily harm) it is merely a method of committing the same crime. For “cybercrime” to be coherent as a category, it must be in some way distinct from recognized traditional crimes: cybercrimes are those criminal acts that are unique to computers.

But some would argue that there are no crimes that meet this definition. In a 2001 article and a recent follow-up, Professor Susan Brenner argues that all known cybercrimes can be encompassed, with a little effort, by existing crimes. Consider a few candidates for pure cybercrimes: hacking, denial of service, and distributing malicious software. These are criminal acts which take place in “cyberspace”. But each of them has a real-world analogue: hacking can be viewed as a form of digital trespass; denial of service is vandalism or common nuisance; malicious software is mischief or theft of processing power. Thus, even these acts are like the example of theft in the previous paragraph: merely traditional crimes carried out through the medium of cyberspace. The solution is not to invent new crimes but to revise existing ones to accommodate changing situations. Brenner does, however, suggest the possibility of true cybercrimes (acts only possible in cyberspace) emerging in the future. There is even a precedent for criminalizing acts that take place in another realm—witchcraft. It was once believed that witches manipulated spirits in another realm to harm their victims much like cyber-criminals act in cyberspace to harm their victims. But for the present time Brenner concludes that traditional crimes are enough.

One troubling aspect of Brenner’s argument is its reliance on the concept of “cyberspace”. Cyberspace allows you to easily draw analogies between real and virtual actions—for example, associating hacking with trespassing. But cyberspace is just a metaphor. It is useful for explaining the relationships between computers, but it leads to inaccuracy in describing the actions of people online. It is certainly possible to redefine the legal understanding of location to match this metaphor, but just because something is possible doesn’t make it right. Without relying on cyberspace, the ability to remotely access and manipulate another person’s property is actually something new but still easily described: the Criminal Code calls it unauthorized use of a computer. The provision does not criminalize “digital trespass” but rather unauthorized access, which is an accurate non-metaphorical description of the act we wish to proscribe. This is a cybercrime. It is not a pure cybercrime in the sense that Brenner is looking for, but it is a distinct criminal act in which computers play an essential role.

The Criminal Code provision also highlights another problem with extending real-world crimes to encompass virtual counterparts. Unauthorized use of a computer is classified in the Code alongside theft rather than breaking and entering. This demonstrates that there may be multiple candidate offenses for a single cybercrime. What can be clearly defined as a separate crime becomes muddled if we try to force it into existing categories. If only for practical reasons, it makes sense to treat it differently.

The global reach of the Internet and the power and flexibility of computers allow us to interact in brand new ways. Sometimes this merely provides a new method to commit an old crime. But there are some crimes—cybercrimes—in which the role of the computer renders them practically distinct.

Posted in Internet, Technology

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« U.S. Stem Cell Patents and Considerations for Reform | The Emerging Recognition of the Importance of Design and Creative Practice in Product/Service Innovation: Moving Away from a Strict Adherence to Technology and the ‘Hard’ Sciences »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736