• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    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
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Law, Culture, Critique
  • EU Moving Toward New Trade-Mark Regime
  • A Cautionary Kudos: Canada Moves Up on USTR IP Watch List
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (159)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (16)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (56)
  • events (89)
  • Fashion Industry (23)
  • Feature Post (207)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1245)
    • Copyright (619)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (80)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (158)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (16)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (105)
      • Originality (34)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (38)
    • Patents (382)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (76)
    • Trademarks (245)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (179)
    • Canada (82)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (75)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (86)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (65)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (35)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (5)
  • WIPO (18)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

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