#computermisuse

[akramlawca]

Workplace-Related Criminal Charges

Workplace crimes like computer misuse, privacy violations, and breach of confidentiality can lead to serious charges in Calgary. Know your legal risks and rights.

[medialawreview]

[Coronavirus] Cybercrime rises during coronavirus pandemic

Cybercrime and cyberattacks have increased due to the coronavirus outbreak. As a result, the World Health Organization, hospitals and research centres are being targeted by organised cybercriminals - searching for information, intelligence, and systems ac...

30 March 2020

[medialawreview]

COVID-19: Hackers Begin Exploiting Zoom's Overnight Success to Spread Malware

Covid-19 Impact: Hackers Begin Exploiting Zoom's Overnight Success to Spread Malware During Coronavirus Outbreak With Fake Domains and Websites.

30 March 2020

[medialawreview]

Russia busts card fraud ring that included an infamous hacker

Russia tends to turn a blind eye to some fraudsters and hackers, but it just clamped down on a particularly large group. Investigators have charged at least 25 people involved in a credit card fraud ring that included a notorious hacker. While Russian authorities didn't provide a formal list of those caught in the bust, records and security blogger Andrey Sporov have revealed that one of those arrsted was Alexey Stroganov, also known as "Flint." As a Krebs on Security source said, Stroganov apparently had a stake in "almost every major [card] hack" from the past 10 years, and sent "hundreds of millions of dollars" through the seized cryptocurrency exchange BTC-e.

30 March 2020

[atoms-and-bits-blog]

Hackers are humans too.

I started reading ‘Hacked: A radical approach to hacker culture and crime’ the other day, and the anthropologist in me was hooked. Through a vibrant ethnographic exploration, Kevin F. Steinmetz has managed to draw out the motivation, skill and humanity behind the ‘craft’ of hacking. Yes. Craft. 

And so, I decided that the law on computer misuse deserved a second look.

We’re taught as law students to view hacking as criminal, to put it in a box of ‘unauthorised’ ‘antisocial’ behaviour and leave the judges to impose their retributive justice. However, the law is an absolute struggle fest. I’m not just talking about prosecution rates, I’m talking about substantive oversights and regulatory undersights (is that a word?). Consider R v Cuthbert in which the defendant, wanting to ensure his charitable donation was actually going to the right people, fell afoul of s.1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 when he tested the website’s security. Or Bignell, in which the court determined that unauthorised access was completely distinct from that of unauthorised purpose; an arguably nonsensical decision.

We therefore turn, as one must, to the challenge of regulating the Internet and the following two policy approaches that demonstrate how our current approach to low-level cybercrime can be altered.

Kevin Steinmetz contends that by demystifying the social construction of hacking, legislators would be better equipped to develop an effective regulatory response. In his words: ‘hacking is an intrinsically human social and cultural phenomenon’ (216), which has been criminalised by a capitalist society. This approach illustrates what was effectively missing from early cyber-legislation, focused mainly on emulating the law of trespass and preventing access to computer networks. By developing a cultural understanding of technologically skilled consumers, distinct from that of dangerous criminals, the Cuthbert case would have had a very different outcome.

Furthermore, cultural and practical understandings of computer culture have already proved useful for software developers, who now benefit from exceptions under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Stefan Fafinski suggests that domestic criminal law is inappropriate on its own to control computer misuse. In particular, Fafinski argues that theoretical understandings of criminal law fail to provide a justification for its wide application in the area of computer misuse. Instead, he advocates for a ‘constellation of control’ consisting of global extra-legal solutions. I find Fafinski’s proposal particularly interesting as he suggests that in order to effectively moderate this form cybercrime, regulative responses must attempt to mirror the digital architecture of the internet. More specifically, regulation must employ flexible, extra jurisdictional solutions on both state and individual levels in order to be effective.

In sum, the law of computer misuse has suffered a particularly turbulent history. Its critics have sighted lack of solid theoretical basis, of cultural sensitivity and a one-track regulatory response as the cause. However, there is hope. With many parts of internet law, it takes a Lessig-like recognition of competing influences in order to make this work.