{"id":1111,"date":"2018-10-16T05:34:26","date_gmt":"2018-10-16T05:34:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mchmelar.cz\/?p=1111"},"modified":"2024-12-02T22:38:18","modified_gmt":"2024-12-02T22:38:18","slug":"cybercrime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/?p=1111","title":{"rendered":"Cybercrime"},"content":{"rendered":"\n1) Computer assisted crime\n2) Computer content crime\n3) Computer integrity crime (a newcomer with computers)\none has to be much more precious while investigating cybercrime, otherwise, the criminal doesn’t go to jail. Prosecutor\u00a0have to show that you have a pretty good idea or you wanted to do this. “Did you really mean to do that?” => need to look for guilty mind\/ intention.\n\n\nElements have to be proven during procedures. Much less flexibility within laws. If there are too many details, but they would be so useful. Or there would have to be too many laws.\n\n\n \n\n\nBotnet directive<\/strong>\nStates of EU has common directive 2013\/40\/EU\nbased on cybercrime convention\n\n\norganized crime\n\n\nCybercrime convention<\/u><\/strong>\nhttps:\/\/moodle.hitsa.ee\/pluginfile.php\/968253\/mod_resource\/content\/3\/CoE-011123-ConventiononCybercrime.pdf<\/a>\nEU, Budapest\u00a02001\n61 states involved (also out of Europe, anybody can sign)\nother countries are taking it as a draft. Practically, it has a great influence.\nNational laws have to be based on this convention. Exact implementation\u00a0s up to the country.\nThe computer system according to chapter 1, article 1 could be Smartphone, Smart Fridge, IoT teddybear, Parking ticket machine…\nFor example<\/u>\nArticle 2 \u2013 Illegal access\nEach Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally,<\/strong> the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without righ<\/strong>t. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent<\/strong>, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.\nArticle 3\u00a0\u2013 Illegal interception\nEach Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to\nestablish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the\ninterception without right, made by technical means, of non-public transmissions of\ncomputer data to, from or within a computer system, including electromagnetic emissions\nfrom a computer system carrying such computer data. A Party may require that the offence\nbe committed with dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to\nanother computer system.\nBTW no wiki page<\/a>\n \n\n\n
\n\n\nthe article: THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME<\/strong>:DEFINING<\/strong> \u2018CRIME\u2019 IN A DIGITAL WORLD\u00a0<\/strong>\nhttps:\/\/moodle.hitsa.ee\/pluginfile.php\/2568445\/mod_resource\/content\/2\/Cybercrime%20Convention%20_article.pdf<\/a>\ndescibes what is cybercrime, international cooperation, procedural law\n
<\/div>\nthe article: The hazards of cyber-vigilantism<\/strong>\nhttps:\/\/moodle.hitsa.ee\/pluginfile.php\/2568446\/mod_resource\/content\/2\/Cyber%20vigilantism%20article.pdf\n<\/a>speaking about anonymous and other groups fighting against cyber criminals and how legal it is..\n“cyber-vigilantism can lead to several negativeconsequences”\n“Courts and policymakers generally disfavour vigilantism”\n“,because vigilantes operateoutside of the legal system, there is not a \u201cquality control\u201dmechanism to assure a minimum level of preparedness.”\n\u201dAlthough vigilantes may be able to impose their own forms of \u201cjustice\u201d more quickly than the government, they often lack the skills of making a full and fair determination about whether their target is actually a bad actor”\n“Vigilantism also has the potential to escalate tensions andlead to an overall greater amount of violence and criminal activity”\n\n\n“In sum, strong computer hacking laws provide a baselineof expertise and coordination for operations against criminalsand terrorists. Although some vigilantes may be as skilledas government actors, providing a vigilante exception to computerhacking laws could lead to less effective law enforcementby disrupting ongoing government strategies.”\n“Accordingly, allowing vigilantism by adding an exception to computer hacking laws would increase the likelihood of abuse, and there are no sure-fire safeguards against improper motives”\n“For instance,China and Russia have long relied on private parties to mountoffensive cyber operations. By allowing similar private sectorvigilantism by domestic actors, the United States, EuropeanUnion member states, and other governments could not aseasily pressure Russia and China to crack down on their owndomestic hackers.5”\n“As an alternative to cyber-vigilantism, private parties could collaboratewith the government and each other to fight cybercriminals, terrorists, and other bad actors”\n“Private actors \u2013 ranging from large corporations to anonymoushacktivists \u2013 often possess a great deal of valuableinformation that helps governments fight cybercrime, terroristpropaganda, and other threats. Policies should ensure thatthese private actors can share the information in the most effectivemanner possible.”\n“white hat hackers who independently conduct researchwithout the permission of the organizations that ownthe systems or networks that are the subject of the researchmight face prosecution under computer hacking laws”\n\n\n“First<\/strong>, law enforcement officials should clarify the precise authorizationthat ethical hackers must obtain from companiesto prevent the possibility of prosecution under computerhacking laws. Compliance with these guidelines could providehackers with a limited safe harbour from prosecution and civilsuits. This would provide \u201cwhite-hat\u201d hackers with the certainty that they need to help companies determine their network and system vulnerabilities.\nSecond<\/strong>, governments should consider programs that encourage companies to engage independent security professionals,such as tax incentives. For instance, if a company hiredan outside cybersecurity consultant to assess its network andsystem vulnerabilities, it could receive a dollar-for-dollar taxcredit for those expenses, up to a maximum limit set by statute.The tax credit could be modelled after programs that providesimilar incentives for corporate investments in research anddevelopment. Such a policy would help to encourage companiesto make costly investments that they otherwise would nothave made.\nThird,<\/strong> governments should more frequently engage whitehat hackers to assess the vulnerability of government networks.To do so, government agencies likely would need toidentify third parties who could obtain the necessary securityclearances, and who would be willing to sign non-disclosureagreements. However, such arrangements could help governmentagencies uncover vulnerabilities that they otherwise wouldnot have identified, preventing incidents such as the 2015 breachof the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which led to thedisclosure of millions of government employees\u2019 security clearanceapplications.72 Engaging white hat hackers would helpthe government improve security of public sector networks,and it also would encourage private companies to take similarsteps.”\n\n\nvigilant are\u00a0<\/em>usuallz<\/em>\u00a0faster than governments,\u00a0<\/em>thez<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>dont<\/em>\u00a0have to\u00a0<\/em>obstacle<\/em>\u00a0with all\u00a0<\/em>permisions<\/em>\u00a0and laws<\/em><\/u>\n“the private and public sectors should continue to develop mechanisms in which they can work together to battle bad actors in cyberspace, with government preserving their law-making, enforcement, and adjudication roles.”\n\n\n
\n\n\nConclusions<\/strong>\nLegal tools need to be adopted by all countries\nEmphasis on harmonization and cooperation\nMake use of already existing instruments?\nShould be an integral part\u00a0of a national cyber sec. strategy.\n\n\nCase<\/strong> studies\n<\/strong>Case1 bobby as a police oficcer is requesting a data about a car which is standing in front of his house, asking operator\u00a0about confirmation. Access to computer access (article 2) deals with physical access only, not data! Judge has to decide if that is unauthorised access. We can argue only. Especially about a definition of accessing computer\nCase 2\nkeylogger is an interception. Recording Skype is also an interception. The bug is most likely to be an interception, but not necessary under cybercrime\u00a0convention.\nCase 3 Comunnication\u00a0using drafts\nIn Estonia is interception only while email is send. In some countries could be the whole proecess from draft to receiving.\nCase 4 taking a phone\nIn Estonia it wouldnt be interception, because its stored. In some countries it can be taken as interception of communication\u00a0process.\nCase 5 UFO in Russia\nIllegal interception, illegal\u00a0access, data interference. He meant to do this. Copying\u00a0is not part Data interference (article 4). The loss in reputation could arise a cost of damage. Then it would be considered as a serious harm (article 4) and copying\u00a0data would be Data interference.\nCase 6 Spambot sending a Malware\nWhen u write something on computers hard drive\u00a0it is\u00a0an alteration of data already. In criminal law, you can’t punish a person for what he hasn’t done yet. System interference is considering serious hindering, but where is the line?\nCase 7\nspam 7 000 000 mails per hour to server of his previous work. Hindering a data -> system interference.\nCase 8\nhis intention was to acces a system, therefore it is not applicable article 5.\nCase 10\nEncryption software is not illegal\nCase 12\nArticel\u00a07 – computer related forgery\nCase 13\ndata used only for personal uses, no computer related forgery.\nCase 14\nIntention, what happend\nPost message = input data. Loss = someone bought shares. Bobby had a profit. This is not\u00a0computer\u00a0related fraud. We can’t prove that it was the only reason to increase the stock price.\n\n\nMisuse of devices\n<\/strong>for penetration testers, it is a criminal offence when there is no authorisation. There is a must to have a contract mentioning this.\u00a0<\/span>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1) Computer assisted crime 2) Computer content crime 3) Computer integrity crime (a newcomer with computers) one has to be much more precious while investigating cybercrime, otherwise, the criminal doesn’t go to jail. Prosecutor\u00a0have to show that you have a pretty good idea or you wanted to do this. “Did you really mean to do that?” => need to look...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[55],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1111"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1111"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1111\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5781,"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1111\/revisions\/5781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kb.mchmelar.cz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}