continued
The initial legislative response to cybercrime has been an outright prohibition and criminalization of the acts which constitute the same as defined by statute. Mere prohibition, however, is insufficient. It may be well to emphasized that the fundamental territorial limitations of criminal law apply most strongly to cybercrime. Often, the offender is miles, nay jurisdictions, away from the actual site of injury. The latter is where most criminal jurisdiction is based.
One tack has been to shift the burden of liability to the manufacturer of software, on the theory that defects in its manufacture enable the perpetration of cybercrime. This, however, unduly shifts the burden because the cost of enforcement, i.e. award of damages in civil cases, is ultimately borne by consumers of digital products. In an emerging economy like the Philippines, it is ultimately unjust to undertake this type of shifting.
Ultimately, the solution lies in international cooperation between states, with respect to law enforcement. Although cybercrime may be perpetrated in cyberspace, the infrastructure which supports cyberspace remain quintessentially real, in terms of location of equipment, servers and phone lines. These elements may constitute the basis for jurisdiction. A close coordination of cybercrime statutes is also necessary in order to effectively stamp out cybercrime anywhere in the world.
Such coordination should be possible. Otherwise, what is the global village---cyberspace in techspeak---for?
by nestor gadrinab
The initial legislative response to cybercrime has been an outright prohibition and criminalization of the acts which constitute the same as defined by statute. Mere prohibition, however, is insufficient. It may be well to emphasized that the fundamental territorial limitations of criminal law apply most strongly to cybercrime. Often, the offender is miles, nay jurisdictions, away from the actual site of injury. The latter is where most criminal jurisdiction is based.
One tack has been to shift the burden of liability to the manufacturer of software, on the theory that defects in its manufacture enable the perpetration of cybercrime. This, however, unduly shifts the burden because the cost of enforcement, i.e. award of damages in civil cases, is ultimately borne by consumers of digital products. In an emerging economy like the Philippines, it is ultimately unjust to undertake this type of shifting.
Ultimately, the solution lies in international cooperation between states, with respect to law enforcement. Although cybercrime may be perpetrated in cyberspace, the infrastructure which supports cyberspace remain quintessentially real, in terms of location of equipment, servers and phone lines. These elements may constitute the basis for jurisdiction. A close coordination of cybercrime statutes is also necessary in order to effectively stamp out cybercrime anywhere in the world.
Such coordination should be possible. Otherwise, what is the global village---cyberspace in techspeak---for?
by nestor gadrinab
1 comment:
True... one of the reasons, I think, why cybercrime makes for such an attractive proposition for malcontents, is that one can perform an act, and reap that act's rewards, in a jurisdiction quite remote from that of the act's victim's. So there's something of a feeling of invulnerability, especially coupled also with the seeming anonymity that can cloak such an act. So there is that whole jurisdictional issue... which as you mentioned is alleviated somewhat by the potential for international cooperation.
Whether or not such cooperation will in fact take place is another story, however. Clearly it should, but in this country, there is no direct correlation between what should be done, and what is actually done.
Post a Comment