Fighting cybercrime

THE "LOVE Bug" bit hard around the world. Two weeks ago the most dangerous e-mail virus ever rampaged through the global system of electronic communication within hours. Industry experts say the Love Bug was more dangerous and spread much faster than the Melissa virus which caused damage estimated at US$80 million last year.

The bug was traced to the Philippines and arrests were made. But investigators had to delay the raid on the premises of suspects for several days while the authorities checked on laws which could be applied.

The growth of cybercrimes has outpaced the international legal framework for dealing with them. The very nature of the Internet makes these criminal activities truly transnational.

For three days this week leaders from the Group of Eight countries - the world's leading industrialised nations - are meeting in Paris to discuss Internet crime and to develop ways to work together to reduce attacks against the system and crimes committed through the system. The 41-nation Council of Europe, in collaboration with the US, Canada and Japan, is also seeking to draft a treaty to standardise cybercrime laws.

The criminals know how to exploit the absence of laws against cybercrime in particular countries. Earlier on, for example, attacks were often routed through The Netherlands which did not then have adequate laws for prosecution.

There are few countries outside of the most advanced which have developed a legal framework for dealing with cybercrime. The Philippines had no specific law for quick action against the Love Bug suspects. As far as we know Jamaica is not even on its way toward establishing appropriate legislation. It can be expected that sophisticated cybercriminals will seek safe haven in countries with loopholes in their legislation.

The vulnerability of the system at any point will require international co-operation for successful anti-crime action. But the thorny issue of privacy on the Net comes up. For the whole basis of prosecution is the ability to monitor and identify who sends what, when and where over the Internet. It would be naive to believe that this capacity will be limited to tracking criminals.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.

Back to Commentary