Área de planchado

14 _{World Economic Forum, 2012. The Global Information Technology Report 2012: Living in a Hyperconnected World.}

15 _{Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation, 2012. The Socio-Economic Impact of Broadband in sub-Saharan Africa: The Satellite}

Advantage.

16 _{World Economic Forum, 2012. The Global Information Technology Report 2012: Living in a Hyperconnected World.}

Key results:

• Computer-related crime is a long-established phenomenon, but the growth of global connectivity is inseparably tied to the development of contemporary cybercrime

• Today’s cybercrime activities focus on utilizing globalized information communication technology for committing criminal acts with transnational reach

• Some cybercrime is committed using stand-alone or closed computer systems, although much less frequently

Figure 1.4: Global submarine cables

CHAPTER ONE:CONNECTIVITY AND CYBERCRIME

the internet – just as with other means enhancing capabilities of human interaction – can be used for criminal activity. While computer-related crime, or computer crime, is a comparatively long- established phenomenon, the growth of global connectivity is inherent to contemporary cybercrime. Computer-related acts including physical damage to computer systems and stored data;17

unauthorized use of computer systems and the manipulation of electronic data;18 _{computer-related}

fraud;19 _{and software piracy}20 _{have been recognized as criminal offences since the 1960s.}

In 1994, the United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Control of Computer Related Crime noted that fraud by computer manipulation; computer forgery; damage to or modifications of computer data or programs; unauthorized access to computer systems and service; and unauthorized reproduction of legally protected computer programs were common types of computer crime.21

While such acts were often considered local crimes concerning stand-alone or closed systems, the international dimension of computer crime and related criminal legislation was recognized as early as 1979. A presentation on computer fraud at the Third INTERPOL Symposium on International Fraud, held from 11 to 13 December 1979, emphasized that ‘the nature

of computer crime is international, because of the steadily increasing communications by telephones, satellites etc., between the different countries.’22

The core concept at the heart of today’s cybercrime remains exactly that – the idea that converging globalized information communication technology may be used for committing criminal acts, with transnational reach.

These acts may include all of the computer-related crimes listed above, in addition to many others, such as those related to computer or internet content,23 _{or computer-related acts for personal}

or financial gain.24 _{As set out in this Chapter, this Study does not ‘define’ contemporary cybercrime}

as such. It rather describes it as a list of acts which constitute cybercrime. Nonetheless, it is clear that the focus is on the misuse of ICT from a global perspective. More than half of responding countries, for example, reported that between 50 and 100 per cent of cybercrime acts encountered by the police involve a transnational element.25 _{Respondents referred to cybercrime as a ‘global phenomenon’}

and noted that ‘online communication invariably involves international or transnational dimensions.’26

Placing the focus on global connectivity does not exclude crimes involving stand-alone or closed computer systems from the scope of cybercrime.27 _{Interestingly, while law enforcement}

officials in developed countries typically identified a high proportion of cybercrime with a transnational element, those in developing countries tended to identify a much lower proportion –       

17 _{Regarding related challenges, see Slivka, R.T., and Darrow, J.W., 1975. Methods and Problems in Computer Security. Rutgers Journal}

of Computers and Law, 5:217.  

18 _{United States Congress, 1977. Bill S.1766, The Federal Computer Systems Protection Act, 95th Congress, 1st Session., 123 Cong. Rec. 20,}

953 (1977).  

19 _{Glyn, E.A., 1983. Computer Abuse: The Emerging Crime and the Need for Legislation. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 12(1):73-101.}  20 _{Schmidt, W.E., 1981. Legal Proprietary Interests in Computer Programs: The American Experience. Jurimetrics Journal, 21:345.}   21 _{United Nations, 1994. UN Manual on the Prevention and Control of Computer Related Crime.} 

22 _{INTERPOL, 1979. Third INTERPOL Symposium on International Fraud, Paris 11-13 December 1979.} 

23 _{Including computer-related acts involving racism or xenophobia, or computer-related production, distribution, or possession of}

child pornography. 

24 _{Including computer-related identity offences, and computer-related copyright and trademark offences.}  25 _{Study cybercrime questionnaire. Q83.} 

26 _Ibid. 

27 _{Some approaches hold that cybercrime is narrower than ‘computer-related’ crime, insofar as cybercrime is said to require the}

involvement of a computer network – thereby excluding crimes committed using a stand-alone computer system. While focusing on the feature of connectivity, this Study does not strictly exclude stand-alone or closed computer systems from the scope of cybercrime. Thus, the term ‘cybercrime’ is used to describe a range of offences including traditional computer crimes, as well as network crimes. 

6

fewer than 10 per cent in some cases.28 _{On the one hand, this may indicate that cybercrime}

perpetrators in developing countries focus more on domestic victims and (possibly, stand-alone) computer systems. On the other, it may also be the case that, due to capacity challenges, law enforcement in developing countries less frequently identify, or engage with, foreign service providers or potential victims linked with national cases.

Nonetheless, the reality of global connectivity must be considered as a central element to contemporary cybercrime and, in particular, the cybercrime of tomorrow. As cyberspace and IP traffic grows,29 _{as traffic from wireless devices exceeds traffic from wired devices, and as more}

internet traffic originates from non-PC devices, it may become hard to imagine a ‘computer’ crime without the fact of IP connectivity. The particularly personal nature of mobile devices, and the emergence of IP-connected household or personal effects, means that electronic data and transmissions could even be generated by, or become integral to, almost every human action – whether legal or illegal.