Apart from CP what else is illegal with relation to computers and internet etc
db101,
Pretty much any crime that involves a computer. If a person steals information using a computer, it's still theft. If a person stalks another using a computer, it's still harassment. If a person intimidates another using a computer, it's still intimidation. You just have to detail how the computer facilitated the commission of the crime. So, when somebody sends CP through the mail and/or e-mail it's still trafficking. The only difference is that a computer was used.
I hope you understand as I'm getting ready to watch Sunday football
Suspect a faulty premise in the OP.
Unless one were to use a computer to, for instance, pummel a co-worker to death there are few instances when use of a computer is illegal.
But if another crime were suspected and a computer played a part that is an entirely different issue. And one on which (from my experience, at least) there is considerable confusion.
Evil Emails sent "from" an identified computer? Evidence of guilt? Perhaps, just not evidence of the guilt of a particular person. The computer was a tool, the person or persons responsible, well, they are Bad but annonymous.
It took me two years but I finally got this distinction across to a Famous Lawyer. Him "If what you say is true then there is no way to prove any CP, terrorism, or anything involving a computer." Me "Yep." Him "The System will never tolerate that." IOW, a fundamentally flawed tool is better than no tool at all.
Wish I were smart enough to see why.
The system does tolerate that. Every day.
Under that assumption, no tool can be used illegally if it does not contain direct evidence such as fingerprints of the accused. However, when someone makes an admission of guilt involving the tool, it is no longer anonymous.
Yes, you can commit crimes using a computer. Just like you can commit crimes using a telephone. Or a photocopier for that matter. Or a simple pencil and paper.
"Unless one were to use a computer to, for instance, pummel a co-worker to death there are few instances when use of a computer is illegal."
That is about the most inaccurate statement I have seen in a long time.
There are plenty of computer crimes.
In your example you state, "Unless one were to use a computer to, for instance, pummel a co-worker to death," as one of the few instances when use of a computer is illegal. How is that any different from using the computer to create forged currency? The computer is just a tool used to aid the commission of the crime, but it is still a computer crime.
Phishing scams are computer crimes, DoS attacks are computer crimes, unauthorized access of computers is a computer crime. Yet the computer was just a tool, as it was in your bludgeoning example.
And what of the TJX defendants convicted of computer crimes? They were just using sniffers as tools for the exploitation of the unsecured access points and just using computers as tools to further the fraud, but still convicted of computer crimes.
There are plenty of examples
Even the Wikipedia defines
-Cyber Crime
-Malware/Malicious Code
-Denial-Of-Service Attack
-Hacker/Hacking
-Computing Virus
-Cyber Terrorism
-Information Warfare
-Cyber Stalking
-Fraud and Identity Theft
-Phishing
-Virtual Crime
And even has a list of some applicable laws
United States
-ACCESS DEVICE FRAUD. 18 U.S.C. § 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices.
-COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT. 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers.
-CAN-SPAM ACT. 15 U.S.C. § 7704. Controlling The Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003.
-EXTORTION AND THREATS. 18 U.S.C. § 875. EXTORTION and THREATS. Interstate communications.
-IDENTITY THEFT AND ASSUMPTION DETERRENCE ACT of 1998. 18 U.S.C. § 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information.
-WIRE FRAUD. 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television.
-No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. 17 U.S.C. § 506. Criminal Offenses. (criminal copyright infringement)
-Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) . 17 U.S.C. § 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems.
-Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS)
-Trade Secrets Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1832. Theft of trade secrets.
-Economic Espionage Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1831. Economic Espionage.
Canada
-Criminal Code of Canada, Section 342. Unauthorized Use of Computer.
-Criminal Code of Canada, Section 184. Interception of Communications
United Kingdom
-The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (chapter 18.)
-The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (chapter 23.)
-The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (chapter 24.)
-The Data Protection Act 1998 (chapter 29.)
-The Fraud Act 2006 (chapter 35.)
-Potentially the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (chapter 45) may also apply in relation to forgery of electronic payment instruments accepted within the United Kingdom.
-The CMA was recently amended by the Police and Justice Act 2006 (chapter 48)
-The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2426.)
Australia
-Cybercrime Act 2001 (Commonwealth)
-Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Part 6, ss 308-308I.
-Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 (WA) Section 440a, -Unauthorised use of a computer system
Malaysia
Computer Crimes Act 1997 (Act 563)
Singapore
Computer Misuse Act 1993 (Chapter 50A)
Venezuela
Special Computer Crimes Act (Ley Especial de Delitos Informáticos, In Spanish)
(1) Repeat after me Wiki[pedia, anything else] is NOT a source. If high school teachers no longer accept this "resource" then why should LE types? Because it is "on the computer" and has a presumption of reliability?
(2) Computer as tool vs. "computer crime" is still unclear. The extensive list provided by BitHead ("All that work just for me?" >Blush<) in in fact a list of "non-computer" crimes facilitated… you get the idea. Fraud, B&E, trespassing, theft, all the Tried & True crimes merely executed by a more modern method. Instead of a crooked accountant keeping paper ledgers he now does so with digital spreadsheets.
But… try to follow me here… if the "evidence" used to establish guilt is solely digital, that does not have the same, well, veracity as older media items. Would you trust an Excel spreadsheet– even if printed out? I would prefer physical ledger books with all the marks, faded ink, personal touches– to include DNA– that establish it as real. Did this suspect accountant actually keep this second set of books? (Example, I am not an accountant.) Excel, there is no way to tell– the best one can do is say, "It is likely." A physical ledger with the suspect's fingerprints on every page– that I would trust.
Perhaps a test of a "computer crime" would be if it can ONLY be accomplished by a computer. Nothing else. Candidates? Even a denial of service attack could be achieved by, for instance, giving the cell phone number of the system admin to an accolyte of the Church of the Proselytizer. Or even calling in a false fire alarm on the server building.
But here we go again. My claim is that DF only complements "real evidence" in the same way hearsay does. May (or may not) give you a direction to gumshoe but by itself, in isolation, seriously lacks cred.
I just love our little discussions, don't you?
(1) Repeat after me Wiki[pedia, anything else] is NOT a source. If high school teachers no longer accept this "resource" then why should LE types? Because it is "on the computer" and has a presumption of reliability?
Repeat after me "EVEN the Wikipedia defines types of computer crimes." As in the irony of it all. Perhaps you should read the post before you fire off a reply. And again a slam of LE, and I am not even on the public dole.
(2) Computer as tool vs. "computer crime" is still unclear.
That is for the lawyers to fight over. Fortunately there are many laws on the books that seem to define it just fine.
But… try to follow me here… if the "evidence" used to establish guilt is solely digital, that does not have the same, well, veracity as older media items. Would you trust an Excel spreadsheet– even if printed out? I would prefer physical ledger books with all the marks, faded ink, personal touches– to include DNA– that establish it as real. Did this suspect accountant actually keep this second set of books? (Example, I am not an accountant.) Excel, there is no way to tell– the best one can do is say, "It is likely." A physical ledger with the suspect's fingerprints on every page– that I would trust.
Unfortunately that is a bad example. Changes were rarely made to the official company books. There are far better ways to hide financial malfeasance than making changes to the ledger.
But here we go again. My claim is that DF only complements "real evidence" in the same way hearsay does. May (or may not) give you a direction to gumshoe but by itself, in isolation, seriously lacks cred.
I disagree that DF only complements "real evidence." DF is as "real" as any other type of evidence (I am guessing you are referring to physical evidence rather than "real" evidence) and that includes eye witnesses. Eye witnesses can lie and be mistaken. DNA can be transferred. Give an example and there are surely exceptions. It is only through a preponderance of the evidence that guilt is typically assigned.
Try to follow me here . . . Let's look at your suspect accountant. If your accountant worked in an "old fashion" shop that relied on paper ledgers there are hundreds of ways to steal money that have nothing to do with changing entries in the ledger (and trust me I have seen a lot of ways), yet there are a lot of fingerprints on every page that have no meaning other than to prove he/she was at work touching the pages. Small companies rarely follow GAP and the separation of duties properly to reduce the risk of fraud. Because this is a paper shop it is much more difficult to follow the money, especially since there is no "evidence" in the GL.
Still following? Let's say your same suspect accountant (more likely a bookkeeper) works in a business that has at least made it into the late 80's and uses Peachtree and a POS system. You still have useless fingerprints on a keyboard that have nothing to do with anything. If the business does not follow GAP there are still many ways to steal money that never touch the GL or POS system.
Now following a little of your gumshoe idea, let's follow the money. Oh wait in your scenario you have fingerprints on the ledger. Well case solved. The suspect accountant did it. Uh, did what touched the books?
Fortunately in the modern world where we live and work our trade there is a trail of electronic evidence to follow where the bookkeeper put the money and spent the money even though he/she never did anything fraudulent to the GL.
I just love our little discussions, don't you?
Absolutely.
Apart from CP what else is illegal with relation to computers and internet etc
.
Geez.. all of these posts and we got into a discussion of how to define a computer crime.?? The question is a bit vague and I am not sure where you are headed. Is it for a paper or something and you need talking points?
It seems the question could have been posed to Google or another search engine and you would have come up with tons of Regionalized examples of Computer Crimes or "Computer Involved Crimes".
Needless to say… in my state we have an entire chapter of the Crimes code on Computer crimes entitled "Computer Offenses". The things like "Hacking" - Aka "Unlawful use of computer", "Computer Theft" , "distribution of a computer virus" are included…
Hell even this new section "Computer Assisted Remote Harvesting of animals" - Jeez.. I didn't even know that section existed.. See I learned something today..
Rob
Well say I used pornographic language now on this forum. Would I be arrested?!
BitHead–
Thanks for the guided tour through the minutia of forensic accounting– what is GAP, GL, POS, ledgers? Beancounter stuff, I guess. Yet, I still wallow in my ignorance. That is, why the blind faith in "computers?" Or, in the old hacker phrase GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. The "GI" part is what (should) concern anyone who relies on DF.