Cyberlaw: Handcuffed by definitions
The issue of online or computer-related criminal activity in Australia is one fraught with much uncertainty, particularly since authorities such as the Federal Police are unsure as to the actual extent of the problem.In a report submitted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) last year, entitled "The Virtual Horizon: Meeting The Law Enforcement Challenges-Developing an Australasian law enforcement strategy for dealing with electronic crime", it stated that although there was a greater degree of co-ordination between national authorities, the level of the problem in Australia is not fully understood.
An article based on the report, which appeared in the AFP's journal, Platypus, last December, Steve Jiggins, director of the AFP's media and public relations, highlighted the issues of attempting to measure the problem. "Electronic crime varies in its manifestations, so it is difficult to discuss in terms of aggregate incidence and impact," he writes. "As a result, definitive information on the present extent and impact of electronic crime in Australia, New Zealand and overseas is not available."
But it is often the victim of these crimes that are resistant to informing authorities of electronic crime. "A significant amount of this crime is simply not reported," explained Jiggins. "This is in part... to avoid any potentially adverse impact on consumer confidence, or perhaps because of a lack of confidence in the capacity of law enforcement to deal with such issues in a timely way."
According to the report, only two major Australian studies had been done to establish the extent of the problem--one in 1997 conducted by the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments (OSCA) and the Victoria Police, and one in 1999 by the Victorian Police and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.
The study from 1997 concluded that 37 percent of businesses had been subjected to some form of electronic attack or unauthorised computer access. Of those that were attacked, 90 percent experienced some breach from within the organisation and 60 percent were external. The 1999 study offered similar results but also concluded that of those organisations that were attacked, 42 percent didn't even report the breach. Also, of those companies that experienced a breach, one third refused to provide a dollar value on what damage or loss had been incurred.
Another issue which complicates the matter is that cybercrime, or rather computer-related crime, covers so much ground that it can't necessarily be covered under one banner for protection. The AFP outlines several electronic crimes including: theft of telecommunications services (much like the phone phreakers of old), communications for the advancement of criminal conspiracies, piracy, dissemination of offensive material (which often relates to offences such as cyberstalking), electronic money laundering and tax evasion, electronic vandalism and terrorism, sales and investment fraud, illegal interception of telecommunications signals, and electronic funds transfer fraud.
Nevertheless, one of the important facets of what is outlined in the report is that the majority of electronic crime revolves around traditional forms of criminal offence. The report explains, "While some behaviour is new, such as hacking and denial of service attacks, the majority of offending involving the use of technology is traditional crimes where the computer is an instrument/tool or a target."
