Answer

Incorporation of Theft Laws in Cyber Crime

Of those three existing tools (trespass, burglary, and theft), why is “theft” (and theft by “fraud”) the more likely choice to regulate these new offenses in cyberspace (un-authorized access, changing or deleting data, or denying access) (pp. 14-16)?

In general, attempts to prosecute computer misuse as theft pursue a reasonably clear logic. The idea goes, the defendant committed fraud, the taking of property belonging to another, by disrupting intended rights relating to a device (Kerr, 2018). Both virtual and natural bodies are affected by cybercrime, but the effects on both are different. In the case of identity fraud, this phenomenon is most evident. For instance, taxes are collected in the United States based on each person’s Social Security number, and many private institutions use the number to keep track of their staff, students, and patients. Entry to the Social Security number of an individual offers the ability to collect all the documents related to that person’s citizenship — in other words, to steal his identity. When criminals steal the credit card records of a corporation, they cause two different consequences. Firstly, with digital knowledge gathered about people that are useful in many ways, they make off. They might use the credit card information, for example, to run up big bills, causing the credit card companies to incur significant losses, or sell the information to someone who can use it similarly.

What are the limitations of using “theft” to prevent “computer misuse” in cyberspace? (pp. 16-30).

In the case of State v McGraw, Defendant did not deprive the City of the “use of computers and computer services” as the information alleged that he intended to do (Kerr, 2018). At first sight, this reasoning may seem logical, but it poses serious problems identifying a property interest and then knowing when the property has been taken. Theft laws assume the presence of an identifiable piece of property, some clearly-defined “thing,” that when taken deprives the owner of its bounty. In the case of tangible real estate, we can grasp this quickly. For example, if someone steals my bicycle, it is easy to locate the stolen property (the bicycle) and to say if I have been robbed of it or not (either I have the bicycle or I don’t). Recognizing a property interest and then concluding that someone took it may require considerable creativity in the case of computer misuse (Kerr, 2018).

What sort of substantive law could respond to the new facts of cyberspace? And how does the law actually work?

Until now, the policy-based solutions proposed to imply law, education, the responsibility of the industry, and technology itself as potential solutions to the range of cybercrimes, at least in part. A further mode of regulation is introduced in the article by Kerr (2018). It considers the economics of security seals, that is, an indicator on a website that it is secure (and thus carries greater security against data breaches). Regardless of whether market forces effectively regulate privacy and protection, concluding that unilateral regulation can damage customers who would not pay attention whether or not they are covered but will have to bear the indirect cost of enforcement in the form of higher prices.

.