Information technologies and organized crime
Date: November 05, 2003Source: Computer Crime Research Center
By:
NextSecondly, “the use of computer technologies” can be qualificatory characteristic to be entered into the law because crime danger increases, control and audit become complicated and so on.
It should be noted that such crime can be committed now completely in the “virtual space”. Dmitrie Chepchougov, a chief of “P” Bureau, told us about a unique crime – a criminal world innovative in its own way. Some teenagers from 16 to 20 years set up their Internet-shop, which sold a wind. Their leader was a skilled swindler: he knew nothing about high technologies but could genially think up criminal schemes. This group was divided into three parts: one sold rating reviews of Russian forest, the other was engaged in breaking credit cards throughout the world and the third group was specialized in making money available. The revelation of this crime was unusual: it required constant twenty-four-hour contacts with the representatives of law enforcement agencies from the USA, Canada, England and France (30).
In our opinion, “the use of computer technologies” can be an aggravated circumstance when committing a crime provided by CC Article 182 “Obviously false advertisement” – when placing it in the network and, moreover, when illegally obtaining and divulging information of commercial, taxation or banking secrets (CC Article 183).
To our mind, CC Articles 186 “Manufacture and marketing of forged money or securities” and 187 “Manufacture or marketing of forged credit or paying cards and other payment documents” do not require to be changed because the method of manufacturing them is not a qualificatory characteristic. It should be noted that juridical practice indicates more increasing role of computer technologies in the mentioned crimes.
Now let us consider CC Chapter 24 “Crimes against social security”. CC Article 207 “Obviously false information on act of terrorism” should have a supplement on the use of information technologies (computer networks) for these purposes. As to CC Article 213 “Hooliganism”, it suffices to realize that there can be computer hooliganism as well rather than introduce any changes into contents of this document. Hackers’ manifestations (unquotable inscriptions and pictures on private and government sites) should be qualified just in this way. In this case, no damage is inflicted either to networks or information. “Evident disrespect for society” or “malicious violation of social morals” is on hand. Advices, recommendations and drawings located on some web sites are difficult to apply directly to CC Article 223 “Illegal manufacture of weapon” but they require lawful assessment.
The same can be referred to CC Chapter 25 Article 228 “Illegal manufacture, purchase, storage, transportation, consignment or marketing of drugs or psychotropic materials”. It is necessary to introduce definite sanctions against spreading them both in Internet and on some information carriers, for example, formulae for their manufacture and use, contact phones and electronic addresses.
It should be noted that Russian criminal legislation in the sphere of crimes against health has not provided for responsibility for such actions connected with the use of computer technologies. Meanwhile, foreign lawmakers provide for such situations now. Thus, US Juridical Committee of Congress Representative Chamber adopted Cyber Security Enhancement Act. According to amendments introduced into Act in February 2002, hackers who committed premeditated murder or caused grave damage to health by using electronic means are threatened with life imprisonment. US Administration considers it insufficient. John Malcolm, one of deputies US attorney general, requires hackers to be sentenced to life imprisonment not only for intentionally inflicting damage to people’s health and prosperity. “Thoughtless” actions such as, for example, “accidental” disturbance of 911 service or hospital operations must be punishable as well. “Even when a hacker did not wish to do harm to patients, his careless conduct can constitute an evident menace to their health and life. Therefore, this law must inflict penalty not only to hackers who break computer networks realizing that their actions will result in people’s death or injuries, but also those who dare to break without thinking about possible circumstances” – said Malcolm (31).
The real facts of just only American juridical practice say about truth and timeliness of this approach. In 1999 in the USA, a murder was committed by penetrating into information network of local hospital and changing life maintaining mode (32).
Undoubtedly, qualificatory characteristic of CC Article 242 “Illegal spreading of pornographic materials and things” should contain “including with the use of computer technologies”.
CC Chapter 29 “Crimes against basis of constitutional structure and State security”
Let us examine “information” approach by citing CC Article 284 “Loss of documents containing State secret” as an example. For some reason the commentator of this article insists, “in context of this article written documents apply to those documents”. Why then are electronic documents with the corresponding stamp not referred to such ones? How else can the careless loss of floppy with a document containing information of State secret be qualified? In our opinion, it should be estimated as the loss of “written” documents. It is clear that in this case some concepts firmly set in the ordinary and juridical conscience should be reviewed. For example, under modern conditions Item 5 “document is considered lost when lacking in the place of constant storage or at the concrete executor who it was given to” “does not work”. Nevertheless, it is a specific character of the electronic document: it can be available and lost at the same time.
It would be advisable to incorporate a qualificatory characteristic “committed by using computer technologies” into CC Articles 292 “Official forgery” (Chapter 30 “Crimes against State power”) and 298 “Aspersion in respect of judge, juror assessor and public prosecutor” (Chapter 31 “Crimes against justice”).
CC Article 303 “Falsification of evidences” requires a special consideration, when different electronic documents (information stored on the computer carriers) are used as such proofs. It is explained by that unlike particularly “material” objects, information on the machine carrier can be falsified in more clever ways. Digital technologies allow falsifying not only written documents but also sound and images. It is clear that we should not be in earnest about Item 12 running: “any carriers of written information can be viewed as evidences in criminal cases”. It should be reminded that USSR Supreme Court admitted various machine documents as evidences nearly twenty-five years ago (33).
Repeatedly mentioned above qualificatory characteristic can be also introduced into CC Articles 327 “Forgery, manufacture and marketing of forged documents” (Chapter 32 “Crimes against administration order”) and 354 “Public appeals to unleashing aggressive war” (Chapter 34 “Crimes against peace and mankind security”) where computer technologies can be used as well.
In conclusion, it should be emphasized once more that there are specific computer crimes, which are not reflected in Criminal Code at all. In particular, the Conception of Russian legislation in the sphere of protecting information (34) points that not only person’s rights to information access and immunity of private life but also protection of person and society from “harmful” information should be taken into account.
One of the most important and less studied directions, which protect and develop vital interests of the society and individually every person, is that connected with methods and ways of protection from information-psychological influence. For this reason, the specialty “Methods and system of protecting information and information security” was introduced into the nomenclature of scientific specialties. The field of scientific research carried out within the framework of this specialty is “to study methods and ways of information-psychological influence on individual persons and human associations with technical means that allow developing means and methods of revelation and manipulating influence and resistance to it” (35). Methods of this influence are well known and the problem of revealing and proving them is quite solvable (36), but Russian criminal law has not provided for any lawful sanctions for the given extremely dangerous crime.
When summing up, the following conclusions can be made:
1) Criminal and legal regulation in the sphere of crimes connected with computer technologies does not fully correspond to the real situation;
2) Many present crimes or possible in future cannot be qualified according to current Criminal Code;
3) The optimal way of removing marked gaps is to introduce amendments qualifying individual crimes into some articles of current Criminal Code and interpret properly (with reference to computer technologies)...
Add comment
Email to a Friend
