International Legal Instruments Which Targets the Cyber Crimes Worldwide
The United States has actively participated in cooperation between the G8, the OECD, EPA, OAS, and the United States and China in the fight against international cybercrime. Although there is no specific sustainable development goal to combat cybercrime, cybercrime can be seen as an obstacle to achieving a number of goals. One of these is SDG 16, Peace, justice and strong institutions, and its sub-goals (goals 16.1, 16.4, 16.5), which relate to violence and other forms of crime such as corruption and arms trafficking. The Convention on Cybercrime is considered an important step in the field of international harmonization of cybercrime law.58 However, in addition to being a significant step forward, more states need to sign the Convention and comply with its mandates in order to act as a deterrent. International harmonisation, which focuses on the Convention, is obviously limited and necessarily needs to be extended to a larger number of participating Member States with an even wider range of issues. The final effect should only be achieved by a universal agreement to fight cybercrime. The United Nations may have a greater potential to implement such universal measures. However, we should not expect an immediate response from either of the international organisations, as these international organisations do not focus too much attention and interest on the problem of crime or, more specifically, on cybercrime. As these organizations deal with the most important international affairs, threats to critical information infrastructure become more serious until they are at the top of these organizations` agendas. Therefore, the development of an international level of consciousness and an international level, the demand for a national level of consciousness, are always the basis for effective action. There is a need to reassess and, if necessary, renew the current international legal frameworks in order to provide a framework for a broader international debate, reflecting the prospect of enhanced and advanced international cooperation between national authorities.
Such developments should take into account the impact of new and emerging issues related to international law enforcement cooperation, with capacity-building recommendations that should show the same concern for the situation in countries at different stages of development, in order to avoid a future without a future of information chaos. In enforcing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the United States itself has struggled to balance the line between legitimate computer research and criminal access to a computer system. In particular, in the case of vulnerability research, certain vulnerability identifications and tests could potentially, albeit accidentally, cause effects that some might claim to be “interference” with a computer system that violates the CFAA. This has led many critics to argue that important cybersecurity research, including vulnerability research, is unnecessarily threatened by the specter of potential federal lawsuits. Many technology companies that provide cybersecurity services or products, as well as enterprise security services, rely on the ability to gain and leverage actionable insights into cybersecurity vulnerabilities to protect their systems, the many consumers they serve, and the broader cybersecurity ecosystem. The importance of isolating bona fide security researchers from cybercrime laws has recently been recognized by the United States. The Department of Justice, which announced a new policy for federal prosecutors investigating possible violations of the CFAA. This policy specifically discourages prosecutors from prosecuting security researchers in good faith for violations of the law. In 1995, the European Parliament and the Council approved Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on data flows. Section VIII of the Directive deals specifically with the confidentiality and security of the processing of personal data. The Directive applied to the protection of natural persons (Article 2(a)).
The scope of the Directive was limited to the processing of personal data, wholly or partly by automatic means (Article 3(1)). The Directive requires that appropriate technical and organisational measures be taken to protect personal data against unlawful destruction, alteration, unlawful access and other unlawful forms of processing (Article 17(1)). A number of agencies have been created in the United States to combat cybercrime, including the FBI, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, the National White Collar Crime Center, the Internet Fraud Complaint Center, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ), the DoJ`s Hacking and Intellectual Property Division, and the Computer Emergency Preparedness/Coordination Center (CERT/CC) team at Carnegie-Mellon. And so on. [2] Recommendation R. No. (89) 9 recognised the importance of an adequate and rapid response to the new challenge of cybercrime, which is often cross-border in nature, and recommended that governments examine the report on cybercrime prepared by the European Committee on Crime Problems. Although there are a number of treaties and conventions of different scope dealing with cybercrime, there is no United Nations legal instrument on cybercrime. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) play an important role in ensuring interoperability and security based on global standards. In the fight against cybercrime, general countermeasures have been taken, such as: legal measures to improve legislation and technical measures to detect crimes on the network, control Internet content, use public or private proxies and computer forensics, encrypt and plausibly deny, etc.[2] Due to the heterogeneity of law enforcement and technical countermeasures in different countries, This article focuses mainly on legislative and regulatory initiatives of international cooperation. A UN treaty on cybercrime is finally on the way after years of discussions.
The UN General Assembly voted in December 2019 to begin negotiating a treaty – a treaty that focuses on cybercrime, but also has the potential to develop many policies globally with important human rights implications.