What's your take on the following paper?
CYBERCRIME: THE CHALLENGE TO LEVIATHAN?
Is the Technology of the Information Age, in the Hands of Criminal Elements, Contributing to the Erosion of State Sovereignty?
ABSTRACT
The idea of state sovereignty is ultimately based on coercive force; when the ability of the state to use force declines, its sovereignty begins to crumble. This paper will analize the power relationship between criminals and the state and argue that the legitimate sovereignty of the state is eroding because it is increasingly unable to defend its territory, protect private property, or exercise effective control over the information and wealth which its people have access to. The argument will be divided into three parts: first, the theoretical concepts will be defined; second, the empirical evidence will be discussed; and third, the evidence will be analyzed and its consequences addressed.
CONTENTS
Introduction: pp 1-2
PART I
Cyberspace: pp 2-3
Sovereignty: pp 3-5
Cybercrime: pp 6-8
Cybercrime and its Impact on the Sovereign State: pp 8-9
PART II
Soliciting Controlled Information: pp 9-14
Espionage: pp 14-19
Theft: pp 19-23
Strategic Information Theft: pp 20-21
Embezzlement: pp 21-23
Information Warfare: pp 23-26
Economic Sabotage & Extortion: pp 24-25
Terrorism: pp 25-26
PART III
The International Dimension of Cybercrime: pp 26-27
The Cybercriminal Firm: pp 27-30
Transnational Black Market Regimes: pp 31-33
The Balance of Power: pp 33-36
The International Response: pp 36-39
Transnational Bureaucracies: pp 37-39
The Defence of Sovereignty? pp 39-41
Conclusion: pp 41-42
[...]
PART I
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come-- Victor Hugo (1802-1885)
CYBERSPACE
In the last twenty five years, the world has experienced dramatic changes brought about by the technological fruits of the Information Revolution. Satellite and fibre optic cabling systems have linked the four corners of the world through a web of electronic networks that can transmit bursts of information in a matter of seconds. This complex neural network, where computers across the earth communicate with each other, is called 'cyberspace'.
[...]
Information creates infinite possibilities and empowers those who hold it. The best and most accurate information is the most useful and the most valued. It is therefore, kept, if possible, secret and away from the hands of groups or individuals who might use or abuse its power. Cyberspace is the reservoir where the wealth and power of the Information Age is locked. Yet, because cyberspace does not occupy physical space, this cornucopia is out of the jurisdictional reach of the state, whose sovereign existence is rooted in the concept of physical territory.
SOVEREIGNTY
If the resources of wealth and power of the Information Age are outside the boundaries of the state, can the state still be referred to as the absolute authority of human society, recognising no power above its supremacy? In other words, is state sovereignty in the process of erosion in the Information Age?
[...]
CYBERCRIME AND ITS IMPACT ON THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Before the advent of mass communications the state could act as an effective barrier filtering information to its citizens, and in conjunction with legislation, controlling their thoughts and their actions. This behavior was and is true of all states --whether they are totalitarian or democratic. The only variance has been in the degree of control and jurisdiction each state was able and willing to exercise over its physical territory. The Soviet Union, for example, could censor the news and facts coming in and out of its borders and keep the world and its people ignorant of information it believed to be subversive. Similarly, the US could hide secret military plans and other relevant data from prying eyes to protect its national security. Thus, the government, being the physical embodiment of the concept of the state, was in effective control and could maintain the Hobbesian principles of sovereignty: the defence of the realm and the maintenance of law and order.
But to what degree is the state expected to protect its citizens and uphold its sovereign legal rights against cybercrime? To answer this question, the ability of the state to enact legislation, must be contrasted with its capacity to enforce rules against behaviour it defines as 'criminal'. Hobbes' focus was to alleviate these practical questions of coercion by removing the right of individuals to wield physical force and thus extinguishing their power against the sovereign. Yet, by looking at the definition of cybercrime above, one notices the absence of physical force in the equation. Thus, the ability to control the resources of wealth and power in the Information Age requires brains not brawn. Information and knowledge are more effective than a fist or a gun when interacting with cyberspace. This does not imply that there is no power behind the barrel of a gun, but cybercrime has far lower transaction costs, incur smaller risks, promises greater potential profits and can be just as deadly. Cybercrime does not use overt physical coercion and it cannot be easily controlled by the state because it is invisible and intangible. "The state is failing to deliver its side of the Faustian pact, where the individual submits to the legitimate violence of the state in return for protection and security".
PART II
SOLICITING CONTROLLED INFORMATION
'Soliciting Controlled Information' is a broad category which we can use to cover the distribution, creation and acquisition of pornography, banned books, facts, news and other 'subversive' ideas which the state has deemed to be immoral or dangerous because of what it may provoke people to think. Thus, by defining what is inappropriate, each state, whether acting alone or in concert, is responsible for regulating the flow of information and distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate activities. This is by far the most common form of cybercrime because it is perpetrated, to a large extent, by ordinary citizens, and not just career criminals, whose business is to break the law. Yet, by definition, they are still cybercriminals, even though they may only be journalists, or political dissidents. [...]
Full essay:
lse.ac.uk
Gus, your cybercriminal cabbie.... |
