Government and state officials have worked hard to protect internet users from criminal activity. The Department of Justice defines computer crime in three ways. The first method is for the author to attack other people`s computers in order to be infected or gain access to them. Crimes that primarily target computer networks and devices include computer viruses, spyware, malware, and denial-of-service attacks. Other perpetrators use their computers as tools to commit traditional crimes such as identity theft and credit card fraud, according to Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Diana Aizman. Another method is to use someone else`s computer to store illegal or stolen information. Other forms of cybercrime include cyberstalking, harassment, information warfare, and phishing scams. Geographic jurisdiction is a major issue when it comes to regulating online behaviour, as laws vary from country to country and even from province to province [21]; Therefore, an illegal act in one place must not violate the law in another.[22] For example, if an offender is in a place where what they are doing is not against the law, but is a crime in the victim`s location, it will be difficult (if not impossible) to prosecute the offender [23]. Indeed, law enforcement agencies only have the power to enforce the law in their jurisdiction [24]. For example, a police officer in Ontario does not have the power to arrest someone in Quebec, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) does not have the power to arrest someone in the United States [25]. Looking ahead, two dominant questions arise with regard to the application of international law to cyberspace: (a) What should be the solution to the main problems? and (b) in what forums should this be done? This chapter focuses on criminal and tortious issues specific to cyberspace.
In particular, it focuses on how people can use computers in cybercrime. It also checks how people use computers to commit illicit acts. Sometimes criminal and criminal measures can be taken against the same person for the same acts. International law structures relations between states and other international actors (especially international organizations) through various prohibitions, requirements and permits. As such, it paved the way for the regulation of global governance issues, from arms control to trade to the environment. As states pay increasing attention to cyberspace governance (the technical architecture that enables the global Internet) and governance in cyberspace (how states, industry and users can use this technology), the role of international law in the cyber context has become increasingly important. However, international law is first and foremost a legal order for states (and their creations, such as international organizations). As such, international law does not have a monopoly on regulating cyberspace. From the perspective of industry and civil society actors, other regulatory regimes (e.g.
industry self-regulation) offer alternative vehicles. Multistakeholder governance, for example, has become the primary means of governing Internet architecture. At the same time, non-state actors have expressed interest in issues relating to how international law should be applied to governance in cyberspace. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the independent expert groups that drafted the two Tallinn manuals (a third of which is planned) have studied how existing rules and principles of international law are translated into the cyber context. Microsoft President Brad Smith has even called on states to conclude a new «Digital Geneva Convention» to regulate state behavior in cyberspace. Amid the many cyberspace laws enacted around the world to respond to the ever-increasing growth of new issues in the online world, some of the biggest crimes committed online, including those affecting privacy, seem to go unpunished [1]. For example, in 2014, Yahoo reported that more than 500 million of its user accounts had been hacked and that the personal data they contained had been sold [2]. Although it is alleged that Yahoo concealed its knowledge of the massive breach and only revealed it two years later, in 2016, the consequences the telecom giant faced for this massive cybersecurity breach were financial and reputational, not legal matters [3].
Indeed, enacting appropriate laws to regulate online behavior is only half the battle: for while new laws are created to solve new problems, enforcing cyberspace law is inherently more difficult than enforcing «traditional laws» for a number of reasons listed below [4]: Accountability: While allocations of both state-sponsored and state-sponsored cyber operations may increase, accountability has proven to be a challenge. States that accuse other states of malicious cyber behaviour rarely invoke international law. The absence of international legal rhetoric may mean that the conduct may be legal, even if it is not desirable. Moreover, the denunciation and shame that took place did little to change the accused`s behaviour (but it may help clarify the existence and importance of international law in cyberspace).