Report of the Commonwealth Working Group of Experts on Cybercrime
2014; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 40; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/03050718.2014.937068
ISSN1750-5976
Tópico(s)Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
ResumoAbstractCybercrime constitutes a serious threat to national security, law enforcement, individuals and businesses. As cybercrime has no borders, tackling it requires a concerted effort among jurisdictions. This report of the Commonwealth Working Group of Experts on Cybercrime reviews the practical implications of cybercrime in the Commonwealth. It highlights how it can affect Commonwealth member states differently, particularly small and developing states. The report then identifies the most effective means of international cooperation and enforcement in combating cybercrime. It concludes by proposing a strategic model for training, a training model for the Commonwealth and practical recommendations for use when conducting cybercrime training. NotesThe report of the Commonwealth Working Group of Experts on Cybercrime was presented at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting, Gaborone, Botswana, 5–8 May 2014.1 Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting Communiqué (2011) paras 17–19.2 Australia, Canada, Tonga, South Africa, Singapore and the United Kingdom.3 Commonwealth Magistrate and Judges Association (CMJA), Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisations (CTO).4 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), COMNET.5 Council of Europe.6 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), International Telecommunications Union (ITU).7 See also 8 Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting Communiqué (2011) paras 17–19: Cybercrime.9 The Commonwealth Working Group of Experts on Cybercrime was chaired by Colin Nicholls, QC, former President of the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association and Honorary Life President. Members included representatives of Commonwealth member states (Australia, Canada, Singapore, South Africa, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, and the UK, international organisations (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, International Telecommunications Union), regional organisations (Council of Europe), Commonwealth partner organisations (Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation, Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association), as well as representatives from the International Association of Prosecutors, COMNET, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Other experts and academics, as well as staff members of the Commonwealth Secretariat also participated.10 A fund established by CHOGM in 2005 to implement activities within the Commonwealth Connects programme.11 In view of the continuing work of the open-ended expert group on cybercrime established by the General Assembly, UNODC cannot endorse this statement.12 UNODC does not associate itself with this wording. Resolution 22/7 of the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (2013) expressed appreciation for the work done thus far by the expert group, requested the group to continue its work towards fulfilling its mandate, invited the group, subject to the availability of extra-budgetary resources, to finalise reports of its deliberations and requested to report to the Commission on progress in its work.13 UNODC does not associate itself with this wording which is not included in the report on the meeting of the expert group to conduct a comprehensive study on cybercrime held in Vienna from 25 to 28 February 2013 contained in document UNODC/CCPCJ/EG.4/2013/3.14 This term is used in this report to include investigators, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, judges and magistrates.15 In view of the continuing work of the open-ended expert group on cybercrime established by the General Assembly, UNODC cannot endorse this part of the Recommendation.16 Various forms of hostile or intrusive software including computer viruses, ransomware, worms, Trojan horses, rootkits, keyloggers, dialers and spyware.17 Internet Systems Consortium, Internet Host Count History; . An internet host is any computer which is connected to the Internet and has a unique IP (Internet protocol) address. The annual electronic count of such hosts is regarded as a measure of the expansion of the Internet over time but does not necessarily reflect other factors such as the number of people using the Internet, number of web sites or volume of data or communications.18 Detica and Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance, The Cost of Cyber Crime (February 2011).19 R Anderson and Others, Measuring the Cost of Cybercrime (2012), 20 Fortinet, ‘Anatomy of a Botnet’ (White Paper, 2012) .21 For a useful list of the jurisdictional, legal and practical considerations see ECOSOC, ‘Results of the Second Meeting of the Intergovernmental Expert Group to Prepare a Study on Fraud and the Criminal Misuse and Falsification of Identity’ (2 February 2007) UN Doc E/CN.15/2007/8/Add.2 at para 50.22 See UNGA Res 55/2 (8 September 2000) UN Doc A/RES/55/2, Annex. See also the annual UN General Assembly resolutions dealing with technologies, development, globalisation and interdependence, including A/RES/55/212 of 20 December 2000, and most recently, A/RES/67/195 of 21 December 2012.23 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention), A/RES/55/25, Annex I, in force 29 September 2003, U.N.T.S. 39,574.24 Australia, Botswana, Cameroon, Canada, The Gambia, Ghana, Isle of Man, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, Montserrat, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and the UK.25 Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, The Gambia, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, the UK, Tanzania and Zambia.26 Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, C.E.T.S. No.185, in force 1 July 2004. Text available at , see also (2002) 41 ILM 282.27 For a summary of multilateral efforts prior to the Budapest Convention, see MA Sussmann, ‘The Critical Challenges from International High-tech and Computer-related Crime at the Millennium’ [1999] 9 DJCIL 451, 476–88.28 29 Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Botswana, Cameroon, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, and Zambia.30 Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago.31 No information is available for Belize, Dominica, Mozambique, Rwanda, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, The Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Lesotho and Malawi.32 Bahamas, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji and Singapore.33 In view of the continuing work of the open-ended expert group on cybercrime established by the General Assembly, UNODC cannot endorse this recommendation.34 S 4.4.4.35 FATF Recommendation 36 encourages States to ratify and implement other relevant international conventions, such as the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, 2001.36 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market; Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment; Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector; Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA on attacks against information systems (with a proposal for a replacement Directive in 2010); and Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks.37 See and 38 Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago (together with Haiti).39 Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.40 See and .41 Botswana, Cameroon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.42 Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia.43 See .44 The Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone.45 UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Resolutions 22/7 (on-going work of expert group) and 22/8 (promotion of technical assistance and capacity building). See Report of the Commission at its 22nd Session, E/2013/30, E/CN.15/2013/27, Chapter 1 Part D.46 Information about the work of 2Centre and GSPEN is given in Part 3 of this Report.47 The Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG), Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU), Centre for Internet Safety at the University of Canberra (CIS), Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety (CHIS), Commonwealth Business Council (CBC), Commonwealth Secretariat, CTO, COMNET, Council of Europe, CyberEthics Cyprus, DiploFoundation, European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online (eNACSO), Global Prosecutors’ e-Crime Network (GPEN), Institute for Security Studies, South Africa (ISS), International Center for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC), ICSPA, ITU, ICANN, Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), Interpol, Kenya Communications Commission, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and UNODC.48 General Assembly Resolutions 60/252 of 27 March 2006 and 65/141 of 20 December 2010.49 In view of the continuing work of the open-ended expert group on cybercrime established by the General Assembly, UNODC cannot endorse this part of the Recommendation.50 Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands and Cayman Islands.51 See .
Referência(s)