In the preface to a recent anthology about online security, revealingly
entitled Internet Besieged: Countering Cyberspace Scofflaws,
editors Dorothy and Peter Denning offer a wonderful description of the
sorts of troublesome behavior found in cyberspace nowadays. The Dennings
summarize various online security perils and the atmosphere created thereby
as follows:
-
The Internet is a risky place.... Hackers, crackers, snoops, spoofers,
spammers, scammers, shammers, jammers, intruders, thieves, purloiners,
conspirators, vandals, Trojan horse dealers, virus launchers, and rogue
program purveyors run loose, plying regularly their nasty crafts and dirty
deeds. Many do so shamelessly, enjoying near perfect anonymity --
using forged addresses, untraceable links, and unbreakable codes.
Analogies to the Old American West, populated by unruly cowboys and a shoot-first-ask-later-mentality,
are more appropriate than the coiners of the phrase “electronic frontier”
ever imagined. Many law-abiding citizens, who simply want to conduct
their business in peace, are demanding that the marshal come to cyberspace.
(1998, p. vii)
With troublesome behavior such as the Dennings so poetically depict casting
ominous shadows on the Internet horizon, it comes as no surprise that metaphors
related to a frontier or Wild West mentality are often applied to life
online (Strate, 1999, pp. 392-394). For example, one anthology on
cyberspace issues bears the evocative title High Noon on the Electronic
Frontier (Ludlow, 1996). A researcher studying virtual communities
describes “a frontier ethic of taking the law into one’s own hands....
an informal system of frontier justice” (A. D. Smith, 1999, p. 147).
Other researchers identify “outlaw” as a social role online (e.g., McLaughlin
et al., 1995, p. 94), and one investigator reports on an outlaw mindset
prevalent in virtual gaming communities (Kim, 1998). Another researcher
tells of the “cyberspace cowboy -- someone who may be mild-mannered in
person, but dons a flamboyant CMC persona when online” (Thompsen, 1996,
p. 305).
On the other hand, some researchers portray the electronic frontier in
more cheerful fashion. For instance, one optimist declares cyberspace
to be “an appealing frontier for a new generation of Americans” (Healy,
1997, p. 57). A rather sunny vision of cyberspace comes from a group
of scholars who assert that “the frontierlike quality of this new world”
fosters considerable playfulness (Danet et al., 1998, p. 44). Another
optimist claims that troublesome behavior is “part of life on the electronic
frontier” and blithely predicts that “as with previous frontiers, law-abiding
citizens will eventually displace the outlaws” (Thompsen, 1996, p. 311).
But the most balanced and sensible evaluation is provided by the doyenne
of cyberlaw scholarship, Ann Wells Branscomb, writing as guest editor of
a special issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
entitled “Emerging Law on the Electronic Frontier.” In her introductory
article, after reviewing the history of legal concerns about rogue and
abusive online behavior, Branscomb ultimately concludes that cyberspace
offers “both familiar territory and lawless frontiers” (1996).
Nevertheless, despite those who argue against representing cyberspace as
a Wild West frontier colonized by outlaws (e.g., Maltz, 1996), this perception
still endures, as evidenced by a remark made in 1999 by U.S. Attorney General
Janet Reno. Speaking to Department of Justice officials and members
of the Information Technology Association of America, in a summit meeting
aimed at forging a partnership to fight cybercrime, Reno cautioned:
“we cannot allow cyberspace to become the Wild West of the Information
Age” (cited in Associated Press, March 15, 1999; Tillett, March 23, 1999).
So, the marshal has come to cyberspace. And with what results?
Dubious ones, alas. To put it plainly, as the Internet has evolved,
the rise of troublesome behavior online has challenged and strained existing
regulatory frameworks. Such frameworks, for the most part, endeavor
to regulate behavior in cyberspace on the basis of nationally-oriented
legal systems. However, given the transnational nature and global
scope of the Internet, nationally-oriented legal systems are inherently
inadequate for regulating online behavior. When nationally-oriented
regulatory frameworks are applied to solve Internet troubles, all sorts
of legal dilemmas arise. This paper discusses several dilemmas which
illustrate the futility of attempting to regulate troublesome online behavior
from nationally-oriented perspectives. Although there are various
legal dilemmas to choose from, and no lack of instructive examples, the
focus here is on two types: the first type of dilemma may be referred
to as “definition schizophrenia,” and the second as the “jurisdiction circus.”
Definition schizophrenia is one type of legal dilemma that arises in attempting
to regulate troublesome behavior on the Internet. Perceptions of
those who provoke disruptions in cyberspace, as well as decisions about
how to deal with them, are uncertain and inconsistent. Should online
troublemakers be considered malevolent criminals or mischievous pranksters,
or creatures lying somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes?
With respect to cyberspace, as Branscomb points out, we are still asking,
“what constitutes criminal behavior?” (1996). Questions such as these
haunt and bedevil legal authorities and security experts, scholars and
journalists, Internet newcomers and sophisticated Internauts around the
world. One well-known tracker of cyberspace offenders, Clifford Stoll,
describes the situation this way: “as communities grow, social and
legal structures follow. In our networked community, there is frustration
and confusion over what constitutes a crime and what is acceptable behavior”
(1991, p. 547). Thus, because the definitional waters are so murky,
the regulatory pendulum swings erratically from criminal to prankster and
back again. The scales of justice remain unbalanced, with troublesome
online behavior being judged seriously illegal here but merely naughty
there. This is definition schizophrenia.
Hacking, in particular, seems to straddle the border between felony and
tomfoolery, with the dividing line shifting almost as often as the courts
render their decisions. Early signs of definition schizophrenia appear
in the case of the “Internet Worm” created in 1988 by hacker Robert Tappan
Morris (see, e.g., Branscomb, 1995, pp. 90-92; D. E. Denning, 1998, p.
29; Denning & Denning, 1998, p. ix; Rose, 1995, pp. 139, 193; Spafford,
1995). While studying computer science at Cornell University, Morris
released an experimental program whose outcome was far more dramatic than
he anticipated. The Worm invaded and overloaded a significant number
of the host computers on the Internet at that time, essentially shutting
down the whole network for several days. But, as Branscomb explains,
this incident suggests “a dilemma as to whether or not criminal punishment
is appropriate under the circumstances” because it remains unclear whether
Morris actually committed a crime. No damage to hardware or software
occurred and, as Branscomb notes, “most computer crime laws require an
intent to inflict harm, which was allegedly lacking in this case” (1995,
p. 91). In fact, Branscomb observes that “among some of the young
computer literati (often referred to as ‘hackers’), [Morris] is looked
upon as a folk hero” (1995, p. 91; see also Branscomb, 1996). Nonetheless,
as one journalist reports, “on January 23, 1990 a federal jury found Mr.
Morris guilty of intentionally disrupting a nationwide computer network,
the first jury conviction under the 1986 [Computer Fraud and Abuse] act”
(J. Markoff, cited in Rosenberg, 1997, p. 235). And, folk hero though
he may be, according to the online Computer Museum (http://www.tcm.org),
Morris was sentenced to three years’ probation, 400 hours of community
service, and a fine of $10,050.
Ever since Morris failed to escape paying for his hacking escapade over
a decade ago, definition schizophrenia has been on the rise. To illustrate
the ongoing dilemma of definition schizophrenia, and the diametrically-opposed
resolutions to which such ambiguity can lead, some recent examples are
in order. Two major virus cases from 1999 provide an opportunity
to compare how their creators were defined and treated: first, the
“Melissa” virus launched from the United States by David L. Smith, and
then, the “Chernobyl” virus released from Taiwan by Chen Ing-hau.
In the case of Melissa, characterized at the time as “the fastest spreading
computer virus in history,” Smith’s attorney defended his client as lacking
intent to harm because the Melissa virus was annoying but not destructive
(reminiscent of Morris’s Internet Worm). Insisting that “we’re dealing
with someone more akin to a graffiti artist [than] an international cyberterrorist,”
Smith’s attorney nevertheless did admit that one could not “dismiss the
virus as a ‘harmless prank’” (cited in The New York Times, April
9, 1999; see also Associated Press, April 7, 1999; Cascio, April 7, 1999;
The
New York Times, April 7, 1999). Indeed, New Jersey state prosecutors
did not dismiss Melissa as a harmless prank. Instead, they charged
Smith with “five felony counts of computer theft, unlawful computer access,
illegal interruption of public communication and conspiracy that could
result in prison terms totaling 40 years and fines amounting to nearly
a half-million dollars”; future federal charges may result as well (CNN,
April 8, 1999).
In contrast, barely a month after the Melissa epidemic, the aptly-named
Chernobyl virus surfaced, potent and deadly, decimating hundreds of thousands
of computers, primarily in Asia. Although Chernobyl and its variants
were “among the most damaging viruses of recent years,” creator Chen Ing-hau
was treated far more leniently in his native Taiwan than Melissa’s creator
Smith was in the United States (Reuters, April 30, 1999; see also CNN,
April 27, 1999; Marriott, June 10, 1999; MSNBC, April 30, 1999; Sullivan,
May 25, 1999). Chen was not prosecuted at all, nor was he expelled
from the college he attended while writing the virus. They merely
gave him a demerit, and allowed him to graduate anyway; he then went on
to compulsory national military service (Associated Press, April 29, 1999;
Guernsey, June 10, 1999). Thus, the troublemaker responsible for
the extremely malign Chernobyl virus is reprimanded in Taiwan as a prankster,
while the troublemaker behind the relatively benign Melissa virus is prosecuted
in the United States as a criminal. Voilà -- definition schizophrenia.
The contrast between the Chernobyl caper in Taiwan and the Melissa mayhem
in
the United States suggests another bewildering set of problems in cyberspace,
the second sort of legal dilemma addressed in this paper: the jurisdiction
circus. The question that leads to the jurisdiction circus is this:
once an offense in cyberspace has been defined as criminal, who will deal
with the offender? Or, to put it another way, who controls the regulation
of troublesome behavior in cyberspace?
The basic jurisdiction dilemma is summarized by Peter Denning as follows:
“modern law enforcement is based on jurisdictions -- local authorities
who will prosecute local infractions. It is still an open question
as to how to deal with the Internet, where there is often no well-defined
jurisdiction” (1998, p. 381). Not surprisingly, legal maven Branscomb
identifies “cyberjurisdiction” as a critical dilemma (1996). One
illustrative report on jurisdiction in cyberspace is a study aimed at minimizing
legal risks for Web site operators which addresses matters such as where
individuals can be sued and whose laws apply. The authors of the
report conclude that:
-
The law of personal jurisdiction based on Internet and Web contacts is,
at best, uncertain and unpredictable and, at worst, has the potential of
subjecting Web site operators to litigation in the courts of every state
in the country ... and potentially in foreign countries as well. (Perry
et al., 1998, p. 11)
The transnational nature of cyberspace is the crux of the matter in the
jurisdiction circus. As Branscomb explains, “the epidemic of rogue
behavior [online] is a global problem which cannot be contained merely
by state or even national laws but will likely require a considerable amount
of coordination at the international level if the electronic highways are
to be safe” (1995, p. 97). A pair of Australian researchers clarifies
the dilemma as follows: “telecommunications offences may involve
a number of jurisdictions internationally, with the offender, the victim,
and the technology necessary to carry out the offence all being present
in different countries,” which can lead to “the anomalous situation of
the same conduct giving rise to criminal liability in one jurisdiction,
but not in another” (Grabowsky & R. G. Smith, 1998, p. 219).
Compounding the chaos in the jurisdiction circus are the practical difficulties
of international law enforcement, which is certainly an intricate enterprise
(see, e.g., Gardrat, 1998; Grabowsky & R. G. Smith, 1998). One
cyberlaw expert notes that “local authorities cannot easily control a global
net [and] may not have jurisdiction over all relevant parties” (D. R. Johnson,
1996). Branscomb elaborates on this point as follows: “local
authorities usually lack the capability of catching offenders who merely
transgress local statutes online and are far beyond the geographical jurisdiction
within which local authorities can catch and punish them” (1996).
And as one report suggests, “even if a suspect is caught, jurisdictional
issues arise because of the global nature of such attacks” (Associated
Press, May 15, 2000).
Furthermore, the unavoidable fact that different places have different
standards also creates confusion, ambiguity, and awkwardness in the jurisdiction
circus. Nobody better than legal eagle Branscomb to sum up the complexities
involved:
-
As users of electronic networks and “netizens” of the new cybercommunities
in the Networld, we circle the globe passing through many jurisdictions,
potentially contravening local laws, possibly without any apparent knowledge
of local custom, and lacking any sense of shame or remorse for our potential
wrongdoings. (1996)
A French scholar adds that “the problem at present is not the absence of
legal rules, but rather the multiplication of legal rules, their appropriateness,
and their application in international contexts”; with such an abundance
of conflicting legal regimes, something which is “neither obscene nor defamatory
under local law ... may become accessible in other jurisdictions where
it is illegal” (Gardrat, 1998, p. 27). And according to a Norwegian
judge attending an international conference on cybercrime, “computer attack,
unlike murder or robbery, is still not universally recognized as a crime.
Laws to fight it are typically found only in industrialized nations that
depend on computers” (cited in Associated Press, May 15, 2000). So,
the jurisdiction circus goes on worldwide.
But even domestically, within the United States, jurisdiction is a tricky
business. One Department of Justice official summarized the quandary
in this country rather succinctly: “there is no U.S. Attorney for
Cyberspace.... A U.S. Attorney for a particular district has to bring
the case” (cited in Kaplan, August 20, 1999). As an example of domestic
ambiguity producing bizarre results, there is an incident often cited in
discussions of cyberjurisdiction: the controversial Thomas lawsuit
(see, e.g., P. J. Denning, 1998; Wallace & Mangan, 1997). The
Thomases owned and operated a racy electronic bulletin board service in
California, where they resided. Strange as it might seem, this couple
was convicted in Tennessee, under federal obscenity statutes, for doing
something online while physically in California.
Among those who have analyzed the Thomas affair is Mike Godwin, former
legal counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Godwin notes
a chilling effect in the Thomas case: “a conservative jurisdiction
like Memphis may be in a position to dictate what’s allowable on BBSs all
over the country” (1996, p. 269). He further observes that this controversial
lawsuit “raises the question of whether it makes sense to define ‘community
standards’ solely in terms of geographic communities.” Godwin concludes
that the Thomas conviction “sends a frightening message to virtual communities:
‘It doesn’t matter if you’re abiding by your own community’s standards
-- you have to abide by Memphis’s as well’” (pp. 272-273). But, as
a rather pragmatic researcher asks, “do we really think that people in
Memphis can enforce their pornographic community standards on people in
California?... People in California are never gonna behave in a way
that satisfies people in Tennessee” (Sterling, 1998, p. 488). So,
even domestically, the jurisdiction circus goes on.
In a 1996 article on the Thomas episode, one prophetic investigator speculates
about the possible outcome of a similar situation on the international
level, posing the following jurisdiction riddle:
-
What happens when [material] hops over borders and lands in a different
city -- or country -- whose laws and community standards may differ....
The rules of libel in England, for example, are considerably more restrictive
than those in the U.S.; what might be considered a fair crack at a public
figure in New York City could be actionable in London. (Elmer-Dewitt, 1996,
pp. 260-261)
What was mere speculation in 1996 became reality in the year 2000.
In a case first attracting public attention in May 2000 and still making
headlines, French authorities are trying to force Yahoo!, an American company
operating from the United States, to restrict access in France to Nazi
memorabilia available worldwide at Yahoo!’s English-language auction site
on the Web. Instead of a national conflict over different moral standards
in two states, as in the Thomas affair, it is now an international battle
pitting French regulations concerning Nazi-era material against the U.S.
constitutional right to freedom of expression.
With the phrase “jurisdiction dilemma” in the headline of a column about
the Yahoo! lawsuit, one journalist echoes questions asked earlier in the
domestic context of the Thomas incident, but here on a global scale:
-
The [Yahoo!] case points up an enduring legal and cultural puzzle ... in
borderless cyberspace: What happens when the laws and traditions
of a country that receives an online message clash with the laws and values
of the land where the message originated? (Kaplan, August 11, 2000)
The Yahoo! litigation continues in the French courts, with the resolution
pending. But one of the cofounders of the company, Jerry Yang, is
reported to have stood firm, saying: “We are not going to change
the content of our sites in the United States just because someone in France
is asking us to do so” (cited in Reuters, June 16, 2000; see also Baum,
August 14, 2000; Sprenger et al., May 29, 2000). Stay tuned for further
performances of the France-Yahoo!-Nazi act in the jurisdiction circus.
And so, there are both domestic and global dimensions to the jurisdiction
circus. But there is no centralized organ governing the Internet,
nowhere in particular to appeal when problems arise. Nobody can be
sure just who is in charge. Lacking any central administration to
deal with Internet-wide trouble, until now, we have primarily resorted
to nationally-oriented authorities: law enforcement agencies, government
institutions, and sporadic combinations thereof. Such authorities,
for the most part, act on behalf of nationally-oriented regulatory frameworks.
However, the Internet effectively erases national boundaries. As
a result, there are many players performing a multitude of disparate acts
in the jurisdiction circus of cyberspace, but there is no ringmaster to
coordinate the entire show.
Thus, with respect to the regulation of troublesome online behavior, we
cannot agree on what constitutes cybercrime or who controls cyberspace.
Because of legal dilemmas such as definition schizophrenia and the jurisdiction
circus, to date, attempts at regulating behavior in cyberspace have produced
muddled and inconsistent outcomes, with drastically inequitable consequences
for offenders in different places. Due to the ambiguous delineation
between criminal and prankster, our dealings with online troublemakers
are afflicted with definition schizophrenia. Thanks to the regulatory
chaos provoked by the Internet’s manifold overlapping regimes, the jurisdiction
circus in cyberspace has no ringmaster. Yet international efforts
at cooperation have begun, and are increasing in frequency, if not yet
in efficacy. Perhaps someday we will succeed in curing definition
schizophrenia and in managing the jurisdiction circus. In the meantime,
to round out this report on how the marshal is faring in cyberspace, here
are three brief updates concerning definition schizophrenia, the jurisdiction
circus, and the overall idea of regulating behavior on the Internet.
First, an update on definition schizophrenia. In May 2000, the “I
Love You” virus struck from the Philippines, apparently authored by another
computer science student, Onel de Guzman (see, e.g., Arnold, May 15, 2000;
Chebium, May 8, 2000; CNN, May 9, 2000a, 2000b; Markoff, May 6, 2000; Mydans,
May 9, 2000a, 2000b; Ramos, May 18, 2000). Popularly known as the
“Love Bug,” this virus spread more rapidly than Melissa and destroyed as
much as Chernobyl. One computer security specialist described the
new virus as “Melissa on steroids” (cited in Markoff, May 5, 2000; see
also CNN, June 29, 2000; Hopper, May 4, 2000, May 8, 2000), Shortly
after the Love Bug outbreak, at an international conference on cybercrime
spurred in part by global outrage at the damage wrought by this cyberattack,
France’s Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement issued an ominous warning
to future troublemakers: “A teen-ager must understand that even if
he is very talented in using computers, that pranks that he might make
on the Internet could constitute serious crimes that will put him in prison.
The Internet is no longer a joke” (cited in Seward, May 15, 2000; see also
de Bony, May 18, 2000).
Next, an update on the jurisdiction circus. In February 2000, “Mafiaboy,”
a Canadian teen-ager referred to by his online pseudonym, allegedly perpetrated
“denial of service” attacks that jammed high-profile Web sites such as
CNN, Yahoo! and e-Bay, rendering them temporarily useless (Reuters, August
4, 2000; see also Associated Press, April 19, 2000; Brick, April 19, 2000;
Hopper, April 19, 2000b). Mafiaboy is being prosecuted in Canada
for multiple counts of “mischief to data.” Normally, such charges
carry several years’ prison sentence, but leniency is expected due to Mafiaboy’s
tender age of fifteen at the time of the attacks. His youth also
makes it unlikely that he will be extradited to the United States, home
of the affected Web sites, which suffered significant financial losses.
On the occasion of Mafiaboy’s arrest, Inspector Yves Roussell of the Royal
Canadian Mounties had stern words for would-be troublemakers: “Hackers
are no longer immune from prosecution because of borders.... No matter
where they are or who they are, hackers will be investigated, arrested
and prosecuted in the courts” (cited in Hopper, April 19, 2000a).
Finally, an update on regulating behavior in cyberspace. In August
2000, New Scientist magazine published an interview with Robert
Cailliau, a Belgian computer engineer considered a cyberspace pioneer for
having worked with Tim Berners-Lee in developing the World Wide Web.
Several of Cailliau’s observations in this interview concern the need for
online behavioral standards, and he raises various issues, some of them
controversial. What is most impressive is that he calls not only
for a global legal and regulatory framework, but also for intervention
at the local level to provide education and guidance for people in
general about appropriate and inappropriate behavior online. Cailliau
says:
-
The Net is a space in which you encounter others, so there has to be some
regulation of behaviour.... This is something to implement in international
conventions and for citizens to reflect and decide on. Unfortunately
we have a global network, a global economy and global companies, but we
have not got a global legal system.... What I want is behaviour regulation.
We should all know what our rights and duties are. (August 26, 2000, italics
added)
Having begun these remarks by citing the Dennings’ passage about troublesome
behavior on the Internet which served as inspiration for this paper, it
seems fitting to close by sharing one last comment published on the occasion
of Cailliau’s interview, from a French news wire release, author unknown.
The anonymous writer suggests that “regulation of the Internet is one of
the hottest issues in cyberspace, made more acute by rising incidence of
computer vandalism, pornography and fraud and other cross-border crimes
that have exposed gaping holes in national laws” (Agence France-Presse,
August 27, 2000). In conclusion, despite the marshal’s efforts in
cyberspace, the time has come to transcend nationally-oriented regulatory
frameworks and consider alternative approaches. Legal dilemmas such
as definition schizophrenia and the jurisdiction circus will continue to
perplex us, until we develop local as well as global strategies for regulating
troublesome behavior on the Internet.
References
-
Agence France-Presse. (2000, August 27). Web pioneer supports
surfing licenses, global laws on cyberspace [cited in message from Vinton
G. Cerf to the Internet Societal Task Force, August 28, 2000]. Retrieved
February 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://lyris.isoc.org/cgi-bin/lyris/lyris.pl?visit=ISTF-participants&id=141605156
-
-
Arnold, W. (2000, May 15). Virus brings publicity to computer
subculture in Philippines. The New York Times. Retrieved
May 16, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/15phil.html
Associated Press. (1999, March 15). Reno announces alliance
to curb cybercrime. The New York Times. Retrieved March
16, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/03/biztech/articles/16reno.html
Associated Press. (1999, April 7). Lawyer for alleged “Melissa”
virus creator questions charges. CNN. Retrieved April 8, 1999
from the World Wide Web: http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9904/07/computer.virus.ap
Associated Press. (2000, April 19). Montreal cops charge
Web suspect. The New York Times. Retrieved April 19,
2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Computer-Hacker-Arrest.html
Associated Press. (1999, April 29). Taiwan college identifies
virus. The New York Times. Retrieved May 1, 1999 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/04/biztech/articles/29virus.html
Associated Press. (2000, May 15). World leaders join forces
to fight Internet attacks. CNN. Retrieved May 16, 2000 from
the World Wide Web: http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/15/internet.crimes.ap/index.htm
Baum, R. (2000, August 14). Yahoo! Nazi case raises questions.
Reuters. Retrieved September 20, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.totaltele.com/view.asp?ArticleID=29878&pub=tt&categoryid=626
Branscomb, A. W. (1995). Rogue computer programs and computer
rogues: Tailoring the punishment to fit the crime. In G. Johnson
& H. Nissenbaum (Eds.), Computers, ethics & social values
(pp. 89-115). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Branscomb, A. W. (1996). Cyberspaces: Familiar territory
or lawless frontiers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
2(1). Retrieved February 8, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue1/intro.html
Brick, M. (2000, April 19). Canadian boy charged in attack
on CNN Web site. The New York Times. Retrieved April
19, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/04/biztech/articles/19hack.html
Cailliau, R. (2000, August 26). Opinion: Interview.
New Scientist. Retrieved September 18, 2000 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinion.jsp?id=ns225317
Cascio, J. (1999, April 7). The ecology of computer viruses:
Who was vulnerable to Melissa? Only users and companies who’d standardized
on a software “monoculture” -- like Microsoft’s. Salon Magazine.
Retrieved May 8, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.salonmagazine.com/tech/feature/1999/04/07/melissa
Chebium, R. (2000, May 8). Experts say more laws won’t stop
computer hackers. CNN. Retrieved May 8, 2000 from the World
Wide Web: http://cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/05/love.bug/index.html
CNN. (1999, April 8). Accused “Melissa” creator appears
in court. CNN. Retrieved April 9, 1999 from the World Wide
Web: http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9904/08/melissa.charges.03
CNN. (1999, April 27). Chernobyl virus wreaks havoc in parts
of Asia. CNN. Retrieved May 7, 1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9904/27/computers.asia.virus/index.html
CNN. (2000a, May 9). Suspected hacker may face extradition
requests. CNN. Retrieved May 9, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/09/internat.hacking.law/index.html
CNN. (2000b, May 9). Philippine officials question, release
man in computer virus case. CNN. Retrieved May 9, 2000 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/ilove.you/index.html
CNN. (2000, June 29). Philippine officials charge alleged
“Love Bug” virus creator. CNN. Retrieved September 18, 2000
from the World Wide Web: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/06/29/philippines.lovebug.02/index.html
Danet, B., Ruedenberg, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1998).
Hmmm … where’s that smoke coming from? Writing, play and performance
on Internet Relay Chat. In F. Sudweeks, M. L. McLaughlin, & S.
Rafaeli (Eds.), Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet
(pp. 41-76). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
de Bony, E. (2000, May 18). G8 agree to cooperate on cybercrime.
CNN. Retrieved May 19, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/18/g8.cooperate.idg/index.html
Denning, D. E. (1998). Cyberspace attacks and countermeasures.
In D. E. Denning & P. J. Denning (Eds.), Internet besieged:
Countering cyberspace scofflaws (pp. 29-55). New York:
ACM Press; Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Denning, D. E., & Denning, P. J. (Eds.). (1998). Internet
besieged: Countering cyberspace scofflaws. New York:
ACM Press; Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Denning, P. J. (1998). Electronic commerce. In D.
E. Denning & P. J. Denning (Eds.), Internet besieged: Countering
cyberspace scofflaws (pp. 377-388). New York: ACM Press;
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Elmer-Dewitt, P. (1996). Censoring cyberspace. In
P. Ludlow (Ed.), High noon on the electronic frontier: Conceptual
issues in cyberspace (pp. 259-262). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
Press.
Gardrat, A. (1998). Another look at European Internet law.
Media Law & Policy, 7(1), 27-32.
Godwin, M. (1996). Virtual community standards: BBS
obscenity case raises new legal issues. In P. Ludlow (Ed.), High
noon on the electronic frontier: Conceptual issues in cyberspace
(pp. 269-273). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Grabowsky, P. N., & Smith, R. G. (1998). Crime in
the digital age: Controlling telecommunications and cyberspace illegalities.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Guernsey, L. (1999, June 10). Rogues’ gallery: Sneaky
software. The New York Times. Retrieved June 12, 1999
from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/circuits/articles/10svir.html
Healy, D. (1997). Cyberspace and place: The Internet
as middle landscape on the electronic frontier. In D. Porter (Ed.),
Internet
culture (pp. 55-68). New York: Routledge.
Hopper, D. I. (2000a, April 19). Canadian teen charged in
Web site attack released. CNN. Retrieved April 19, 2000 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/19/dos.investigation/index.html
Hopper, D. I. (2000b, April 19). “Mafiaboy” faces up to
3 years in prison. CNN. Retrieved May 30, 2000 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/19/dos.charges/index.html
Hopper, D. I. (2000, May 4). “I Love You” virus threatens
commerce, e-mail and history. CNN. Retrieved May 8, 2000 from
the World Wide Web: http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/04/iloveyou.02/index.html
Hopper, D. I. (2000, May 8). Internet provider says Caller
ID foiled “Love Bug” author. CNN. Retrieved May 8, 2000 from
the World Wide Web: http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/08/ilove.you.04/index.html
Johnson, D. R. (1996). Due process and cyberjurisdiction.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(1). Retrieved
February 8, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue1/due.html
Kaplan, C. S. (1999, August 20). Report questions government
efforts against computer crime. The New York Times.
Retrieved August 20, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/cyber/cyberlaw/20law.html
Kaplan, C. S. (2000, August 11). French Nazi memorabilia
case presents jurisdiction dilemma. The New York Times.
Retrieved September 20, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/cyber/cyberlaw/11law.html
Kim, A. J. (1998, May). Killers have more fun. Wired
News. Retrieved January 24, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.05/ultima_pr.html
Ludlow, P. (Ed.). (1996). High noon on the electronic
frontier: Conceptual issues in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA:
M.I.T. Press.
Maltz, T. (1996). Customary law & power in Internet
communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(1).
Retrieved February 8, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol2/issue1/custom.html
Markoff, J. (2000, May 5). A rogue software program attacks
computers worldwide. The New York Times. Retrieved May
8, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/05virus.html
Markoff, J. (2000, May 6). Law officials seek origins of
the virus. The New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2000
from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/06virus.html
Marriott, M. (1999, June 10). Virus fighters on 24-hour,
global guard. The New York Times. Retrieved June 12,
1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/circuits/articles/10viru.html
McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Smith, C. B. (1995).
Standards of conduct on Usenet. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety:
Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 90-111). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
MSNBC. (1999, April 30). CIH virus set to strike again.
MSNBC. Retrieved May 1, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.msnbc.com/news/264022.asp
Mydans, S. (2000a, May 9). Officials trace computer virus
to Philippines apartment. The New York Times. Retrieved
May 9, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/09virus.html
Mydans, S. (2000b, May 9). Philippine prosecutors release
“Love Bug” suspect. The New York Times. Retrieved May
9, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/09cnd-virus-arrest.html
The New York Times. (1999, April 7). Virus defendant
to plead not guilty. The New York Times. Retrieved April
8, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/04/biztech/articles/07viru.html
The New York Times. (1999, April 9). Lawyer likens
Melissa virus to graffiti. The New York Times. Retrieved
April 9, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/04/biztech/articles/07viru.html
Perry, G. M., Miller, P. A., Polak, V., & Edwards, M. L. (1998).
Personal jurisdiction in cyberspace: Where can you be sued, and whose
laws apply? Media Law & Policy, 7(1), 1-13.
Ramos, G. P. (2000, May 18). Philippine student group for
hacking. CNN. Retrieved May 19, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/18/manila.hackers.idg/index.html
Reuters. (1999, April 30). Taiwan virus suspect free on
lack of victims. CNN. Retrieved May 7, 1999 from the World
Wide Web: http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9904/30/virus.computer.reut/index.html
Reuters. (2000, June 16). Yahoo! rejects French court ban
on Nazi sites. The ISOC Forum, 6(7) (July) [electronic publication
of the Internet Society]. Distributed electronically and available
from the World Wide Web: http://www.isoc.org/infosvc/forum
Reuters. (2000, August 4). “Mafiaboy” faces 64 new charges.
MSNBC. Retrieved September 11, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/441817.asp
Rose, L. (1995). Netlaw: Your rights in the online
world. Berkeley, CA: Osborne McGraw-Hill.
Rosenberg, R. S. (1997). The social impact of computers
(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Seward, D. (2000, May 15). Leaders discuss ways to fight
international computer crime. CNN. Retrieved May 16, 2000 from
the World Wide Web: http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/15/g8.internetcrimes.ap/index.htm
Smith, A. D. (1999). Problems of conflict management in
virtual communities. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities
in cyberspace (pp. 134-163). New York: Routledge.
Spafford, E. H. (1995). Are computer hacker break-ins ethical?
In G. Johnson & H. Nissenbaum (Eds.), Computers, ethics & social
values (pp. 125-135). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sprenger, P., Helft, D., & Yamada, M. (2000, May 29).
French border patrol. The Standard. Retrieved October
1, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,15387,00.html
Sterling, B. (1998). Speech to the High Technology Crime
Investigation Association [Lake Tahoe, November 1994]. In D. E. Denning
& P. J. Denning (Eds.), Internet besieged: Countering cyberspace
scofflaws (pp. 73-95). New York: ACM Press; Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Stoll, C. (1991). Stalking the wily hacker. In C.
Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.), Computerization and controversy:
Value conflicts and social choices (pp. 533-553). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Strate, L. (1999). The varieties of cyberspace: Problems
in definition and delimitation. Western Journal of Communication,
63(3), 382-412.
Sullivan, B. (1999, May 25). CIH virus set to strike again.
MSNBC. Retrieved June 3, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.msnbc.com/news/273347.asp
Thompsen, P. A. (1996). What’s fueling the flames in cyberspace?
A social influence model. In L. Strate, R. Jacobson, & S. B.
Gibson (Eds.), Communication and cyberspace: Social interaction
in an electronic environment (pp. 297-315). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Tillett, L. S. (1999, March 23). DOJ, IT industry team to
fight cybercrime. CNN. Retrieved March 24, 1999 from the World
Wide Web: http://cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/23/crimefighters.idg
Wallace, J. D., & Mangan, M. (1997). Sex, laws, and
cyberspace: Freedom and regulation on the frontiers of the online
revolution. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
|
Papers
