Understanding Cybersecurity Law and Digital Privacy: Melissa Lukings Arash Habibi Lashkari
Understanding Cybersecurity Law and Digital Privacy: Melissa Lukings Arash Habibi Lashkari
Melissa Lukings
Arash Habibi Lashkari
Understanding
Cybersecurity
Law and Digital
Privacy
A Common Law Perspective
Future of Business and Finance
The Future of Business and Finance book series features professional works aimed at
defining, describing and charting the future trends in these fields. The focus is mainly
on strategic directions, technological advances, challenges and solutions which may
affect the way we do business tomorrow, including the future of sustainability and
governance practices. Mainly written by practitioners, consultants and academic
thinkers, the books are intended to spark and inform further discussions and
developments.
Understanding
Cybersecurity Law
and Digital Privacy
A Common Law Perspective
Melissa Lukings Arash Habibi Lashkari
Faculty of Law Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity
University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, NB, Canada Fredericton, NB, Canada
# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Melissa Lukings
For my family and friends, whether biological
or chosen; near or far:
AA, AHL, AMR, BCW, BEJ, CJD, CRT, DLL,
JHMD, HAGL, HES, HJ, KNH, MAL, MKLL,
MKNL, NCO, PAL, RLG, SSD, and everyone
who fits under the “extended family and
friends” designation.
You know who you are.
And for my feline companions; my furbaby
beneficiaries; my treasured cat children: Miss
Kitty S. Bird; Sir Thomas K. Brodie; Lady
LaLuna de Fats Purrtato; Mister George J.
Flanders; and the late Oliver “Olliebug” von
Trashnugget.
Arash Habibi Lashkari
For
My wife Farnaz and children, Kourosh and
Kianna,
And my father Bahman, mother Zeynab, and
sister Ziba,
And my teachers and lecturers, for all the
lessons you’ve taught me.
Preface
The internet, digital media, and online communication have become an integral part
of our modern world. Over the past few decades, we have seen the internet evolve,
becoming anchored within our households, and a near requirement for accessing
education. Our previous hardwired telephone systems were replaced first by mobile
phones and then by smartphones. Our cars, our watches, our appliances, all are
connected and help to keep us connected to each other. Economically, our commer-
cial endeavors have shifted to increase their reach to a wider range of potential
customers, no longer limited by distance creating the online economy.
While we are more connected than ever before, our connectedness has become
necessarily dependent on our having sustainable and reliable access to digital
technology and online networks. As our society has shifted away from the paper
filing methods of the past and onto digital platforms, we have begun storing greater
amounts of data, records, media, creative content, and other valuable information
online. More still, to improve access to banking and financial services, many of these
corporations have launched digital platforms, apps, and other networked methods to
the delight of many consumers. Even more recently, we have seen health care service
provision move from an in-person clinical model to a model based on online remote
consultation, even from the comfort of our own homes. The access and freedom we
have with our ability to share information is unprecedented in our history.
This interconnectedness, however, comes with its own novel set of risks and
necessary risk assessments. Rather than protecting our stored records in locked filing
cabinets, in offices and storage rooms—carbon copied, printed, or written on
paper—we are increasingly moving toward full digital integration with online
cloud-based platforms for data storage. While we no longer have to safeguard our
documents and data with security guards, locking systems, alarms, and other physi-
cal protective mechanisms, we have also removed the barrier of distance from
accessing our stored records. Rather than safeguarding our data from localized
tangible physical intrusion, we must now work to create and maintain safeguards
and protective standards that will prevent remote intangible digital intrusion;
cybersecurity—a whole new world.
In the not-so-recent past, we relied on physical safeguards to prevent data theft
and unauthorized access. When those safeguards failed, we would turn to the legal
system—criminal or civil depending on the severity of the theft or breach—to
vii
viii Preface
penalize or provide a remedy in law for the act. It should not come as a surprise that
our shift onto online platforms has created an obstacle in our ability to apply the law
as it was previously written and applied. In this way, our law has had to evolve from
our former concept of privacy law and security in law to our newer fields of data
privacy law and cybersecurity in law for our online medium.
“Understanding Cybersecurity and Digital Privacy—A Common Law Perspec-
tive” is the second book in the Understanding Cybersecurity Series (UCS), follow-
ing the precursory publication, “Understanding Cybersecurity Management in
FinTech” mid-way through 2021. In this installment of the series, we discuss the
theory and principles of legal application in (data) privacy and (cyber) security
which underpin our digital relationships; personal, professional, commercial, and
organizational.
This book provides insight into the pre-digital concept of property ownership,
possession, interest, and privacy which form the basis of our tort and property laws.
We examine the roots of systems of law and legal governance, building up to an
analysis of cybercriminal activities and the issues which arise in dealing with these
new areas under the old law. We discuss the methods used by a selection of common
law countries in addressing privacy and online interpersonal matters, providing a
comparison between these models. Finally, we take a look at the upcoming trends in
data privacy and cybersecurity law.
The field of cybersecurity is dynamic and rapidly changing; new technologies are
created and quickly evolve and expand into newer areas and applications. While the
speed of new technological evolution is necessary to maintain competition in the
industry, it has also allowed our digital world to surge ahead in development much
more quickly than our laws and legal systems are able to evolve to accommodate
these changes.
When we look to apply our legal structures to this dynamic field, it is unsurprising
that we seem to keep coming up short. The field of law and legal education is rooted
in traditional, long-standing principles. The common law is shaped through years of
nuanced legal evolution, reflecting the social changes of the time, but this is nowhere
near the dynamic speed of change that we see in cybersecurity. While this is both
necessary for the fundamental purposes of the law, it is also an impediment,
reflecting the need for greater flexibility in the application for our legal systems.
Herein lies the issue.
Merging these two distinct worlds: one dynamic and one static, we are first faced
with the task of filling in the knowledge gaps which unintentionally serve to keep
these areas apart. We can see this in the metaphor of the “ivory tower” of academia;
where those who specialize in one area may know the intricacies of that area but not
how to relate the area of specialization to others. In aiming to address the inherent
challenge of connecting the cybersecurity tower and the legal tower, we have created
this book.
Our first chapter starts out by describing the foundations of law, including the
purpose and principles of law. We discuss the concept of jurisprudence and some of
the major theories of legal jurisprudence which have been influential in the develop-
ment and evolution of the law over time. From there, we extend our discussion to the
sources of law and legal influence, the various systems and categories of law, and
some of the forms of legal governance. Finally, we round off chapter one with a look
into the concept of constitutionalism and the interplay between constitutionalism and
the division of jurisdictional power and authority.
Chapter two discusses the legal concept of property and the nature of privacy in a
legal context; outlining some of the historical perceptions of property before moving
on to distinguish between the interwoven concepts of ownership, possession, and
ix
x Introduction
interest. We examine the relationship between property and privacy, as well as the
intersection of property, privacy, and cybersecurity within the law and legal system.
Chapter three, on cybersecurity and cybercrime, starts off by categorizing
cybercriminal activities into cyber-enabled, cyber-dependent, and cyber-supported
offences, and describing the nature of these types of offences. We discuss the
growing prevalence of cybercrime, including digital privacy infringement, data
theft, and other online-based offences. We finish off the third chapter by neatly
sorting the specific subsets of criminal offences, respectively, within each of the
three branches of cybercriminal activity categorization.
The fourth chapter looks at the global relevance of cybersecurity law, using four
common law nations as comparators: Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and
the United States. Using tables, we compare and contrast the methods of regulating
cyber offences between these four example nations. After establishing an under-
standing of some of the different strategies employed by individual nations to apply
existing law to the online world, we will follow by outlining some of the national and
international considerations which influence individual national or state policies
pertaining to cybersecurity, data privacy, regulation, and online criminal activity.
In our fifth and final chapter, we discuss some of the emerging issues in
cybersecurity and data privacy law. We outline the issues which arise with globali-
zation and the difficulty of navigating jurisdictionally on an international stage. That
is followed by an examination of the relationship between digital marketplaces and
the online consumer. We then venture onto the DarkNet, giving an overview of
anonymized dark marketplaces as well as the rise of digital transactions and online
exchanges made using cryptocurrencies. We then branch into a discussion on some
of the existing challenges to law enforcement, as well as the complexity of digital
sovereignty and data governance in law. Finally, we finish off this fifth and final
chapter by discussing some of the potential future directions for further research and
exploration into the field of cybersecurity law.
By reading this book, readers will become familiar with two different
perspectives: that of the law and that of cybersecurity. Included in this book are
some of the most current topics and emerging issues in cybersecurity, including:
cryptocurrency, online anonymization, DDOS attacks, and digital content
regulation.
Contents
1 Legal Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose and Principles of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Salmond on the Classifications of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 The Rule of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Natural Law Jurisprudence: Observation and
Realization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 Analytical Jurisprudence: Definition and Clarification . . . . 6
1.2.3 Normative Jurisprudence: Evaluation and Reformation . . . . 9
1.3 Sources of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.1 Legislation/Statutory Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.2 Legal Precedent/ Case Law/Common Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.3 Sources of Legal Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4 Systems of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4.1 Common Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.2 Civil Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.3 Religious Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.4.4 Customary Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4.5 Legal Pluralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4.6 Case Hypothetical: Systems of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 Categories of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5.1 International Law vs Domestic Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5.2 Recognition of Sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5.3 Public Law versus Private Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.5.4 Case Hypothetical: Categories of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.6 Legal Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.6.1 Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.6.2 Monarchism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.6.3 Elitism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.6.4 Socialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.6.5 Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.6.6 Case Hypothetical: Legal Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
xi
xii Contents
1.7 Constitutionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.7.1 Division of Jurisdictional Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.7.2 Branches of Legal Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2 Property and Privacy in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.1 Perceptions of Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2 Ownership, Possession, and Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.1 Distinguishing Ownership from Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.2 Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2.3 Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2.4 Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.5 Case Hypothetical: Ownership, Possession, and Interest . . . 43
2.3 Property and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.3.1 Classifications of Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.3.2 Private Property Versus Public Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.3 Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.4 Differentiating Personal from Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3.5 Legislative Example: Canadian Consumer Privacy
Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.3.6 Case Hypothetical: Consumer Privacy Protection . . . . . . . . 50
2.4 The Intersection of Property, Privacy, and Cybersecurity Law . . . . 51
2.4.1 Criminal Law/Statutory Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.4.2 Tort Law/Common Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.4.3 Case Hypothetical: Intersection of Criminal and
Tort Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.1.1 Cyber-Enabled Offences (On/Offline) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.1.2 Cyber-Dependent Offences (Online) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.1.3 Computer/Cyber-Supported Offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.1.4 National (Cyber)Security Offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.2 Growing Prevalence of Cybercrime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.3 Categorizing Cybercrimes in the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4 Global Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.1 Review of Canadian Cybersecurity Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.1.1 Regulating Governmental Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Contents xiii
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Author Biographies
Melissa Lukings Melissa Lukings is a Juris Doctor (JD) candidate at the Faculty of
Law, University of New Brunswick (UNB), a former graduate of Memorial Univer-
sity of Newfoundland (MUN) holding a Bachelor of Arts degree in Linguistics, and
an intersectional research assistant with a background in social justice, grassroots
organization, data privacy, and cybersecurity law. Lukings is currently working on a
handful of research projects covering a wide variety of topics, ranging from
cybersecurity and privacy law to legal reform and access to justice within the
Canadian judicial system.
During 2020 and 2021, Lukings co-authored a ten-part article series, entitled
“Understanding Canadian Cybersecurity Laws,” which was published by IT World
Canada. The article series was recognized with a Gold Medal for the Best Blog
Column in the Business Division of the 2020 Canadian Online Publishing Awards,
which was remotely held in February 2021.
In April 2021, following the publication of the final article in the Understanding
Canadian Cybersecurity Laws series, Ms. Lukings was invited to appear, on two
occasions, as an expert witness and individual advocate for the purpose of providing
testimonial evidence in a hearing before the House of Commons of Canada’s Ethics
Committee—formally known as the Standing Committee on Access to Information,
Privacy and Ethics (ETHI)—which studies matters related to the Offices of: the
Information Commissioner of Canada; the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; the
Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, and certain issues related to the Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Following her appearances before the Ethics Committee, Ms. Lukings was cited
in the final publicized report from the Ethics Committee, which was formally
presented to the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons of Canada and
made freely available to the public on June 17, 2021.
Over the years and into the present, Ms. Lukings has been a notable activist, with
an extensive background of involvement within non-profit organizations, particu-
larly those with a primary mandate founded on principles of: harm reduction; mental
health advocacy, education, and awareness; crisis and suicide intervention; violence
prevention; sexual health and reproductive justice; human rights; and access to
xv
xvi Author Biographies
Arash Habibi Lashkari Dr. Arash Habibi Lashkari is the founder of the Under-
standing Cybersecurity Series (UCS). This is an ongoing and extendable research
and development project, which will culminate with a varied collection of online
articles and blogs, books and papers, open-source codes, and datasets tailored for
researchers and readers at all levels. Dr. Lashkari is a senior member of the Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an Associate Professor in the Faculty
of Computer Science at the University of New Brunswick (UNB), and the Research
Coordinator at the Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity (CIC).
Dr. Lashkari has over 20 years of teaching experience, spanning several interna-
tional universities, and was responsible for designing the first cybersecurity Capture
the Flag (CTF) competition for post-secondary students in Canada. He is the author
of ten published books and more than 90 academic articles on a variety of
cybersecurity-related topics. He has been the recipient of 15 awards at international
computer security competitions—including three gold awards—and was recognized
in 2017 as one of Canada’s Top 150 Researchers.
In 2020, Dr. Lashkari was recognized with the prestigious Teaching Innovation
Award from the University of New Brunswick (UNB) for his intuitive teaching
methodology, the Think-Que-Cussion Method. Also, his teaching technique has
been nominated for the Reimagine Education, world level teaching and education
award for 2021.
Over the last six years, Dr. Lashkari has done extensive work on cybersecurity
repository dataset generation; producing a total of twelve novel cybersecurity
datasets during that time. Building on over two decades of concurrent industrial
and development experience in network, software, and computer security,
Dr. Lashkari’s current work involves the development of vulnerability detection
technology to provide protection to network systems against cyberattacks. He
simultaneously supervises multiple research and development teams working on
several projects related to network traffic analysis, malware analysis, Honeynet, and
threat hunting. His other research interests focus on cyber threat detection, big data
security, and darknet traffic analysis.
Dr. Lashkari’s newest research and development project, the Understanding
Cybersecurity Series (UCS), is a project that will feature a mixed collection of
online articles, published books, datasets, and open-source codes. The online
articles—published as blogs—will target a readership audience including computer
and software engineers, researchers and developers, IT professionals and
administrators, youth, students, seniors, and other interested readers. Some of the
existing online articles in the project so far include: the ten-part Understanding
Canadian Cybersecurity Laws (UCCL) series and the six-part Understanding
Android Malware Families (UAMF) series. The first part of the UCS entitled
Understanding Canadian Cybersecurity Laws (UCCL), was recognized with a
Author Biographies xvii
Gold Medal at the 2020 Canadian Online Publishing Awards. The third part of the
UCS entitled Understanding Cybersecurity Management in Fintech (UCMF) is also
under process and will be released from August for 6 months.
The published books and papers in the Understanding Cybersecurity Series
(UCS) will target a readership primarily consisting of academic scholars and
advanced educators, post-secondary students, researchers and developers, corporate
decision-makers, industry professionals, government legislators, and legal
practitioners. The first book, which has been published by Springer and entitled
Understanding Cybersecurity Management in Fintech (UCMF), provides infrastruc-
ture security solutions for a target audience of financial experts, software developers,
financial technology innovators, and cybersecurity researchers.
Legal Foundations
1
In this chapter, we will create the necessary context for future chapters, by starting
with the foundations of the law and the legal system. This chapter will be the base for
everything that follows. To begin, we will discuss the origins and purpose of law,
including the jurisprudential theories of law. We will outline the sources and systems
which shape our application of legal theory, and the intersectionality of the areas of
legal practice. Finally, we will wrap up this chapter by exploring the concepts of
legal governance, democracy, and constitutionalism.
In its most basic form, law is any rule of action and includes any standards or pattern
to which actions are or ought to be confirmed. The law serves many purposes
including: establishing standards; maintaining order; resolving disputes; and
protecting liberties and rights.
Sir John William Salmond KC (1862–1924) [1] was a highly regarded legal
scholar, practitioner, public servant, university lecturer, knight, and judge of the
Supreme Court of New Zealand [2]. Salmond was appointed as Counsel to the Law
Drafting Office of New Zealand in 1907 and stayed there until he was appointed as
Solicitor-General in 1911 [3]. Salmond received the designation of King’s Counsel
in 1912, was knighted in 1918, and appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of
New Zealand (now known as the High Court) in 1920.1 Salmond also authored
several legal texts over his lifetime. Two of his texts, in particular, Salmond on
1
This is now known as the High Court.
Jurisprudence2 and Salmond on Torts,3 are both now regarded as legal classics.
Salmond provided the following opinion regarding the function of law.
“The term ‘Law’ denotes different kinds of rules and Principles. Law is an
instrument that regulates human conduct/behavior. Law means Justice, Morality,
Reason, Order, and Righteous from the perspective of the society. Law means
Statutes, Acts, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and Ordinances from the point of view
of the legislature. Law means Rules of court, Decrees, Judgment, Orders of courts,
and Injunctions from the point of view of Judges. Therefore, Law is a broader term
which includes Acts, Statutes, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Ordinances, Justice,
Morality, Reason, Righteous, Rules of court, Decrees, Judgment, Orders of courts,
Injunctions, Tort, Jurisprudence, Legal theory, etc.”
1. Imperative law—the command of the sovereign must be general and the obser-
vance of law must be enforced by some authority.
2. Physical or scientific law—these are laws of science which are the expression of
the uniformities of nature.
3. Natural or moral law—Natural law is based on the principles of right and wrong
whereas Moral laws are laws based on the principles of morality.
4. Conventional law—system of rules agreed upon by persons for the regulation of
their conduct towards each other.
5. Customary law—any system of rules which are observed by men as a custom and
has been in practice since time immemorial.
6. Practical or technical law—rules meant for a particular sphere by human activity.
7. International law—rules which regulate the relations between various nations of
the world.
8. Civil law—the law enforced by the State [4].
The Rule of Law is a legal principle which suggests that every person is subject to the
law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges
[5]. The principle of the Rule of Law goes back to ancient philosophers, including
Plato and Aristotle. While the modern use of the phrase “the rule of law” has been
credited to Samuel Rutherford, John Locke, and A. V. Dicey, the development of the
fundamental legal concept of the Rule of Law can be traced back through history and
2
Officially titled Jurisprudence or The Theory of the Law.
3
Officially titled The Law of Torts.
1.1 Purpose and Principles of Law 3
Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the
state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the
government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings
that the gods shower on a state. [7]
Aristocracy describes a form of government that places power and authority in the
hands of a small and privileged ruling class, called the aristocrats [8]. The term is
derived from the Greek term aristokratia, which describes this idealized beneficial
monarchy and can be translated as “rule of the best.” In jurisprudence, the “rule of
the best” described a system of governance where only the best of the citizens,
chosen through a careful process of selection, would become rulers. In this system,
hereditary rule would be forbidden, unless the children of the incumbent ruler
performed best and were better endowed with the attributes that make a person fit
to rule in comparison to every other citizen in the polity.
In comparison to Plato, Aristotle was more strongly opposed to letting the highest
officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws; what we now recognize
as the legal principle of the Rule of Law.4 Aristotle describes this concept in
Politics as:
It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same
principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons,
they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.5
In ancient China, during the third century BC, members of the school of legalism
argued for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted the “rule by law” as
opposed to the “rule of law”, meaning that they placed the aristocrats and emperor
above the law [9]. In contrast, the Huang-Lao school of Daoism rejected the theory
of legal positivism in favor of a natural law to which even the ruler would be
subject [10].
In the ninth century, Alfred the Great—an Anglo-Saxon king—reformed the law
of his kingdom and assembled a law code, which he grounded on biblical
commandments [11]. He held that the same law had to be applied to all persons,
whether rich or poor, friends or enemies [12].
Stephen Lanton (1150–1228), the Archbishop of Canterbury, was responsible for
drafting the first version of the Magna Carta Liberatum, more commonly known as
4
Aristotle, Politics 3.16.
5
Aristotle, Politics 3.16.
4 1 Legal Foundations
the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was a royal charter of English civil liberties
which was granted by King John on June 15, 1215, under threat of civil war. By
signing this document in agreement of the terms, King John conceded that he, as the
King of England, was subject to the laws of the realm like every other citizen. This
moved King John and future sovereigns and magistrates back under the rule of law,
preserving ancient liberties by Magna Carta in return for exacting taxes [13]. The
Magna Carta was reissued, with further alterations, in 1216, 1217, and 1225.
By declaring the sovereign, himself, to be subject to the Rule of Law and by
documenting the liberties held by “free men,” the Magna Carta provided the
foundation for individual rights in Anglo-American jurisprudence. From 1215
onward, no British citizen, no matter their political position, could ever be consid-
ered to be above the law. This eventually expanded to include all commonwealth
citizens. Clause 29 of the Magna Carta is considered by many to be the foundation
of the Rule of Law in England as well as the first declaration in Western history to
formally impose the Rule of Law [14]. The Magna Carta has also been used as a
foundational aspect of many later-established constitutions. The Due Process Clause
of the United States Constitution was partly based on a combination of common law
principles and the Magna Carta (1215), which had by then become a foundation of
English liberty against arbitrary power wielded by a governing body or ruler [15].
The Rule of Law can be contrasted with the tyrannical or oligarchical system of
legal governance, in which the rulers are perceived to be above the power of the law
[16]. The Rule of Law can also be absent in democracies and monarchies when there
is neglect or substantial ignorance of the law [17]. As well, if a government has
insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring the Rule of Law where it is lacking,
then the principle of the Rule of Law within that society become gradually more apt
to decay, allowing for corruption to become embedded within the governmental
systems of that society, and making it even more difficult to restore the Rule of Law
over time.
1.2 Jurisprudence
In De Legibus, Marcus Tulius Cicero (106 BC—43 BC) wrote that both justice and
law originate from what nature has given to humanity, from what the human mind
embraces, from the function of humanity, and from what serves to unite humanity
[20]. For Cicero, natural law provides the obligation to contribute to the general
good of the larger society. The purpose of positive laws is to provide for “the safety
of citizens, the preservation of states, and the tranquility and happiness of human
life” [21]. In this view, “wicked and unjust statutes” are “anything but
‘laws,’“because “in the very definition of the term ‘law’ there inheres the idea and
principle of choosing what is just and true” [22]. In De Re Publica, Cicero
wrote that:
“There is indeed a law, right reason, which is in accordance with nature; existing in all,
unchangeable, eternal. Commanding us to do what is right, forbidding us to do what is
wrong. It has dominion over good men, but possesses no influence over bad ones. No other
law can be substituted for it, no part of it can be taken away, nor can it be abrogated
altogether. Neither the people or the senate can absolve from it. It is not one thing at Rome,
and another thing at Athens: one thing to-day, and another thing tomorrow; but it is eternal
and immutable for all nations and for all time.” [23]
The work and writings of Cicero continued to influence the discussion of natural
law for many centuries to come, up through the era of the American Revolution. In
his summary of medieval natural law, Thomas Aquinas even quoted Cicero’s
statement that “nature” and “custom” were the sources of a society’s laws. [24]
human-made or secular laws. Aquinas described divine law as being that which is
revealed in the scriptures and is God’s positive law for mankind. Similar to natural
law, divine law is viewed as existing independent of the will of man, with divine
laws being perceived as being superior to—or of having greater authority than—
human-made laws.
The natural law-based theories, according to Aquinas, is the “participation” in the
eternal law by rational human creatures, and is discovered by reason. Natural law
today refers to the body of unchanging moral principles that are regarded as the basis
for all human conduct. It is a theoretical perspective, grounded in ethics and
philosophy, that posits that all human beings possess intrinsic values that govern
our reasoning and behavior, and that these values are not created by society,
governments, or court judges.
The paradigmatic view of natural law holds that:
6
Jeremy Bentham is also known for having described theories of natural law and divine law as
being “nonsense on stilts.”
1.2 Jurisprudence 7
case law. In the legal positivist perspective, the source of law is founded in the
establishment of that law by some legal authority which is recognized socially.
Legal positivism contends that:
7
That is, that everyone is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement
officials and judges.
8 1 Legal Foundations
with relation to an actual social phenomenon. With the aim of making the law an
effective instrument of social control, sociological jurisprudence emphasizes the
working law, actual social conditions and social situations rather than the abstract
legal concepts and content. It places the value of individual betterment over the
interest of the state or general interest.
Proponents of sociological jurisprudence hold a greater concern for the function-
ing and workings of the law, rather than the nature of law itself. Sociological jurists
focus strongly on the social purposes, goals and expectations of law rather than the
sanctions and coercive nature of the law. Jurists who subscribe to the sociological
jurisprudence perspective are more likely to consider law as a body of authoritative
guides that help to enable decision-making, as opposed to an abstract content of
authoritative directives. As this school of thought considers law as a socio-legal
institution that can be created and modified consciously, it synthesizes with both the
analytical method of legal practice and historical approach to the study of law.
that the law is a positive social force, promoting better well-being and overall mental
health [35]. By positioning itself as a form of lens, or field of inquiry, therapeutic
jurisprudence can be extremely wide-ranging in its ideas and principles. It draws on
insights from various disciplines—like psychology, criminology and sociology—as
well as often overlapping with other approaches to law—such as restorative justice
and mental health law [36]. The flexibility of this approach allows for its practical
adaptation for a wide variety of situations.
1.2.3.2 Deontology
Deontology is the view that laws should reflect our obligation to preserve the
autonomy and rights of others [38]. Historically, deontological thought regarding
law is associated with the work of Enlightenment-era philosopher Immanuel Kant
and that of contemporary legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin.
Immanuel Kant argued that in order to act in the morally right way, people must
act from duty and that it is not the consequences of actions that make them right or
wrong, but the motives of the person who carries out the action [39].
Dworkin’s theory of “law as integrity,” as described in his book Law’s Empire,
has judges interpreting the law in terms of consistent moral principles, especially
justice and fairness, and is among the most influential contemporary theories about
the nature of law. Dworkin’s theory is “interpretive” in that it describes the law as
being whatever follows from a constructive interpretation of the institutional history
of the legal system. Dworkin argues that in every situation where people’s legal
rights are controversial, the best interpretation involves the right answer thesis, the
thesis that there exists a right answer as a matter of law that the judge must discover.
10 1 Legal Foundations
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine
what we shall do. [40]
Jeremy Bentham theorized that happiness or pleasure is the only thing that is
good for its own sake. He believed that humans, by nature, are motivated exclusively
by the desire for pleasure—also known as “psychological hedonism”—and that
ethically they should seek to maximize pleasure—otherwise known as “ethical
hedonism”. In The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham attempted to
determine what a system of laws would look like if it was constructed on a purely
utilitarian basis. According to Bentham, seven factors should be considered in
weighing the value of a pleasure or pain: (1) intensity; (2) duration; (3) degree of
certainty; (4) propinquity or remoteness; (5) fecundity8; (6) purity9; and (7) extent or
scope of impact.
The four primary sources of law are statutes, cases, and regulations. These laws and
rules are issued by official bodies within governmental bodies. There are other
sources for what constitutes appropriate conduct, such as religion and ethics,
which may have an influential impact on law, but are not considered to be primary
sources.
Statutory law refers to the laws which are implemented through enacted legislation.
Statutes, or Acts, are laws made by the (federal) Parliament or the (provincial/
territorial) Legislature. The implementation of a new statute can create a new law,
8
The tendency to produce further pleasure or pain.
9
Whether it is purely pleasurable or painful, or a mixture of the two.
1.3 Sources of Law 11
or modify or nullify a previously existing law. The rules that address the details and
practical applications of the law expressed in each Act are known as its Regulations.
The authority to make Regulations in relation to an Act is assigned within that Act
itself. Put simply, statutory law refers to the entirety of written laws that are passed
through the body of the legislature and voted on by the members of the governing
body. Keywords to look for when determining whether a law is a statute or legisla-
tion can include terms like: Charter, Code, Constitution, Act, etc.
In some legal systems, the concept of sources of law in jurisprudence can also refer
to the body of previous court decisions, known as legal precedent. Other terms for
legal precedent include: case law, common law, judge-made law, judicial precedent,
and precedential law.
Legal precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for
deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.
If the facts or issues of a case hugely differ from those in a previous case, then the
previous case cannot be used as legal precedent for determining the outcome of the
new case. Once a case is decided by a judge by applying the principle, a case on
similar facts which may arise in future must also be decided by applying the same
principle. The basis for legal precedent is founded in the doctrine of stare decisis.
This area of law is also known as case law, common law, judge-made law, etc. The
doctrine of judicial precedent is based on two rules:
Rule 1: A court which is lower in a hierarchy is completely bound by the
decisions of courts which are above it.
Rule 2: Higher courts are bound by their own decision, in general, in matters
related to precedence.
can be highly influential in the resulting decision made by a court, especially where
there is a high level of similarity in the facts of the two cases.
An original precedent is a judicial decision in which a new law is created and
applied in a legal matter. This occurs when a judge must come to a decision without
the option of following a previous decision, as the specific facts in the case have not
previously come before a court. Original precedents are responsible for the creation
of new laws, which we may also refer to as judge-made law [41].
A declaratory precedent is when there is only one possible application of a
previously decided rule in a legal matter, which can be intuitively applied to the
case. In this situation, the decision-maker would simply be applying an existing law
to a legal matter.
While not considered to be primary sources of law, there are many additional
personal, social, political, financial, or other factors which may have some level of
1.4 Systems of Law 13
influence on the law and/or judicial decision-making. While this is not ideal, it seems
nearly inherent—as humans—to experience preference and opinions based on
individual ideologies. Sources of legal influence can include anything which may
influence or impact the perspective of a decision-maker or governing body, such as:
religious ideologies, personal values, social norms, political influence, internalized
bias, and many other influencers. Figure 1.1 shows some of the sources of law and
sources of influence on law.
Common law countries are those which adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis, which
is the principle in common law systems that a precedent—an earlier decision or
ruling in a previous legal case—is either binding or persuasive for a court when
deciding future cases with similar issues or established facts. Historically, the
common law system originated in medieval England from uncodified judge-made
case law and gave authority to prior court decisions—which we have discussed as
legal precedent [45].
The goal of the common law legal system in deciding cases based on precedent
and according to consistent principled rules is that cases that have similar facts will
yield similar and predictable outcomes, which will aid in maintaining the fundamen-
tal principles of justice. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions,
which are considered law with the same force of law as statutes. While they often
have statutes as well, common law legal systems rely more heavily on legal
precedent. Common law systems are adversarial, rather than investigatory, with
the judge moderating between two opposing parties [46].
Civil law is the most widespread system of law in the world, in force in various forms
in about 150 countries, historically drawing heavily from Roman law—one of the
most intricate known legal systems prior to our modern era. The civil law system
took inspiration from the framework of ancient Roman law, was influenced by
Canon Law10 in the Middle Ages, and developed into the current referable system
or codified core principles which acts as the primary source of law.11
Globally, civil systems vary widely, both in procedure and substantive law, which
often varies between nations, however they do have some trademark characteristics.
The most pronounced features of civil systems are their legal codes with concise and
broadly applicable texts that typically avoid factually specific scenarios. The short
articles in a civil law code deal in generalities and stand in contrast with ordinary
statutes, which are often very long and very detailed. Nations which use a civil law
system have comprehensive and frequently updated legal codes [47]. Most impor-
tantly, case law is a secondary source in these jurisdictions. France and Germany are
two examples of countries with a civil law system. Table 1.1 distinguishes between
the main features of the common and civil legal systems.
10
A variety of religious law.
11
Also called a “codex”.
1.4 Systems of Law 15
Table 1.1 Distinguishing common law and civil law legal systems
Common Law Civil Law
Synonyms Anglo-American law Continental law
and English law French law
Subsets Judge-made law Germanic law
Precedential law Roman law
Primary Case law / Legal precedent Codified laws / Legislation
Source
(s) of Law
Creators of Both the Judiciary and the Legislative Legislative bodies
Law bodies
Role of Evaluation and creation of law Interpretation and application of the law
Judiciary through legal precedent as codified
Clarity vs Less clarity; great flexibility More clarity; less flexibility
Flexibility
Legal Adversarial: Inquisitorial:
Procedure Trial judge focuses on issues of law Trial judge acts as inquisitor and actively
and legal procedure; acting as a participates in the process; fact-finding,
referee between the prosecution and questioning, raising issues, etc.
the defense.
Example Australia Brazil
Nations Bangladesh France
Canada Germany
Hong Kong Kuwait
Pakistan Lebanon
United States Russia
Religious law includes ethical and moral codes taught by religious traditions and
used as a basis for law. Religious legal systems then, are those in which the law is
rooted in the religious doctrine, interpretations of those texts, or traditions within a
given religion. Different religious systems hold sacred law in a greater or lesser
degree of importance to their belief systems [48].
Some countries incorporate some aspects of religious law into civil or common
law systems.12 We can see this in Islamic nations which have legal systems based in
whole or in part on religious material, with a portion of those nations opting to mix
the traditional religious law with features of the civil or common law legal systems.
In other countries, elements of Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, or Sikh laws can be
found incorporated into the legal structure [49].
12
See: Legal Pluralism.
16 1 Legal Foundations
Customary law legal systems are generally found at the tribal or local level in
districts, counties, and villages, and is a vast set of practices that vary from commu-
nity to community. Countries that do not historically have strong formal justice
systems may rely upon customary law, which frequently becomes a function of tribal
or village elders in the absence of a functioning formal justice system, as in a conflict
or post-conflict country. These traditional rights and obligations are generally unique
to a particular society or culture. Customary law is based on longstanding local
customs which greatly shape the ideas of justice. The laws of customary legal
systems are usually unwritten; orally dispensed by elders and passed down through
generations. Oftentimes, customary law practices can be found within pluralistic
legal system jurisdictions, in combination with common, civil, or religious systems
of law. It generally uses a case-by-case approach to dispute resolution, sometimes
involving informal mediation or arbitration, and typically does not include a formal
trial. Customary law frequently becomes a function of tribal or village elders in the
absence of a functioning formal justice system, as in a conflict or post-conflict
country [50].
Legal pluralism, also called a hybrid or mixed law legal system, includes any legal
systems where countries have mixed legal systems that draw on common law or civil
law traditions and mixed with customary or religious laws [51]. Some examples
include:
• Nepal’s legal system combines Hindu legal concepts and common law [52].
• Sri Lanka’s legal system combines civil law, common law and customary law [53].
• Many Pacific island countries recognize customary law as well as common law [54].
• In some African countries, customary law still has great influence, and local
values play a role in informal justice systems and accountability [55].
Province B has a system of law which is primarily based on replicating the lines
of reasoning and legal application as applied in preceding cases and previous
judicial decisions. In this way, Province B gives deference to the judgements
made by previous decision-makers. This allows for a more fluid application of
law—taking into consideration the developing legal goals, attitudes, social norms,
and values of a region—which serves to gradually shape and shift the application of
the law over time, as those goals, attitudes, norms, and values evolve. In this case,
Province B would fall under the umbrella of the common law legal system.
Province C uses a blended system of law which is based on religious law with the
added influence of customary law. Although not written or prescribed through
canonical material, the customary law itself was heavily influenced by the dominant
religion and the laws prescribed within its associated materials. Province C can either
be seen as using a system based on religious law or, alternatively, it can be identified
as a pluralistic system of religious and customary law.
As a nation in its entirety, Country X has come to the agreement that any legal
matter which is localized to one of the provinces can be enforced and decided based
on the presiding legal system of that province. For matters which occur between or
across provinces, Country X has a complex set of rules for determining the system of
law to be applied which varies depending on the nature of the legal matter. Based on
its jigsawed cocktail of legal systems, Country X can be said to be using a pluralistic
system of law. Legal pluralism, in this context, refers to the blend of civil law,
common law, and religious/customary legal systems which apply within each juris-
diction, that being, the province—or provinces—in which the law is being applied.
As we can see from the earlier sections of this book, the law can be many things, is
formed from many influences, and can be vastly different between individual
nations. When we talk about laws, it can be helpful to narrow the scope of the
discussion to the specific subcategory or branch of law, as we can use a taxonomical
structure to categorize different species of related creatures. In law, we can distin-
guish (for the most part) between international and domestic law, as well as between
public and private law. It is important to recognize, however, that as every individual
situation arises which must be examined under the law, there is often an amount of
intersectionality between the most specific sub-categories, as we can see in an
example of a legal matter, provided below.
Thus, while international law involves the regulation of the relationship between
sovereign states, domestic law confers rights to persons and entities within the
sovereign state [56].
Sovereignty refers to the legal power and authority of a governing body to exercise
control over a nation or state and the autonomy of that governing body to do so freely
and without external pressure, control or influence [57]. In any nation or state,
sovereignty is assigned to the person, governing body, or other institution that has
the ultimate authority over other people in order to establish a law or change an
existing law [58].
Nations and states are also sometimes described as being sovereign themselves.
When a nation identifies as a sovereign nation, it means that the population or
residents of the nation have power over themselves and control over their own
government, rather than their government being under the control of an external
authority. In this way, sovereignty in domestic law refers to the power of a govern-
mental body to rule without intrusion from outside forces or external influence from
other countries.
In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state [59]. De jure
sovereignty refers to the legal right of the state to exercise their power and authority.
This can be contrasted with de facto sovereignty, which refers to the actual factual
ability of a state to exercise their power and authority rather than the legal right to do
so. While we typically expect de jure and de facto sovereignty to exist at the same
place, at the same time, and within the same governing organization, a failure of that
expectation can become an issue of concern for the determination of sovereignty in
international law. Although the twentieth century resulted in greater limitations on
sovereignty, it continues to be a major issue in international law, particularly in cases
of international human rights violations and regional genocide.
The current notion of national or state sovereignty contains four aspects
consisting of: territory; population; authority; and recognition [60]. According to
Stephen Krasner—an academic and international relations professor at Stanford
University—sovereignty can be understood in four different ways [61]:
Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this is not necessarily the case.
State sovereignty is sometimes confused, or viewed synonymously, with indepen-
dence—that is the condition of anybody in which at least a portion of its population
exercises self-government. Often, independence will also entail sovereignty, but that
is not always the case [63]. We can distinguish between sovereignty and indepen-
dence with the following examples:
Person A and Person B have been Married for two decades. One year after their
marriage, they started a Business, which quickly expanded and they ended up
incorporating it. Within the next 10 years, they purchase a Home and expand their
Family to include two children, Child A and Child B.
20 1 Legal Foundations
The Business assets are divided into two classes of shares, Class A shares are all
held by Person A and Class B shares held by Person B. To ensure that their children
will be cared for, they both created Wills and together set up Trusts for each of the
children, in which the Estate assets would be held until each child reached the age of
25. As a bonus, all members of the family are covered under the company Insurance
plan, which includes a large payout if the case of an accidental workplace death.
Following the arrival of Child B, Person A and Person B agree that Person A
should take a leave of absence from full-time Employment to take care of the children
until both children are old enough to attend elementary school during the day. While
on leave from work, Person A spends roughly 30 hours per week doing office work
to assist Person B in operating their shared Business. The home office was dutifully
claimed in their Taxation records at a home office, meeting all of the qualifications
for that designation.
One day, Person A slips on a pool of water on the floor of the home office and
promptly dies. The incident is investigated for Fraud by the insurance provider.
Person B ends up being charged with Murder. He is convicted but Appeals the
decision based on evidence of Procedural error during Evidence collection by law
enforcement.
Each of the words in bold font in the above case hypothetical, can help to indicate
the relevant sub-branch(es) of legal practice. Table 1.2 sorts these keywords and lists
the relevant areas of legal practice, either under the Public Law or Private Law
category. Through this exercise, we can see that some topics which may arise in the
legal realm can intersect with multiple areas of law, in both the public and private
spheres of practice.
Some of the major sub-branches and specializations of the legal profession are
categorized in Fig. 1.2, being differentiated by international law vs domestic law and
by public law vs private law.
1.6.1 Authoritarianism
1.6.1.1 Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is an authoritarian form of government in which the ruling party
recognizes no limitations whatsoever on its power, including exercising near com-
plete control over its citizens’ lives and rights and which tolerates no opposition. A
single figure often holds power and maintains authority through widespread surveil-
lance of citizens and visitors, restricted access to information through the complete
control of mass media, intimidating demonstrations of paramilitary or police power,
and suppression of protest, activism, or political opposition by prohibiting the
gathering of groups for political purposes which are in opposition to the state [65].
Examples of characteristics that might be present in a totalitarian state include:
13
As described by Juan José Linz, Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Political Science at Yale
University, in 1964.
1.6 Legal Governance 23
1.6.1.2 Dictatorships
A military dictatorship is a nation ruled by a single authority with absolute power
and no democratic process [71]. The head of state typically comes to power in a time
of upheavals, such as high unemployment rates or civil unrest. They usually lead the
nation’s armed forces, using it to establish their brand of law and order and suppress
the people’s rights. Dictators dismiss due process, civil liberties, or political
freedoms. Dissent or political opposition can be dangerous or even deadly for the
country’s citizens.
While a dictatorship is by definition an autocracy, a dictatorship may also be
ruled by an elite group of people, such as a military or religious order. Autocracy can
also be compared to oligarchy14 and democracy.15 Today, most autocracies exist in
the form of absolute monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Morocco, and
dictatorships, such as North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe [72].
1.6.1.3 Fascism
Fascism is a form of government combining the most extreme aspects of both
totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Fascism is characterized by the imposition of
dictatorial power, government control of industry and commerce, and the forcible
suppression of opposition, often at the hands of the military or a secret police force.
Fascism was first seen in Italy during World War I, later spreading to Germany and
other European countries during World War II [73].
Today, few governments publicly describe themselves as fascist. Instead, the
label is more often used pejoratively by those critical of particular governments or
14
Rule by a small group of individuals distinguished by their wealth, education or religion.
15
Rule by a majority of the people.
24 1 Legal Foundations
1.6.2 Monarchism
Monarchy is a power system that appoints a person as head of state for life or until
abdication. Authority traditionally passes down through a succession line related to
one’s bloodline and birth order within the ruling royal family, often limited by
gender. Today, 45 nations have some form of monarchy, though the concept has
become increasingly diluted with the evolution of democratic principles. One of the
most well-known examples of a constitutional monarchy is that of Queen Elizabeth
II of the United Kingdom, who fulfills a traditional symbolic role in partnership with
parliament [75]. There are two types of monarchies: constitutional and absolute.
1.6.3 Elitism
Elitism tends to favor social systems such as meritocracy, technocracy and plutoc-
racy as opposed to political egalitarianism and populism. Elitists believe only a few
have the ability to truly change society, rather than the majority of people who only
vote and elect the elites into power. Subtypes of elitism include oligarchies,
aristocracies, and theocracies [80].
1.6 Legal Governance 25
1.6.3.1 Oligarchy
Oligarchy refers to a government in which a small group of elite individuals,
families, or corporations rules over a nation. A specific set of qualities, such as
wealth, heredity, and race, are used to give a small group of people power.
Oligarchies often have authoritative rulers and an absence of democratic practices
or individual rights [81].
1.6.3.2 Aristocracy
Aristocracy is a form of governance in which a small, elite ruling class—the
aristocrats—have power over those in lower socioeconomic groups [82]. Members
of the aristocracy are usually chosen based on their education, upbringing, and
genetic or family history. Aristocracies, which originated in Ancient Greece, often
connect wealth and ethnicity with both the ability and right to rule. Aristocracies
were the dominant governments during most medieval and modern periods across
Europe. Aristocrats led major countries, including Britain, Germany, and Russia,
until World War I, when other government forms gained popularity [83].
1.6.3.3 Theocracy
Theocracy refers to a form of government in which a specific religious ideology
determines the leadership, laws, and customs. In many instances, there is little to no
distinction between scriptural laws and legal codes. Likewise, religious clergy will
typically occupy leadership roles, sometimes including the highest office in the
nation [84].
1.6.4 Socialism
1.6.4.1 Communism
Communism is a centralized form of government led by a single party that is often
authoritarian in its rule. Inspired by German philosopher Karl Marx, communist
states replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership
and communal control of economic production, such as labor, capital goods, and
natural resources. Citizens are part of a classless society that distributes goods and
services as needed. The Soviet Union was a one-party, communist state in Northern
Eurasia from 1922 to 1991 [86].
Both communism and socialism are political and economic systems that share
certain beliefs, including greater equality in the distribution of income. Both
26 1 Legal Foundations
1.6.5 Democracy
Democracy is a form of government that allows the people to choose leadership. The
primary goal is to govern through fair representation and prevent abuses of power.
The result is a system that requires discourse, debate, and compromise to satisfy the
broadest possible number of public interests, leading to majority rule. Democracies
advocate for fair and free elections, civic participation, human rights protections, and
law and order. Democracy often goes hand-in-hand with constitutionalism [90].
liberal—that is, a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty and
property by rule of law—it can be illiberal—that is, a representative democracy
which has few, if any, limits on the power of the elected representatives or it can be a
defensive representative democracy which limits some individual rights and
freedoms of the people in order to protect the institutions of the democracy [92].
1.7 Constitutionalism
There are three branches of government that are involved in creating, maintaining,
and applying our legal structure: the legislative branch—which makes, alters, and
revokes laws, the executive branch—which administers and enforces the laws, and
the judicial branch—which applies the laws to resolve disputes that cannot be settled
outside of the court. The government in power makes and administers both
30 1 Legal Foundations
legislative and executive branches of our laws, and the courts maintain the judicial
branch of our legal structure by applying the laws when settling legal disputes. This
is the same both federally and provincially, with each level of government being
given the power to enact laws and make decisions on specific matters within the
jurisdiction of that level of government.
1.8 Summary
In this chapter, we have discussed the foundational purpose and principles upon
which our modern legal systems have been built. Starting with the concept of
jurisprudence and the philosophy of natural law, we moved through to the analytic
and normative legal philosophies which have historically influenced the legal
32 1 Legal Foundations
References
1. King’s Counsel (KC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Counsel
2. The office of King’s Counsel. http://www.kingscounselandtrust.com/
3. McLintock, A. H. (Ed.). (1966). An encyclopaedia of New Zealand (Vol. 3). R. E. Owen,
Government Printer.
4. Salmond, J. W. (1907). Jurisprudence, or, the theory of the law. Stevens and Haynes.
5. Hobson, C. (1996). The great chief justice: John Marshall and the rule of law (p. 57).
University Press of Kansas.
6. Black, A. (2009). A world history of ancient political thought. Oxford University Press.
7. Cooper, J., et al. (1997). Complete works by Plato (p. 1402). Hackett Publishing.
8. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “aristocracy,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/aristocracy.
9. Bevir, M. (2010). The encyclopedia of political theory (pp. 161–162). Sage.
10. Peerenboom, R. (1993). Law and morality in ancient China: The silk manuscripts of Huang-
Lao (p. 171). SUNY Press.
11. Keynes, S., & Lapidge, M. (1983). Alfred the great, Asser’s life of king Alfred and other
contemporary sources. Penguin.
References 33
12. Keynes, S. (1998). Alfred and the Mercians. In M. A. S. Blackburn & D. N. Dumville (Eds.),
Kings, currency, and alliances: history and coinage of southern England in the ninth century
(pp. 1–46). Boydell & Brewer.
13. Edlin, D. (2006). Judicial review without a constitution. Polity, 38, 345–368.
14. Simmons, C. A. (1998). Absent presence: The romantic-era magna Charta and the English
constitution. In R. Shippey & T. Utz (Eds.), Medievalism in the modern world. Essays in
Honour of Leslie J. Workman. Brepols Publishers.
15. United States Senate. (1992). Amendments to the constitution of the United States of America
(PDF). In The constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and interpretation. US
Government Printing Office.
16. Winters, J. A. (2011). Oligarchy. Northwestern University, Cambridge University Press.
17. Waldron, J. The rule of law. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
18. Garner, B. A. (2009). Black’s law dictionary (9th ed.). West. Jurisprudence entry.
19. Shiner, Philosophy of law. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
20. Cicero, De Legibus, bk. 1, sec. 16–17.
21. Barham, F. (1842). Introduction. In The political works of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Edmund
Spettigue.
22. Cicero, De Legibus, bk. 2, sec. 11.
23. Cicero, M. T., & Keyes, C. W. (1928). “De re Publica”, De Legibus. Harvard University Press.
24. Aquinas, T. Treatise on law (summa Theologica, questions 90–97), ed. Stanley Parry (Chicago:
Henry Regnery Company, 1969), p. 18.
25. Finnis, J. (2020). Natural law theories. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy (Summer 2020 ed.).
26. Kelsen, H. (2007). General theory of law and state (p. 392). The Lawbook Exchange.
27. Murphy, M. (2019). The natural law tradition in ethics. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.).
28. Translation: In Latin, Prima Secundæ means “the first of the second” and refers to the first
section of the second part of the Summa Theologiæ, which is the “theological summary” as
written by Thomas Aquinas.
29. Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review,
71, 593, 601–602.
30. Posner, R. A. (2008). How judges think (p. 41). Harvard University Press.
31. Moore, M. S. Critical legal studies. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
32. Miller, D. (1997). Sir Karl Raimund Popper, C. H., F. B. A. 28 July 1902–17 September 1994.:
Elected F.R.S. 1976. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society., 43, 369–409.
33. Stavropoulos, N. (2016). Legal Interpretivism. PRO, 1, 23–61.
34. Wexler DB and Winick BJ, 1996, Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic
jurisprudence.
35. David, B. W. (1999) The development of therapeutic jurisprudence: From theory to practice,
68 Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico 691–705.
36. Winick, B. J., & Wexler, D. B. (2003). Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence
and the courts. Carolina Academic Press.
37. Solum, L. B. (2003). Virtue jurisprudence: A virtue-centered theory of judging. Georgetown
Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. p. 880. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/
facpub/880
38. Alexander, L., & Moore, M. Deontological ethics. Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The stanford encyclo-
pedia of philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition). URL ¼ https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
sum2021/entries/ethics-deontological/.
39. Kant, I. (1785). Transition from the common rational knowledge of morals to the philosophical.
§ 1 in groundwork of the metaphysic of morals.
40. Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (p. 1). Hafner
Publishing Company.
34 1 Legal Foundations
41. Marshall, G. (2016). What is binding in a precedent. In Interpreting precedents (pp. 503–517).
Routledge.
42. Kozel, R. J. (2012). The rule of law and the perils of precedent. Michigan Law Review First
Impressions, 111, 37.
43. Baude, W. (2020). Precedent and discretion. The Supreme Court Review, 2019(1), 313–334.
44. Maltz, E. (1987). The nature of precedent. NCL Review, 66, 367.
45. Tetley, W. (1999). Mixed jurisdictions: Common Law v. Civil Law (codified and uncodified).
La L Rev, 60, 677.
46. Wilson, M., Nagorcka, F., & Stanton, M. (2005). Stranded between partisanship and the truth?:
A comparative analysis of legal ethics in the adversarial and inquisitorial systems of justice.
Melbourne University Law Review, 29(2), 448–477.
47. Merryman, J. H., & Pérez-Perdomo, R. (2020). The civil law tradition. Stanford University
Press.
48. Huxley, A. (Ed.). (2002). Religion, law and tradition: Comparative studies in religious law.
Psychology Press.
49. Waldron, J. (2002). One law for all-the logic of cultural accommodation. Washington and Lee
Law Review, 59, 3.
50. Watson, A. (1984). An approach to customary law. U Ill L Rev, 561.
51. Griffiths, J. (1986). What is legal pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial
Law, 18(24), 1–55.
52. Urscheler, L. H. (2013). Innovation in a hybrid system: The example of Nepal. European
Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 1(aop), 1–16.
53. Bary, F. A. (2003). The Legal System of Sri Lanka.
54. Aleck, J. (1991). Beyond recognition: contemporary jurisprudence in the Pacific Islands and the
common law tradition. Queensland U Tech LJ, 7, 137.
55. Chirayath, L., Sage, C., & Woolcock, M. (2005). Customary law and policy reform: Engaging
with the plurality of justice systems.
56. De Mestral, A., & Fox-Decent, E. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between international and
domestic law. McGill LJ, 53, 573.
57. Philpott, D. (2020). Sovereignty. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
(Fall 2020 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
58. Spruyt, H. (1994). The sovereign state and its competitors: An analysis of systems change
(pp. 3–7). Princeton University Press.
59. Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction (p. 44). Duke University Press.
60. Biersteker, T., & Weber, C. (1996). State sovereignty as a social construct. Cambridge studies
in international relations. 46. Cambridge University Press.
61. Stephen, D. (2001). Krasner, problematic sovereignty: Contested rules and political
possibilities. Columbia University Press.
62. Krasner, S. D. (2001). Problematic sovereignty: Contested rules and political possibilities
(pp. 6–12). Princeton University Press.
63. Ferreira-Snyman, M. P. (2006). The evolution of state sovereignty: A historical overview.
Fundamina: A. Journal of Legal History, 12(2), 1–28.
64. Horwitz, M. J. (1981). History of the public/private distinction. U Pa L Rev, 130, 1423.
65. Schäfer, M. (2004). Totalitarianism and political religions. Psychology Press.
66. Longley, R. What is totalitarianism? Definition and examples. ThoughtCo, Feb. 17, 2021.
thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-definition-and-examples-5083506.
67. Shorten, R. (2012). Modernism and totalitarianism: Rethinking the intellectual sources of
Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the present. Palgrave.
68. “World Report 2020”, Human Rights Watch.
69. An autocracy is a system of government in which one person—an autocrat—holds all political,
economic, social, and military power. The autocrat’s rule is unlimited and absolute and is not
subject to any legal or legislative limitation.
References 35
70. Longley, R. What is totalitarianism? Definition and examples. ThoughtCo, Feb. 17, 2021,
thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-definition-and-examples-5083506.
71. Geddes, B. (2014) Military rule. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 147–162. https://www.
annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-213418.
72. Longley, R. What is a military dictatorship? Definition and examples. ThoughtCo, Feb.
17, 2021. thoughtco.com/military-dictatorship-definition-and-examples-5091896.
73. Eatwell, R. (2011). Fascism: A history. Random House.
74. Longley, R. Totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and fascism. ThoughtCo, Mar. 29, 2021.
thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-authoritarianism-fascism-4147699.
75. Corcos, C. A. (2012). From agnatic succession to absolute primogeniture: The shift to equal
rights of succession to thrones and titles in the modern european constitutional monarchy. Mich
St L Rev, 1587.
76. Harris, N. (2009). Systems of government monarchy. Evans Brothers.
77. Locke, J. (1689). Two treatises of government (everyman). Everyman Paperbacks, 1993.
78. Goldie, M., & Wokler, R. (2006). Philosophical kingship and enlightened despotism. In The
Cambridge history of eighteenth-century political thought. Cambridge University Press.
79. Longley, R. What is an absolute monarchy? Definition and examples. ThoughtCo, Feb.
16, 2021. thoughtco.com/absolute-monarchy-definition-and-examples-5111327.
80. Jahn, E. (2015). International politics: Political issues under debate (Vol. 1). Springer.
81. Bourguignon, F., & Verdier, T. (2000). Oligarchy, democracy, inequality and growth. Journal
of development Economics, 62(2), 285–313.
82. Cannadine, D. (1994). Aspects of aristocracy. Yale University Press.
83. Longley, R. What is aristocracy? Definition and examples. ThoughtCo, Feb. 11, 2021.
thoughtco.com/aristocracy-definition-and-examples-5111953.
84. Hirschl, R. (2009). Juristocracy vs. theocracy: Constitutional courts and the containment of
sacred law. Middle East Law and Governance, 1(2), 129–165.
85. Tay, A. E. S., & Kamenka, E. (1984). Marxism, socialism and the theory of law. Colum J
Transnat’l L, 23, 217.
86. Pons, S. (2014). The global revolution: A history of international communism 1917-1991. OUP
Oxford.
87. Přibáň, J. (2005). Political dissent, human rights, and legal transformations: communist and
post-communist experiences. East European Politics and Societies, 19(4), 553–572.
88. Meyer, T., & Hinchman, L. (2007). The theory of social democracy. Polity.
89. Hinnfors, J. (2006). Reinterpreting social democracy: a history of stability in the British Labour
Party and Swedish Social Democratic Party. Manchester University Press.
90. O’Donnell, G. A. (2001). Democracy, law, and comparative politics. Studies in Comparative
International Development, 36(1), 7–36.
91. Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic perspectives, 19(2),
185–206.
92. Besley, T., & Coate, S. (1997). An economic model of representative democracy. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 112(1), 85–114.
93. Vile, M. J. C. (2012). Constitutionalism and the separation of powers. Liberty Fund.
94. Barber, N. W. (2018). The principles of constitutionalism. Oxford University Press.
Property and Privacy in Context
2
In this chapter, we will explore the intersecting, albeit unique, concepts of owner-
ship, property, and possession. We will distinguish between public, private, and
personal data as seen in the eyes of the law, connecting those concepts to our
foundational legal knowledge from the first chapter. At the end of this chapter, we
will realize the intersection of (personal) property, (data) privacy, and (cyber)
security and how these concepts are dealt with in modern legal systems around the
world.
The concept of private property as a unique entity dates back at least as far as Plato.
Prior to the eighteenth century, English speakers generally used the word “property”
in reference to estate and land ownership. In England, the concept of “property”
came to have a legal definition in the seventeenth century. The issue of determining
right to use of enclosed agricultural land in England accompanied efforts in philoso-
phy and political thought and was specifically influenced by the work of the late
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) [1], James Harrington (1611–1677) [2] and John
Locke (1632–1704) [3], among others, in addressing the phenomenon of property
and property ownership [4].
In arguing against supporters of absolute monarchy, John Locke conceptualized
property as a “natural right” that God had not bestowed exclusively on the monarchy
[5]. This has been recognized as the labor theory of property, which states that
property is a natural result of labor—in the form of time, effort, and energy—
improving upon nature; and thus by virtue of the principle of labor expenditure,
the laborer becomes entitled to the benefit of its produce [6].
Influenced by the rise of mercantilism—the economic policy that is designed to
maximize the exports and minimize the imports of an economy—Locke argued that
private property was antecedent to, and thus independent of, government [7]. Locke
Property law is the application of the law which governs the relationships between
individuals and possessions [16]. Indeed, the concepts of property ownership,
property possession, property interest all intersect with privacy law in that privacy
is the law that allows owners of a thing to exclude others from having use and
enjoyment of that thing. We will begin by distinguishing ownership from
possession [17].
2.2.2 Ownership
These collective rights and privileges—the ability to possess, use, or transfer the
property—are jointly referred to as the legal interest of the property owner. The legal
interest includes the right of the owner to exclude others from the use or enjoyment
of the property as well as to assign possession of that property [18].
Property ownership can apply to corporeal and incorporeal things. Corporeal
property is that which is tangible, like objects, land, vehicles, books, and other
material items. Incorporeal property is that which is intangible, like patents,
copyrights, trademarks, intellectual property, and other immaterial things. Owner-
ship can be held by one owner, like a sole proprietorship, or held by multiple owners,
such as in a business partnership [19]. The subsets of property ownership can be
broken down into specific categories of ownership, which are provided in Table 2.2.
2.2.3 Possession
means that the person who has the possession of the thing also has the right to
exclude any or all others from the use or enjoyment of that thing [21]. Table 2.3
details the main categories for classifying possession of property.
2.2.4 Interest
investment property with other investors, then you would be entitled to an appropri-
ate share of the profits generated by the property [22].
When the right, interest, or title to the present or future possession of a property
can be transferred by its holder to any other party, it is called a vested interest with
respect to that owner. The right to a vested property cannot be taken away by any
third party, regardless of who is in possession of the property at the time that it is
vested [23].
While determining proprietary interests can quickly evolve into a complex webs
of competing interests, we can break down some of the more basic categories of
interest in property in Table 2.4.
Example One
Person A goes to a bookstore, owned by Entrepreneur B, to purchase some new
reading material. Walking down the first aisle, Person A finds a hat on the floor,
presumably left behind by a previous customer. Person A picks up the hat off the
floor, intending to drop it off at the front of the store on the way out.
At this point:
Example Two
Continuing to browse the aisles of the store, Person A comes across an intriguing
book about which they have read many positive reviews. Person A would like to
purchase the book, so Person A picks up the book and carries it, along with the hat,
down the rest of the aisle to the next row of shelves.
At this point:
Example Three
Person A brings the hat and the book to the front of the store and hands both items to
the employee of the store, Employee C. Person A asks to buy the book and explains
to Employee C that the hat was found on the floor.
At this point:
– Person A has contingent ownership of the book but that ownership is contingent
on Person A paying for the book.
– Person A does not have direct corporeal possession of either the book or the hat.
– Person A has a future interest in the book.
44 2 Property and Privacy in Context
Example Four
Person A pays for the book and slides it into their bag. Person A then asks Employee
C about the store policy on lost and found items. Employee C explains that the legal
owner of the hat will have 72 hours to claim the lost property, at which time, if the
legal owner has not come forward to claim their legal interest in the hat, then the hat
would become available for the individual who found it, that being Person A.
At this point:
Example Five
With regard to the book itself, the contents of the book are the intangible intellectual
property of the author, Author X. In order to publish the book, Author X transfers the
equitable ownership of the intellectual property and grants the use of that property to
the publishing company, Company Z, which prints and circulates the books for a
percentage of the income made from the book sales.
– Person A has the sole corporeal possession and corporeal ownership of that
specific book.
– Company Z has the legal interest in the book and a beneficial interest in a portion
of the proceeds made from the sales of the book.
– Company Z also has an equitable ownership in the book.
– Author X has a beneficial interest in remainder of the proceeds made through the
sale of the book, after the percentage owed to Company Z has been paid.
– Author X also has equitable ownership of the book.
greater thing, such as the pieces that make up a person’s estate. Depending on the
nature of the property, the owner of the property has the right to consume, sell, rent,
mortgage, transfer, exchange, or destroy their property, as well as the right to
exclude others from doing these things. Property can be either moveable or immov-
able property and tangible or intangible property [25].
Recall that property ownership is a relationship between two or more individuals
and a thing, where at least one of the individuals holds a bundle of legal rights over
the thing. In that case, the individual holding the rights would be the owner of the
property. There are three broad forms of property ownership: private property;
public property; and collective, or cooperative, property [26]. All of these topics
will be discussed in this section.
2.3.3 Privacy
Privacy, in a very broad sense, is the right to be let alone, or freedom from
interference or intrusion. We can extend privacy to property in that the owner of
property has the right to exclude others from the use, enjoyment, profit, etc. of their
personal property. Information privacy is the right to have some control over how
your personal information is collected and used [38].
Personal information is information that cannot be used to identify you, such as your
age, gender, sexuality, country of residence, how many siblings you have, favorite
pizza topping, etc. Private information, on the other hand, is information that can be
used to identify you as a specific individual, such as your name, street address, date
of birth, names of family members, email, phone number, driver’s license number,
health card information, etc.
The fundamental difference between these two categories of information is that,
while personal information does tell others about you, it cannot be used for identity
theft or fraud. Private information is much more specific to you as an individual and
can be used for both identity theft and identity fraud [39].
For example, in Canada, the definition of personal information includes data
about an “identifiable individual”. That is, information that on its own or combined
with other pieces of data can identify you as a specific individual [40]. The exact
definition for personal information differs slightly between different statutory laws.
For example, the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Elec-
tronic Documents Act are both Canadian federal legislation (so statutory law) but the
definition of personal information differs slightly between these two statutory laws.
48 2 Property and Privacy in Context
– Information that is not about an individual, because the connection with a person
is too weak or far-removed.
– Information about an organization or a business.
– Information that has been rendered anonymous, provided that it is not possible to
link that data back to an identifiable person.
– Certain information about public servants such as their name, position, and title.
– The business contact information for a person that is collected, used or disclosed
by an organization for the sole purpose of communicating with that person in
relation to their employment, business, or profession.
– Governmental information [41].
Private Sector
Corporations
As an example of how personal and private data regulations may apply in the real
world, we can use the jurisdiction of a specific common law country to show how the
relevant consumer privacy protection laws would apply. It is important to keep in
mind that specific consumer privacy protection laws will differ in their nuances
between nations or jurisdictions. As there is not an accepted uniform international
standard, we will use Canada as the jurisdiction for this particular hypothetical.
Hypothetical Tech Company (“HTC”) is a private sector corporation engaged in
commercial activity by providing an online-based web conferencing service to
customers within Canada. The service offered by HTC enables online communica-
tion, allowing its users to see and hear each other, share documents, conduct
meetings, do online presentations, collaborate on material in real-time, and generally
exchange data between users from the comfort of their own homes. HTC does not
charge for access to the basic features of their service but does have a user fee to
access some extra features. HTC makes additional income through revenue gained
from offering advertising space on certain publicly accessible areas of their user
interface.
As a commercial organization operating within the Canadian jurisdiction, HTC
must operate according to the provisions specified in the Personal Information
Protection and Electronic Documents Act—commonly shortened to PIPEDA—
2.4 The Intersection of Property, Privacy, and Cybersecurity Law 51
regarding their collection, use, and disclosure of user data and personal information
obtained during the course of operating their web conferencing service. This exam-
ple is illustrated in Fig. 2.3.
The parties who are NOT bound by the PIPEDA in this scenario are: (1) the
individual users of the web conferencing service; (2) outside entities attempting to
access the information without consent; and (3) government institutions.
We are living in an era that has been marked by rapid technological development,
advancing data-use research, and an increasingly hyper-connective global infrastruc-
ture. Cyberspace is playing an undeniably fundamental role in our day-to-day lives
and in business operations around the world, and yet human error still accounts for
95% of all data breaches. This makes it crucial for corporations, organizations, and
governments to address and mitigate any potential threats to cybersecurity before
52 2 Property and Privacy in Context
such a breach occurs. As the online world around us changes and grows, it is
necessary for our laws to evolve to remain effective in this rapidly developing
landscape [45].
Cybersecurity refers to the body of technologies, processes, and practices
designed to protect and defending computers, servers, mobile devices, electronic
systems, networks, and data from malicious attacks, information disclosure, theft
of—or damage to—their hardware, software, or electronic data, as well as from the
disruption or misdirection of the services they provide.
Cybersecurity laws—including data protection and privacy legislation—are laws
that aim to safeguard information technology and computer systems from privacy
breaches and unauthorized activity as well as to compel corporations and
organizations to protect their online infrastructure from cyberattacks. Potential
cyberattacks include activities like security breaches by malware, attacks, unautho-
rized access to confidential or private information, access to intellectual property,
protected information, personal information, metadata, etc. Unfortunately, there will
always be antagonistic parties acting in hostile ways. The current threat to data stored
in, or transmitted by, electronic mobile devices is at an all-time high which means
that the list of people, not just hackers and crackers, that could potentially threaten
the data kept by all organizations is long and diverse [46].
Statutory law is a formally written law which is deliberately created and passed by a
governing legislative body. That could be a federal, state, or provincially based
legislature or other governing body. These statutes are often codified, meaning that
they are numbered, collected, and indexed in one place. Statutory law includes Acts,
Statutes, Legislation, Code, Charters, Constitutions, etc. Different jurisdictions and
levels of government can have their own indexed collections of statutes and codes
which apply to matters within the scope of that jurisdiction. While statutes make up
the written body of law, statutory law refers to the resulting body of law itself, which
is made up of the individual statutes [47].
As in our topic of cybersecurity, data protection, and privacy legislation, there are
criminal offences encoded in the legal structures of many countries, some of which
may also fall into the category of tort law in a common law system. The same issue
could be dealt with in a common law system through a civil lawsuit. The reasons for
charging someone under criminal law may differ from the reasons for suing someone
in tort under the common law. It is worth noting that to sue someone can result in a
direct benefit to the complainant, whereas a criminal charge does not. As well, it
becomes more difficult to benefit from suing someone in tort after they have already
been criminally convicted of the same offence.
2.4 The Intersection of Property, Privacy, and Cybersecurity Law 53
Salmond defined tort law in his work entitled The Law of Torts. According to
Salmond, a “tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for
unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the
breach of a trust, or other merely equitable obligation [48].” The field of tort law
provides compensation for people who have been injured or whose property has
been damaged by the wrongdoing of others. A tort consists of a wrongful act or
injury that leads to physical, emotional, or financial damage to a person in which
another person could be held legally responsible. Common law torts are primarily
judge-made law, with roots in the English tort system. All torts require proof of fault
in order to determine legal responsibility, however, fault is measured differently for
the different types of tort [49].
There are two main branches of torts: intentional torts and unintentional torts. An
intentional tort is when a person intends to achieve a particular outcome that results
in injury to people or damage to property, whereas an unintentional tort such as
negligence, occurs when there has been a lack of duty of care or foreseeability that
results in injury to people or damage to property. Some intentional torts include
actions like assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, nuisance, trespass, and
intentional infliction of mental distress. For negligence to be found, there must be an
established duty of care, a violation of the standard of care, actual causation of the
damage, reasonable foreseeability of the harm, and harm must have actually
occurred [50].
The reasons for charging someone under the criminal law may differ from the
reasons for suing someone in tort under the common law through the civil courts. It
is worth noting that to sue someone can result in a direct benefit to the complainant,
whereas a criminal charge does not directly benefit the complainant. As well, it
becomes more difficult to benefit from suing someone in tort after they have already
been criminally convicted of the same offence.
Person A and Person B both live in the same country and within the same legal
jurisdiction. Person A is a malicious party who would like to steal the identity of
Person B in order to use that individual’s excellent credit history and financial
background to make large purchases.
In order to do this, Person A acquires and utilizes illegal hacking tools to gain
access to the personal computer of Person B, on which much of their personal
information is stored, including the first and last name, mailing address, social
insurance number, driver’s license, birth date, etc. of Person B. Person A then uses
this information to apply for large sums of credit under the name of Person B,
maxing out the credit limits almost immediately after they are approved.
Person B discovers this issue when the bank contacts them with regard to an
unusual series of large purchases which have resulted in the bank freezing Person
54 2 Property and Privacy in Context
B’s main bank account. Person B employs a private investigator to look into the
identity theft and quickly learns that the theft was done by Person A.
Under the federal body of statutory law for the jurisdiction in which Person A and
Person B both reside, identify theft, fraud, and hacking are all criminal law offences.
As well, the body of tort law for that jurisdiction provides for a tort of “intrusion
upon seclusion,” which provides compensatory damages to individuals who have
had their privacy intentionally breached by another person. The tort of intrusion
upon seclusion has been previously determined by a judge, also within that jurisdic-
tion, to apply to acts of intrusion on a personal computer with the intention of
breaching the privacy of another person.
In this matter, Person B has a number of options available.
Option One—Criminal:
• Person B can report the hacking, privacy breach, identity theft, and fraud to the
law enforcement within that jurisdiction to try to criminally charge Person A
under the statutory laws—specifically the body of statutory criminal laws.
• Person A would be the Defendant / Accused in the criminal case.
• Person B would be a Witness / Victim in the criminal case.
• The criminal charge would be brought against Person A by the government, the
“Crown,” or the state on behalf of the public.
• Person A could be fined, penalized, or imprisoned.
• Person B would not personally benefit from the criminal charge against Person A
other than in their knowledge that justice is being served against Person A.
• The purpose served by the criminal court in this case would be to deter and
denounce the actions of Person A.
Option Two—Civil:
• Person B can use the common law precedent in tort law to bring a civil lawsuit
against Person A for their breach of privacy as “intrusion upon seclusion” in
hacking into Person B’s personal computer.
• Person A would be the Respondent in the civil lawsuit.
• Person B would be the Applicant in the civil lawsuit.
• The civil lawsuit would be brought forward against Person A by Person B as the
Applicant on their own behalf.
• Person B would receive the remedy or relief prescribed by the court, likely in the
form of monetary damages, that being, financial compensation for the damage
caused by Person A to Person B.
• The purpose served by the civil court in this case would be to provide damages,
financial relief, or another remedy to Person B as compensation for damage
caused or inflicted by Person A.
If Person B decides to use the Criminal Law option, Person B would be relying on
the statutory laws of their jurisdiction, specifically the body of statutory criminal
laws. Person A could be criminally charged in relation to the possession of hacking
2.5 Summary 55
tools, hacking itself, identity theft, and identity fraud. The outcome of this option
could either result in fines and penalties, jail time, or a combination of both. The
benefit to Person B would be to see justice served against Person A for their criminal
activities. We can summarize these outcomes to highlight the differences between a
criminal law case and a civil tort law case for Persons A and B in Table 2.6.
2.5 Summary
References
1. Williams, G. Thomas Hobbes: Moral and political philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
2. Cotton, J. (1991). James Harrington’s political thought and its context. Garland Publisher.
3. Hirschmann, N. J. (2009). Gender, class, and freedom in modern political theory (p. 79).
Princeton.
4. Sreenivasan, G. (1995). The limits of Lockean rights in property. Oxford University Press.
5. Tuckness, A. Locke’s political philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy (winter 2020 edition). Available online at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
win2020/entries/locke-political.
6. Locke, J. (1963). Works, 10 volumes, London, 1823; reprinted. Scientia Verlag.
7. Tully, J. (1980). A discourse on property: John Locke and his adversaries. Cambridge
University Press.
8. Udi, J. (2015). Locke and the fundamental right to preservation: On the convergence of charity
and property rights. The Review of Politics, 77(2), 191–215.
9. Proast, J. (1999a). In M. Goldie (Ed.), The argument of the letter concerning toleration briefly
considered and answered, in the reception of Locke’s politics (Vol. 5). Pickering & Chatto.
10. Neil MacCormick, Adam Smith on Law, 15 Val. U. L. Rev. 243 (1981). Available at: https://
scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol15/iss2/2.
11. Smith, A. (2002). The wealth of nations. Oxford, England: Bibliomania.com ltd. [web.]
retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://lccn.loc.gov/2002564559.
12. Hill, L. (2007). Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and Karl Marx on the division of labour. Journal
of Classical Sociology, 7(3), 339–366.
13. Hobsbawm, E. (2004). Marx, Karl Heinrich. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
14. Oakley, A. (1984). Marx’s Critique of political economy: 1844 to 1860 archived 10 September
2015 at the Wayback machine (p. 51). Routledge.
15. Moradi, M. (2020). Analysis of private property, Karl Marx. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.
15530.77765.
16. Alexander, G., & Donahue, Jr. Charles (2018, January 25). Property law. Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/property-law
17. Austin, L. M. “Property and the rule of law” (2014) 20:2 Legal Theory 79.
18. Clarke, A., & Kohler, P. (2005). Property law: commentary and materials. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
19. Rose, C. M. (1985). Possession as the origin of property. The University of Chicago Law
Review, 52(1), 73–88.
20. Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of property.
The Psychological Record, 37(2), 257–268.
21. Callies, D. L., & Breemer, J. D. (2000). The right to exclude others from private property: A
fundamental constitutional right. Wash UJL & Pol’y, 3, 39.
22. Katz, L. (2008). Exclusion and exclusivity in property law. University of Toronto Law Journal,
58(3), 275–315.
23. Newman, C. M. (2016). Vested use-privileges in property and copyright. Harv JL & Tech, 30,
75.
24. Baron, J. B. (2013). Rescuing the bundle-of-rights metaphor in property law. University of
Cincinnati Law Review, 82, 57.
References 57
25. von Benda-Beckmann, F., von Benda-Beckmann, K., & Wiber, M. G. (2006). The properties of
property. Changing Properties of Property, 40, 1–39.
26. Alexander, G. S. (2011). Governance property. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160,
1853.
27. Niles, R. D. (1933). The rationale of the law of fixtures: English cases. NYULQ Review, 11, 560.
28. Hetland, J. R. (1965). Real property and real property security: The Well-being of the law.
California Law Review, 53, 151.
29. O’Keefe, K. M. (1983). The classification issue and the law of fixtures: A chattel by any other
name. . . . J. St. Tax’n, 2, 37.
30. Rahmatian, A. (2008). A comparison of German moveable property law and English personal
property law. Journal of Comparative Law, 3, 197.
31. Niles, R. D. (1934). The intention test in the law of fixtures. NYULQ Review, 12, 66.
32. Moore, A. D. (1998). Intangible property: Privacy, power, and information control. American
Philosophical Quarterly, 35(4), 365–378.
33. Carnahan, W. (1934). Tangible property and the conflict of Laws. University of Dayton Law
Review, 2, 345.
34. Arezzo, E. (2007). Struggling around the natural divide: The protection of tangible and
intangible indigenous property. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, 25, 367.
35. Child, J. W. (1990). The moral foundations of intangible property. The Monist, 73(4), 578–600.
36. Hardy, I. T. (2000). Not so different: Tangible, intangible, digital, and analog works and their
comparison for copyright purposes. University of Dayton Law Review, 26, 211.
37. Horwitz, M. J. (1981). History of the public/private distinction. U Pa L Rev, 130, 1423.
38. DeCew, J. W. (1986). The scope of privacy in law and ethics. Law and Philosophy, 5(2), 145–
173.
39. Lemley, M. A. (1999). Private property. Stanford Law Review, 52, 1545.
40. Al-Fedaghi, S. (2018). Privacy things: Systematic approach to privacy and personal identifiable
information. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS), 16
(2).
41. Gratton, E. (2013). If personal information is privacy’s gatekeeper, then risk of harm is the key:
A proposed method for determining what counts as personal information. Alb LJ Sci & Tech,
24, 105.
42. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5, https://canlii.ca/t/
541b8
43. Austin, L. M. (2006). Reviewing pipeda: Control, privacy and the limits of fair information
practices. Can Bus LJ, 44, 21.
44. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (SC 2000, c 5).
45. Shackelford, S. J. (2016). Protecting intellectual property and privacy in the digital age: the use
of national cybersecurity strategies to mitigate cyber risk. Chap. L. Rev., 19, 445.
46. Kosseff, J. (2017). Defining cybersecurity law. Iowa L Rev, 103, 985.
47. Kosseff, J. (2016). Positive cybersecurity law: Creating a consistent and incentive-based
system. Chap L Rev, 19, 401.
48. Salmond, J. W. (1907). The law of torts. Stevens and Haynes.
49. Lunney, M., & Oliphant, K. (2008). Tort law: text and materials. Oxford University Press.
50. Malone, W. S. (1970). Ruminations on the Role of Fault in the History of the Common Law of
Torts. La. L. Rev., 31, 1.
Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
3
Cybersecurity law is not simply the application of legal systems to the protection of
private data; it also includes using our legal systems to address criminal activity that
is conducted using networked technologies—otherwise known as cybercrime. This
chapter will outline the types of cybersecurity laws needed to address issues such as
interpersonal privacy, criminal copyright infringement, data breaches, network
attacks, and other computer-related activities of a criminally malicious nature.
In this chapter, we will differentiate cybercriminal activities based on whether
they are: cyber-enabled, cyber-dependent, or computer/cyber-supported. In each of
the four categories, we will break down the common specific criminal offences and
the treatment of these offences under global legal systems. We will also discuss the
issue of national security offences committed using technologies—otherwise known
as cyberterrorism—and the jurisdictional complexities of navigating these issues
within our respective systems. In each of the four categories, we will break down the
common specific criminal offences and the treatment of these offences under global
legal systems.
There are four categories for activities that can fall under the label of “cybercrime”:
(1) cyber-enabled crimes; (2) cyber-dependent crimes; (3) computer/cyber-
supported crimes; and (4) national security offences, also known as
“cyberterrorism.” Within each of these larger categories, we can further break
down the specific subtypes of criminal activities which fall under each one [1].
Cyber-enabled crimes are crimes that can be committed with or without the use of
technology, but which are increased in their scale or reach by the use of computers,
computer networks, and other technology. Cyber-enabled crimes can include
activities like cyber-stalking, fraud, extortion, child pornography, various trafficking
offences, and cybercriminal-for-hire services. These types of crimes have also been
identified as “technology-as-instrument” cybercrime offences [1].
Some of the traditional in-person crimes which have expanded into cyber-enabled
crimes include: electronic phishing, theft, and fraud; illegal distribution of intimate
images and sexual cybercrimes; cyberbullying and online harassment; child pornog-
raphy and grooming for the purpose of sexual exploitation; and some types of
organized crime, such as trafficking in persons and illegal online market-based
activities in which transactions are completed through dark networks [2].
Offenders can also connect on Internet forums and networks to share their
interests, desires, and experiences abusing children, in addition to selling, sharing,
and trading images. These online communities have promoted communication and
collaboration between child pornography offenders, thereby fostering a larger rela-
tionship premised on a shared sexual interest in children. This has the effect of
eroding the shame that typically would accompany this behavior, as well as
desensitizing those involved to the physical and psychological damage caused to
the child victims [14].
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 63
In many child pornography cases, the abuse is not a singular event, but rather a
series of events constituting ongoing victimization. This can progress over months or
years, as it is common for producers of child pornography to groom their victims—
essentially cultivate a relationship with the child—and gradually sexualize the
contact over time. This grooming process fosters a false sense of trust and authority
over a child which serves to desensitize or break down their resistance to sexual
abuse [15].
Victims of distributed child sexual abuse material are victimized not just from the
sexual abuse inflicted upon them to produce child pornography, but also experience
revictimization in that their images can be continuously traded and viewed by others
worldwide. Once an image is on the Internet, it is virtually irretrievable; continuing
to circulate indefinitely. The knowledge of the existence of a permanent record of
personal sexual abuse and exploitation can have a huge impact on the lives of child
victims. Many victims of child pornography go on to experience feelings of help-
lessness, fear, humiliation, lack of control, and other symptoms which are indicative
of post-traumatic stress [16].
The continuous production and distribution of child pornography has created a
demand for new and more shocking images, perpetuating the continued victimization
and abuse of children, as well as the demand for new child victims [17]. According to
research done by the United States Department of Justice, unfortunately, emerging
trends seem to reveal an overall increase in the number of images depicting sadistic
and violent child sexual abuse, and an increase in the number of images depicting very
young children, including toddlers and infants [18].
Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights and
are illegal contraband under federal law in the USA. Federal law prohibits the
production, distribution, reception, and possession of an image of child pornography
using or affecting any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce. Within
Title 18 of the United States Code, there are six federal legal provisions relating to
activities involved in child pornography, both online and offline:
1. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code defines child pornography as any
visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor.
Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer-generated
images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or
modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film,
undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a
visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under
federal law.
64 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
The legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image
depict a child engaging in sexual activity to be deemed to be sexually explicit.
This means that a picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornogra-
phy if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.
A minor is defined as someone under 18 years of age regardless of the age of
consent for sexual activity in a given state. This means that any depiction of a
minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
2. Section 2251 of Title 18, United States Code makes it illegal to persuade, induce,
entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of
producing visual depictions of that conduct. Any individual who attempts or
conspires to commit a child pornography offense is also subject to prosecution
under federal law.
3. Section 2251A of Title 18, United States Code specifically prohibits any parent,
legal guardian or other person in custody or control of a minor under the age of
18, to buy, sell, or transfer custody of that minor for purposes of producing child
pornography.
4. Section 2252 of Title 18, United States Code prohibits certain activities relating to
material involving the sexual exploitation of minors including the possession,
distribution, and receipt of child pornography. It specifies that the federal legal
jurisdiction is to be implicated if the child pornography offense occurred in
interstate or foreign commerce. Also, federal jurisdiction almost always applies
when the Internet is used to commit a child pornography violation. Even if the
child sexual abuse material itself did not travel across state or international
borders, federal law may still be implicated if the materials, such as the computer
used to download the image originated or previously traveled in interstate or
foreign commerce.
5. Section 2252A of Title 18, United States Code criminalizes certain activities
relating to material constituting or containing child pornography.
6. Section 2260 of Title 18, United States Code prohibits any persons outside of the
United States to knowingly produce, receive, transport, ship, or distribute child
pornography with the intent to import or transmit the visual depiction into
the USA [20].
Convicted federal child pornography offenders in the United States can face
severe statutory penalties. For example, a first time offender convicted of producing
child pornography under Section 2251 can face financial penalties and between
15 years to 30 years in prison. A first-time offender convicted of transporting child
pornography in interstate or foreign commerce under Section 2252, can also be fined
and receive between 5 years to 20 years in prison. Convicted offenders may face
harsher penalties if: (1) the images are violent, sadistic, or masochistic in nature;
(2) the minor was sexually abused; or (3) the offender has prior convictions for child
sexual exploitation. In these circumstances, an offender may face up to life impris-
onment if convicted in the USA. As well as being prosecuted under the United
States’ federal child pornography laws, an offender can also be prosecuted under
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 65
state child pornography laws instead of, or in addition to, the federal laws we have
just outlined [21].
Cyber-dependent crimes are those which can only be committed using a computer, a
computer network, or other information technology. Examples of cyber-dependent
crimes include hacking offences—such as unauthorized access, modification,
impairment and/or interception of data—and attacking offences—including
activities like DoS and DDoS attacks, criminal botnet operations, and malicious
software (malware). Cyber-dependent crimes seek to compromise the confidential-
ity, integrity, and availability of network systems and data. Malware, as a branch of
hacking and attacking tools, can be further broken down into subtypes of malware,
which will be discussed below. These types of offences are examples of “true
cybercrimes” in that they would not exist at all without the use of a computer and
the target itself is typically one or more computers or the networks between them.
These can also be distinguished as “technology-as-target” cybercrime offences [22].
The Cyber Kill Chain® framework was developed by Lockheed Martin, as part of
the Intelligence Driven Defense® model for the identification and prevention of
66 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
cyber intrusions activity.1 The model identifies what the adversaries must complete
in order to achieve their objective. The seven steps of the Cyber Kill Chain®
enhance visibility into an attack and enrich an analyst’s understanding of an
adversary’s tactics, techniques, and procedures. The seven steps of a cyberattack
are identified by Lockheed Martin as:
3.1.2.1 Hacking
Hacking is a broad term that refers to someone exploiting a computer system or
private network through a computer to gain access to digital files or systems without
permission. Hackers use brute force, security exploits, social engineering, and other
means to gain and maintain access to systems without proper authorization. In law,
hacking refers to the unauthorized access to, control of, and/or wilful interception of,
personal information, private communication, and other private data over computer
network systems for some illicit purpose. The activity of hacking can be broken
down into five categories: (1) unauthorized access; (2) modification of data;
(3) impairment of data; (4) interception of data; and (5) misuse of assets.
Unauthorized access refers to a person gaining logical or physical access or entry
to a network, application, data, website, program, server, service, or other system,
without obtaining the proper permission or credentials to do so. This is often done by
using someone else’s account or other methods that constitute a manner of access not
intended by the system owner. Unauthorized access could also occur if a user
attempts to access an area of a system they should not be accessing. When
attempting to access that area, they would be denied access and possibly see an
unauthorized access message [23].
Some system administrators set up alerts to let them know when there is an
unauthorized access attempt, so that they may investigate the reason. These alerts
help stop hackers from gaining access to a secure or confidential system. Many
secure systems may also lock an account with too many failed login attempts.
Gaining unauthorized access to any account or service is considered illegal in all
parts of the world.
1
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/cyber/cyber-kill-chain.html
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 67
3.1.2.2 Attacking
A cyber attack is any attempt—using one or more computers against a single or
multiple computers or networks—to expose, alter, disable, destroy, steal or gain
information through unauthorized access to or make unauthorized use of an asset,
often in the form of protected computers or networks. These attacks, when correctly
executed, can maliciously disable computers, steal data and information, or use a
breached computer as a launch point, or zombie, for other attacks [26].
Cyber attacks can be active or passive. An active attack attempts to alter system
resources or affect their operation, while a passive attack attempts to learn or make
use of information from the system but does not affect system resources, such as by
wiretapping or the installation of keystroke software [27].
An attack can be perpetrated by an insider or from outside the organization. An
inside attack is an attack initiated by an entity inside the security perimeter, also
called an “insider”. An example of this could be an “insider” or internal entity that
has the authorization to access system resources but uses those resources in a way
that was not approved by those who granted the initial authorization. Conversely, an
68 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
2
Reference: https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/1000.html
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 69
For example, a file manipulation attack occurs when an adversary modifies file
contents or attributes—such as extensions or names—of files in a manner to cause
incorrect processing by an application. Other examples include infrastructure manip-
ulation, configuration or environment manipulation, software integrity attack,
70 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
For example, a brute force attack is one in which some asset—such as informa-
tion, functionality, or identity—is protected by a finite secret value. The attacker
attempts to gain access to this asset by using trial-and-error to exhaustively explore
all the possible secret values in the hope of finding the secret value—or a value that is
functionally equivalent—that will unlock the asset. Another example of this type of
attack is called fuzzing [34].
either the entire operating system or individual files are encrypted. The malicious
actors can then demand a ransom to be paid in exchange for the release of the
computer or system back to the primary user. This is done using asymmetric
encryption—a cryptography technique that uses a pair of keys to encrypt and decrypt
a file. Ransomware can be categorized into two groups: locker ransomware—in
which the basic computer functions are affected—and Crypto ransomware—in
which individual files are encrypted.
A bot is an application, software, or process that has been created expressly for the
purpose of automating repetitive tasks. Bots perform automated, repetitive,
pre-defined tasks and typically imitate or replace human user behavior. Beneficial
bots are used to carry out useful tasks, however, bad bots—also known as malware
bots—are considered to be among the most unpleasant and difficult to manage
threats to cybersecurity. Bots can be used to steal sensitive data, to infect a computer
with malware, as a launching point for DDoS attacks, and much more.
Botnets are groups of connected computers or devices that perform a number of
repetitive tasks. Over a period of time, malicious attackers can take over multiple
computers, creating a network of zombie computers. When a botnet becomes
infected by malware, the network falls under the control of the attacking party.
These computers are then used to launch a large-scale malicious attack. Users might
never realize that their computers are part of a botnet because the footprint left by a
botnet is so small and easily overlooked. Some examples of common botnet
subtypes include spambots, chatterbots, file-sharing bots, credential stuffing bots,
DoS/DDoS bots, vulnerability scanner bots, click fraud bots, and traffic
monitoring bots.
A spammer is a standalone utility that can be used to send massive amounts of
unsolicited commercial electronic messages to different addresses. Spammers usu-
ally fake email message headers and use anonymous SMTP servers to send emails.
While the use of such tools is illegal in several countries, these programs are not
inherently destructive.
Spam can include more than just fraudulent and unsolicited commercial elec-
tronic messages. Examples of spam attempts can include messages related to lottery
scams, phishing, or computer viruses. Subsets of spam include comment spam,
trackback spam, negative SEO attacks, spiders, bots, DoS/DDoS attacks, and typical
commercial electronic email spam. Spammers often target potential buyers of
specific goods and services which they seek to promote. These can then be divided
into categories of adult content, health, information technology, personal finance,
political/philosophical, and education/training opportunities.
Spyware is a subset of malware that is specifically designed to steal information
about online activities, frequently visited sites, the types of things that are
downloaded by the user, usernames and passwords, security questions and answers,
banking and payment information, and emails—both sent and received—via the
targeted computer. Spyware relies on the exploitation of security vulnerabilities and
often also includes phishing and the use of trojans. Spyware can have a number of
different objectives but is most often used for fraudulent financial gain.
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 75
Modification refers to modifying or deleting data, and also includes the introduc-
tion of malware or spyware onto a computer, electronic vandalism, and theft of
information.
Examples of unauthorized access and modification include the deliberate or
reckless impairment of a computer’s operation, the prevention or hindering of access
to computer material by a legitimate user, or the impairment of the operation or
reliability of computer-held material. For a charge to be made under the Computer
Misuse Act, the offender must know that the act was unauthorized.
Definitions
It is important to note that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 does not provide a
definition of a “computer” because rapid changes in technology would mean any
definition would soon become out of date. Instead, as the United Kingdom has a
common law-based legal system, the definition of a “computer”—for lack of a
provided legislative definition—can be inferred from previous cases as a legal
precedent. For example, in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v
McKeown and Jones, Lord Hoffman defined a computer as “a device for storing,
processing and retrieving information [37].”
Jurisdiction
Under sect. 3.4 of the Computer Misuse Act, liability for the offences provided under
sections 3.1, 3.3, or 3ZA requires proof of at least one “significant link” with the
“home country” concerned, that being, England and Wales. A “significant link”
could include:
– The accused is in the home country at the time of the offence.
– The target of the CMA offence is in the home country.
– The technological activity which has facilitated the offending may have passed
through a server based in the home country.
As defined in sect. 3.5, in relation to an offence under Section 3ZA, any of the
following is also a “significant link” with domestic jurisdiction:
– That the accused was in the home country concerned at the time when s/he
committed the unauthorized act (or caused it to be done).
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 77
– That the unauthorized act was done in relation to a computer in the home country
concerned.
– That the unauthorized act caused, or created a significant risk of, serious damage
of a material kind (within the meaning of that section) in the home country
concerned.
Offences
The five specific offences covered under the Computer Misuse Act are provided in
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act. They are:
Unauthorized and/or Infected Computer Network Network Service Provider Authorized Parties and/or
Malicious Party (a.k.a. Botnet) (a.k.a. Target) Service Users
Uses malware to infect a Executes a planned DDoS attack Experiences disruption of Prevented from accessing the
network of computers, creating on the target while under the service as a result of DDoS network/service as a result of
a botnet control of the malicious party attack by the infected botnet the DDoS attack
Factors that can adjust the sentence of an offender are either aggravating factors
or mitigating factors. Aggravating factors include context, evidence, or other infor-
mation that increases the severity of the crime as well as the severity of the eventual
sentence. Conversely, mitigating factors are those which may serve to reduce the
perceived severity of the offence and therefore also the severity of the sentence.
Offenders who used their knowledge or ability, with regard to computers or
networked systems, could risk their knowledge being determined as a “special
skill” by the court, which is an aggravating factor in sentencing for criminal
offences.
We can look to the United States for an example of how cyber-specific abilities
could be interpreted as aggravating factors in sentencing. Under the United States
Federal Sentencing Guidelines (the “USSG”), if the defendant in a criminal offence
“uses a special skill that significantly facilitates the commission or concealment of
the offence, the 2-level adjustment in subsection 3B1.3 may apply.3
“Unlike the abuse of trust adjustment, an adjustment solely for the use of a special
skill may not be applied in addition to an adjustment under ss. 3B1.3 (“Aggravating
Role”). The guidelines define a “special skill” as one not possessed by the general
public and that usually requires substantial education, training, or licensing.”4 In a
comment provided with ss. 3B1.3 of the Guidelines, the following examples are
listed: lawyers, pilots, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts.
Does having knowledge of computers count as an aggravating factor to the
commission and sentencing of a criminal offence? Maybe.
In the following US cases, the defendant’s computer knowledge and ability as a
form of “special skill” which could be used in the commission of an offence were
upheld by the court:
3
United States Sentencing Guidelines, §3B1.3.
4
United States Sentencing Guidelines, §3B1.3, comment. (n.4).
5
United States v. Lange, 312 F.3d 263, 270 (seventh Cir. 2002).
6
United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 1017–18 (11th Cir. 2008).
7
United States v. O’Brien, 435 F.3d 36, 42 (first Cir. 2006).
8
United States v. Kyereme, 371 F. App’x 292, 293–94 (3d Cir. 2010).
82 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
In the following US cases, the court did not recognize the defendant’s computer
knowledge and ability as a form of “special skill” which could be used in the
commission of an offence.
9
United States v. Lavin, 27 F.3d 40, 41 (2d Cir. 1994).
10
United States v. Prochner, 417 F.3d 54, 61 (first Cir. 2005).
11
United States v. Petersen, 98 F.3d 502 (ninth Cir. 1996).
12
United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 454–55 (sixth Cir. 2014).
13
United States v. Lee, 296 F.3d 792, 797–99 (ninth Cir. 2002).
14
United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322–23 (sixth Cir. 2000).
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 83
15
States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1024–25 (fifth Cir. 2019).
84 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
which was prepared for this purpose. Once the child is confined to the room, Person
A decides to unwind with a few drinks and a pen and paper to write some new
reflective poetry. The creative juices are flowing, and in no time at all Person A has
completed five new poetic masterpieces. Person A feels great about such an accom-
plishment, rejoices in the victory, and sets about typing up the newly-crafted poems,
saving them to the same folder as always.
Days pass by. Weeks pass by. After a couple of months, when the initial
investigation into the disappearance of Child X has settled down a bit, Person A
begins to feel bored with having Child X around. Although Person A is a fan of
stalking and kidnapping, Person A does not want to start adding murder to the
already-questionable list of enjoyed hobbies. However, Person A is unsure how to
get rid of the child. Always a keen problem-solver, and feeling slightly inebriated,
Person A decides to release Child X back into nature, as one might do with a fostered
wild raccoon or other wild outdoor creature. To that end, Person A drives Child X
outside the city limits, and into the surrounding countryside, leaving Child X in a
heavily-treed forest at the end of a gravel road, just off the main highway.
Unbeknownst to Person A, prior to being kidnapped, Child X had been an avid
participant in a local outdoor wilderness survival group for 4 years. While unable to
effectively apply those skills while confined to the small windowless basement
room, Child X is highly skilled in navigation and wilderness survival, easily creating
a temporary shelter and foraging for edible forest plants. Within only a few days,
Child X returns to the city, informs law enforcement of the kidnapping, and provides
enough descriptive information for the police to narrow down the location where
Child X was confined to a residential street consisting of four houses. Based on the
physical description of the suspect—also provided by Child X—the police believe
that the crime was committed by either Person A or by Person B— a neighbor living
two houses down the street from Person A. As a result, both Person A and Person B
are identified as prime suspects in the kidnapping case.
The police obtain a search warrant which gives them the ability to enter and
search the private properties of Person A and Person B. The warrant also gives the
police the power to seize any possible evidence found during the search. During the
dual property searches, police seize all desktop computers found in the homes of
Person A and Person B and start the process of forensic analysis for corroborating
evidence.
Officer Q is a law enforcement officer with the local police department who
specializes in digital forensics and evidence collection. While browsing through the
computer files of Person A for potential clues, Officer Q stumbles upon Person A’s
personal folder of creative writing. As an avid reader of the written word, a
connoisseur of new-age rap, and a decades-long fan of poetry, Officer Q casually
reads through the poems, mentally commending Person A for their talent in rhyming
and lyrical prosody.
When Officer Q comes upon the most recently typed group of poems, Officer Q
discovers a reference in one of the poems which features the given name of Child
X. In another poem in the same set, Officer Q reads of Person A’s recent feeling of
relief and satisfaction after having completed some foreboding task, which is
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 85
described by Person A as “the bad day”. Growing suspicious, Officer Q opens the
document settings and, sure enough, the date on which this set of poems were typed
matches the timeline established by the police in relation to the kidnapping of
Child X.
Officer Q extends the search of Person A’s computer, looking through
the browser history, search data, photos, and other media. Finally, Officer Q opens
the print queue history and finds the map which was printed out by Person A prior to
the kidnapping. This map is localized to the area in which Child X was known to
have been immediately prior to their disappearance. Officer Q alerts the rest of the
investigation team.
Person A is quickly arrested and formally charged by law enforcement with
kidnapping, forcible confinement, and a handful of other related offences. The
collective works of poetry and the map saved in the print queue are both admitted
by the prosecution as material evidence in the criminal court.
In this scenario, the crime itself was neither dependent upon, or enabled by,
Person A’s use of the computer and networked printer. Instead, the computer and
printer acted as supporting tools within the entirety of the scope of the offence,
providing contextual evidence of a link between Person A and the commission of the
crime. IFor this reason, this hypothetical scenario acts as an example of a computer/
cyber-supported crime. While the use of the computer was not a necessary require-
ment or an enabling factor for Person A to stalk and kidnap Child X, it provided the
much-needed evidentiary link between the alleged suspect and the criminal
kidnapping and confinement offence.
(a) Whether there are targets that are vulnerable to an attack that could lead to
violence or severe harm, and.
(b) Whether there are actors with the capability and motivation (or intention) to
carry out these attacks on vulnerable targets.
86 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
The Monterey group also estimated that to start from scratch would take
2–4 years to reach the advanced-structured level and 6–10 years to reach the
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 87
complex-coordinated level, although some groups might get there in just a few years
or turn to outsourcing or sponsorship to extend their capability [40].
16
Seriously. Read it again. These vaccines are safe, effective, and should absolutely be taken if
given the opportunity.
88 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
(a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed
in Canada, is one of the following offences:
(i) The offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague
on December 16, 1970.
(ii) The offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation,
signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971.
(iii) The offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973.
(iv) The offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the Interna-
tional Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979.
(v) The offences referred to in subsection 7(2.21) that implement the Con-
vention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna
and New York on March 3, 1980, as amended by the Amendment to the
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at
Vienna on July 8, 2005, and the International Convention for the Sup-
pression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, done at New York on September
14, 2005.
(vi) The offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving
International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the
3.1 Categorizing Cybercrimes 89
to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international
law. (activité terroriste).
(a) An entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out
any terrorist activity, or.
(b) A listed entity,
Where the Internet and its related technologies have been fundamental in reshaping
global societies and economies, they have changed the criminal landscape funda-
mentally. Online marketplaces, anonymous forums, and Internet-connected devices
provide the same opportunities and benefits for serious and organized criminal
networks as they do for legitimate businesses. Through new and evolving informa-
tion technologies, criminals are expanding their reach to commit entirely new crimes
and old crimes in new and creative ways [44].
The vast popularity and ever-increasing interconnectedness of our mobile devices
have made them an especially attractive target for criminal exploitation, with malware
increasingly being developed to target vulnerabilities found within our mobile
operating systems. Mobile device features, including text messaging and download-
able applications, can be used to deploy malware and gain unauthorized remote access
to those same mobile platforms. This can be done for a variety of illicit purposes
including, but not at all limited to: interception or theft of personal data; obtaining GPS
coordinates; cyber-surveillance; revenge porn; and cyberstalking [45].
Widespread months-long lockdowns of cities around the world during the
COVID-19 pandemic have shown that we are more dependent on our ties with
technology than ever before. With this reliance must come an increase in legal
protective measures to prevent malicious actors from causing widespread harm to
individuals, businesses, organizations, and governments [46].
Widely available, ready-made malware and other hacking tools provide both
professional and amateur criminals with new and simplified ways to steal informa-
tion and financially impact businesses and individuals. Criminal activities in cyber-
space are complex and often transnational, where potential evidence can be transient
or spread across multiple legal jurisdictions. As so many facets of our daily lives
move to online and cloud-based forums, such online criminal activity should be a
growing concern for everyone. Addressing these challenges requires both domestic
and international cooperation and legislative engagement with public and private
sector organizations.
In Table 3.1, we can see how the different varieties of cybercriminal activities are
classified and categorized to gain a better understanding of the intricate landscape of
cybersecurity laws within the global domain.
In Fig. 3.2, we can see the classifications and categories of cybercriminal activity
arranged as a visual taxonomy.
92 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
3.4 Summary
In this chapter, we have discussed the four categories of cybercrime: (1) cyber-
enabled; (2) cyber-dependent; (3) computer or cyber-supported; and (4) national
security offences, or cyberterrorism. In each of those categories, we have broken
down the specific types of digital criminal activity and described each of them.
Finally, we outlined the growing prevalence of cybercrime within our modern and
increasingly digital societies. The answers to the following questions are provided
within this chapter:
References
1. Clough, J., & Einstein, A. (2015). Principles of cybercrime.
2. Ram, C. (2016). Jonathan Clough, Principles of Cybercrime, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2015). Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 14(1).
3. Jamieson, R., Land, L. P. W., Winchester, D., Stephens, G., Steel, A., Maurushat, A., & Sarre,
R. (2012). Addressing identity crime in crime management information systems: Definitions,
classification, and empirics. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(4), 381–395.
4. Jahankhani, H., Al-Nemrat, A., & Hosseinian-Far, A. (2014). Cybercrime classification and
characteristics. In Cyber crime and cyber terrorism investigator’s handbook (pp. 149–164).
Syngress.
5. Urbas, G. (2015). Cybercrime legislation, cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
6. Criminal Code of Canada (RSC, 1985, c C-46), s 162.1(2).
7. Aikenhead, M. (2018). A reasonable expectation of sexual privacy in the digital age. Dalhousie
LJ, 41, 273.
8. Popham, J., McCluskey, M., Ouellet, M., & Gallupe, O. (2020). Exploring police-reported
cybercrime in Canada: Variation and correlates. Policing: An International Journal.
9. Marcum, C. D., & Higgins, G. E. (2019). Cybercrime. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp.
459–475). Springer.
10. Loader, B. D., & Thomas, D. (Eds.). (2013). Cybercrime: Security and surveillance in the
information age. Routledge.
11. Briandana, R., Oktavianingtyas, I., & Marta, R. F. (2020). Cybercrime in online dating site:
Pornography business in the virtual world.
12. Al-Garadi, M. A., Varathan, K. D., & Ravana, S. D. (2016). Cybercrime detection in online
communications: The experimental case of cyberbullying detection in the Twitter network.
Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 433–443.
13. Buono, L. (2014, June). Fighting cybercrime through prevention, outreach and awareness
raising. In ERA Forum (Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-8). Springer .
14. Aiken, M., Mc Mahon, C., Haughton, C., O’Neill, L., & O’Carroll, E. (2016). A consideration
of the social impact of cybercrime: Examples from hacking, piracy, and child abuse material
online. Contemporary Social Science, 11(4), 373–391.
15. Lee, H. E., Ermakova, T., Ververis, V., & Fabian, B. (2020). Detecting child sexual abuse
material: A comprehensive survey. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 34,
301022.
16. Aiken, M., Moran, M., & Berry, M. J. (2011, September). Child abuse material and the Internet:
Cyberpsychology of online child related sex offending. In 29th meeting of the INTERPOL
Specialist Group on Crimes against Children, Lyons, France, September (pp. 5–7).
17. ECPAT International. (2018, April). Trends in online child sexual abuse material. ECPAT
International.
18. United States Department of Justice. (2020). “Subject Areas” and “Citizen’s Guide to U.-
S. Federal Child Exploitation Laws” in About the Criminal Division: Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section, United States Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/
citizens-guide-us-federal-child-exploitation-and-obscenity-laws
19. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. Speaks at the National Strategy Conference on Combating
Child Exploitation in San Jose, California, May 19, 2011.
20. Title 18, U.S.C., §—
21. Moise, A. C. (2017). The legal regulation of cybercrime in the United States of America
legislation. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics (JARLE), 8(27), 1576–1578.
22. Maimon, D., & Louderback, E. R. (2019). Cyber-dependent crimes: An interdisciplinary
review. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 191–216.
23. Clough, J. (2011, March). Data theft? Cybercrime and the increasing criminalization of access
to data. In Criminal Law Forum (Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 145-170). Springer.
96 3 Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes
24. Li, F., Clarke, N., Papadaki, M., & Dowland, P. (2011). Misuse detection for mobile devices
using behaviour profiling. International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism (IJCWT), 1
(1), 41–53.
25. Comprehensive study on cybercrime. Support section, organized crime branch, division for
treaty affairs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2013. https://www.unodc.
org/documents/organized-crime/UNODC_CCPCJ_EG.4_2013/UNODC_CCPCJ_EG4_2013_
2_E.pdf.
26. Hathaway, O. A., Crootof, R., Levitz, P., Nix, H., Nowlan, A., Perdue, W., & Spiegel, J. (2012).
The law of cyber-attack. California Law Review, 817–885.
27. Ganeshkumar, K., Arivazhagan, D., & Sundaram, S. (2013). Strategies of cybercrime: Viruses
and security sphere. Journal of Academia and Industrial Research (JAIR), 2(7), 397–401.
28. Huang, K., Siegel, M., & Madnick, S. (2018). Systematically understanding the cyber attack
business: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(4), 1–36.
29. Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC), https://capec.mitre.org/
index.html
30. Sharma, P., Doshi, D., & Prajapati, M. M. (2016, November). Cybercrime: Internal security
threat. In 2016 international conference on ICT in business industry & government (ICTBIG)
(pp. 1–4). IEEE.
31. Brenner, S. W. (2012). Cybercrime and the law: Challenges, issues, and outcomes. UPNE.
32. Sabillon, R., Cano, J. J., Cavaller Reyes, V., & Serra Ruiz, J. (2016). Cybercrime and
cybercriminals: A comprehensive study. International Journal of Computer Networks and
Communications Security, 4(6).
33. Provos, N., Rajab, M. A., & Mavrommatis, P. (2009). Cybercrime 2.0: When the cloud turns
dark. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 42–47.
34. An, J., & Kim, H. W. (2018). A data analytics approach to the cybercrime underground
economy. IEEE Access, 6, 26636–26652.
35. Smith, G. S. (2015). Management models for international cybercrime. Journal of Financial
Crime.
36. Al Abdulwahid, A., Clarke, N., Furnell, S., Stengel, I., & Reich, C. (2015, April). The current
use of authentication technologies: an investigative review. In 2015 International Conference
on Cloud Computing (ICCC) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
37. Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v McKeown and Jones [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 155, HL, at
page 163.
38. Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001. Available at: https://www.
refworld.org/docid/47fdfb202.html
39. Marsili, M. (2019). The war on cyberterrorism. Democracy and Security, 15(2), 172–199.
40. Denning, E. Dorothy, testimony before the special oversight panel on committee on armed
services US house of representatives, “cyber terrorism”, 23 may 2000. URL.: http://www.cs.
georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html. https://web.archive.org/web/
20140310162011/http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/cyberterror.html
41. Brewster, B., Kemp, B., Galehbakhtiari, S., & Akhgar, B. (2015). Cybercrime: attack
motivations and implications for big data and national security. In Application of big data
for national security (pp. 108–127). Butterworth-Heinemann.
42. Al Mazari, A., Anjariny, A. H., Habib, S. A., & Nyakwende, E. (2018). Cyber terrorism
taxonomies: Definition, targets, patterns, risk factors, and mitigation strategies. In Cyber
security and threats: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 608–621). IGI
Global.
43. Criminal Code (RSC, 1985, c C-46).
44. Greer, B. (2017). The growth of cybercrime in the United States. Growth.
45. Tountas, S. W. (2003). Carnivore: Is the regulation of wireless technology a legally viable
option to curtail the growth of cybercrime. Wash UJL & Pol’y, 11, 351.
46. Naidoo, R. (2020). A multi-level influence model of COVID-19 themed cybercrime. European
Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 306–321.
Global Relevance
4
In 2020, with the dawn of a new decade ahead of us—the 2020s—many of us looked
back at the end of 2019 and the start of 2020 as a turning point; an opportunity for a
fresh start. At that point in time, we had no idea of the dramatic social, educational,
and occupational changes that this year would have in store for us all. While the new
decade has not yet been the vibrant beacon of social and technological advancement
that we may have hoped for, our global entry into 2020 has undoubtedly been a
rollercoaster. From widespread mandatory isolation, necessarily remote workspaces
and increased civilian interaction with public health authorities, to the necessarily
rapid introduction of digital communication technologies to populations who had
previously been able to avoid developing a dependence on digital technology as a
primary form of social interaction. All of these factors, and more, have contributed to
the massive inundation of public reliance on digital communication technology and
its corresponding infrastructure around the globe.
Much of this increase in technological reliance has long been foreseen;
anticipated by researchers, academics, and the especially tech-savvy folks among
us. What was not anticipated, however, was the sudden increase in the speed at
which we have all had to adapt to these new realities. This past year, in particular, has
necessitated a review and revitalization of our existing privacy, data protection,
cybersecurity, and cybercrime laws in keeping with the ongoing effort to expand,
revise, or otherwise rewrite the relevant legislation to accommodate for our rapidly-
evolving global, national, and localized cybersecurity concerns.
With 2021 being a year of rapid, unprecedented, large-scale global change, the
many necessarily proposed alterations to our current cybersecurity-related laws have
quickly shifted to the forefront of national security discussion. While some of the
existing laws have adequately covered personal privacy and related provisions and
detailed the legal provisions for criminal offences, there remains an increasingly
ominous lack of comprehensive cybersecurity-specific legislation and cybercrime-
specific criminal law provisions under our existing many existing national legal
structures. When so many features and daily facets of our lives are digitally
connected to a larger network upon which our daily activities and interactions have
become reliant, the idea that our national security and digital infrastructure may be at
risk of exploitation or malicious interference is highly concerning.
This past year, in the era of the global COVID-19 pandemic, has helped to
effectively highlight many of the legislative gaps and other areas in need of
improvement within our current national legislative scheme. One possible explana-
tion for this gap is the reality that the speed of technological development increased
far too quickly, when compared with the adaptation of our federal legislation, to
allow for the construction of adequately tailored legal accommodations. Posited
from an adjusted position, another explanation of the same result is that the legisla-
tion did not adapt quickly enough to keep up with the inevitable (and arguably
foreseeable) advances in data technology and digital communication that we have
seen and continue to see.
Fortunately, we are not alone. Indeed, many other countries are experiencing the
same push to revise and re-evaluate legislative structures which had, until very
recently, been adequately effective at regulating privacy relations and general data
protection. In this chapter, we will outline the relevant national privacy and
cybersecurity-related laws currently in effect in Canada, Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States, as examples of cybersecurity-related legal
provisions in common law countries.
Countries that follow the common law legal system, including Canada, the United
Kingdom, Australia, and the United States are considered to be “common law
countries.” The basis for the common law legal system relies upon a body of
customary law; the body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established
by the courts in previous judicial decisions.
In addition to being common law countries, Canada, the United Kingdom,
Australia, and the United States each have specific statutory provisions which
apply to identity theft and fraud, copyright infringement, patents and intellectual
property, commercial electronic messages, and general criminal provisions. We can
start by reviewing the current laws in Canada before outing the laws in effect in
Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively.
The Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act were both implemented by the
Canadian federal government in 1985 and have acted as a starting point for more
recent legislation and privacy laws, including those pertaining to the cyber sector.
These Acts work together to provide a legislative framework for personal data
collection, use, retention, disclosure, and individual access within the federal public
sector.
4.1 Review of Canadian Cybersecurity Laws 99
4.1.3.2 Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act (SC 2014, c 31)
The Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act came into force on March
10, 2015, and was intended to address the problem of cyberbullying after the high-
profile suicide deaths of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. This Act, among other
things, amended the Criminal Code to create a new offence for the non-consensual
distribution of intimate images.
This is given under s. 162.1(1) where “everyone who knowingly publishes,
distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a
person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to
that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to
that conduct is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
of not more than five years; or of an offence punishable on summary conviction” [6].
appropriation of personality and, at the very least, remains open to the proposition
that a tort action will lie for an intrusion upon seclusion” [7].
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to privacy under
s. 8. Although the Charter cannot apply in a civil case, the Court considered the idea
that the common law should evolve and develop consistently with Charter values to
be most effective in our modern circumstances. Justice Sharpe noted that the existing
case law establishes that personal privacy is worthy of constitutional protection and
that it is integral to the relationship between individuals and the rest of society. He
then combined this explicit Charter recognition with the idea that the common law
should evolve and develop consistently with Charter values. In Justice Sharpe’s
view, there was already ample support to recognize a civil action for damages (aka: a
lawsuit) for “intrusion upon seclusion” as a tort. He described it as follows:
. . .the tort includes physical intrusions into private places as well as listening or looking,
with or without mechanical aids, into the plaintiff’s private affairs. Of particular relevance
to this appeal, is the observation that other non-physical forms of investigation or examina-
tion into private concerns may be actionable. These include opening private and personal
mail or examining a private bank account.
— ONCA Justice Sharpe [7]
And just like that, the common law tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” was born.
This common law tort, in conjunction with the provisions given in the Protecting
Canadians from Online Crime Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, Canada’s Anti-
Spam Legislation (CASL), the Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act (PIPEDA), the Access to Information Act, and the Privacy Act,
make up the majority of Canada’s currently existing data privacy and
cybersecurity-related federal legislation.
In Australia, the legislative powers are divided between the national government
(called the Commonwealth) and the six States (New South Wales, Queensland,
South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia) and three Territories
(Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, and Norfolk Island) within the
greater nation.
The OAIC is responsible for investigating breaches of the APPs and credit
reporting provisions. The OAIC has the power to accept enforceable undertakings,
seek civil penalties in the case of serious or repeated breaches of privacy, and
conduct assessments of privacy performances for both Australian Government
agencies and businesses.
4.2 Review of Australian Cybersecurity Laws 105
Most of the criminal law provisions in Australia are created and administered by the
six individual States (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania,
Victoria, and Western Australia) and three Territories (Australian Capital Territory,
Northern Territory, and Norfolk Island) of Australia. However, there is a body of
criminal law, including the Criminal Code Act 1995, which is made and
administered by the federal government.
serious criminal offences against the Commonwealth. Historically, it was the most
extensive legislative instrument addressing federal criminal offences but is now
being superseded with the passing of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which is
a compilation of all the federal offences in Australia [11].
Government, businesses, and organizations in the United Kingdom are subject to the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018, and the
NIS Regulations. When the Brexit transition period concludes on December
31, 2020, the United Kingdom will have its own UK General Data Protection
Regulation (UK-GDPR) which will work in conjunction with the current Data
Protection Act 2018.
In the United States, federal government and governmental agencies are bound by
the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Federal Information Security Management Act
(FISMA).
health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge.
The US Department of Health and Human Services issued the Privacy Rule and the
Security Rule to implement the requirements of the HIPAA.
The Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health
information (known as “protected health information”) by entities subject to the
Privacy Rule. These individuals and organizations are called “covered entities.” The
Privacy Rule also contains standards for individuals’ rights to understand and control
how their health information is used. A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to ensure
that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of
health information needed to provide and promote high-quality health care and to
protect the public’s health and well-being. The Privacy Rule strikes a balance that
permits important uses of information while protecting the privacy of people who
seek care and healing.
The Security Rule protects a subset of information covered by the Privacy Rule.
Specifically, this rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ electronic
personal health information that is created, received, used, or maintained by a
covered entity. The Security Rule requires appropriate administrative, physical and
technical safeguards to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of electron-
ically protected health information. It requires physicians to protect patients’ elec-
tronically stored, protected health information (known as “ePHI”) by using
appropriate administrative, physical and technical safeguards to ensure the confi-
dentiality, integrity, and security of this information [18].
Financial institutions are among the most heavily regulated entities, at both the
federal and state levels, and similarly are required to protect customer personal
information against reasonably foreseeable threats to security.
collected about the consumer, where that information is shared, how it is used, and
how it is protected. The notice must identify the consumer’s right to opt out of the
information being shared with unaffiliated parties pursuant to the provisions set out
in the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to develop a written informa-
tion security plan that describes how the company is prepared for and plans to
continue to protect clients’ nonpublic personal information. The aim of the
Safeguards Rule is to force financial institutions to reexamine their relationship
with personal private data and to perform a thorough risk analysis on their current
safeguard processes.
Protection from Pretexting is to protect against personal data breaches which
occur through impersonation. This is, when someone tries to gain access to personal
information without the proper authority to do so. This is related to identity theft and
identity fraud. Pretexting includes requesting private information while
impersonating the account holder either, by phone, by postal mail, by email, or by
phishing. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act encourages organizations to implement
adequate safeguards against pretexting, such as the implementation of multi-factor
authentication [19].
2. False Light
The publication of facts which places a person in a false light, even though the
facts themselves may not be defamatory.
3. Appropriation
The unauthorized use of a person’s name or likeness to obtain some benefits.
4. Intrusion of Solitude/Intrusion Upon Seclusion
The intentional intrusion, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the pri-
vate space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a
person.
The civil law in the United States recognizes invasion of privacy torts as civil
wrongs and allows injured parties to recover for their losses by bringing a cause of
action (suing) the other party to recover damages, such as financial compensation or
an injunction to legally compel the other party to immediately cease an activity.
Together, the United States’ Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, the
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA)—aka the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999—the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the
Federal Information Security Management Act, and the Privacy Act of 1974 make up
the bulk of the United States’ cybersecurity and data privacy protection legislative
scheme.
In considering the cybersecurity laws of four countries: Canada, the United King-
dom, Australia, and the United States, it is evident that they have each taken different
approaches to legislate, and regulate, data privacy and cybersecurity-related
concerns within their respective borders. While all four are considered to be “com-
mon law” countries, their unique national needs, historical interests, and constitu-
tional values have contributed to the individualized evolution of their statutory law.
Statutory laws often evolve in parallel with (or in response to) social and/or
technological change. With the rapid technological advancements that have
inundated our nations over the past few decades—indeed since the age of industrial-
ization—the national statutory laws have had to adjust and accommodate to remain
applicable to the changing society in which we live. This exceptional period of
technological growth, and our increased reliance on digital communications, has
culminated in the need for each of these nations to re-evaluate their current national
data privacy and cybersecurity-related statutory schemes to adequately protect the
interests of the nation and the people who live and work within it.
At the time of writing, all four of these nations have, individually and collectively,
been engaged in consultation processes to address their statutory provisions relating
to cybersecurity, data privacy, and cybercriminal activities. Indeed, these four
international allies (and New Zealand) have been collaborating, through their
respective cybersecurity research centers, to create new and improved global
cybersecurity standards and report on possible strategies for approaching potentially
4.6 National Considerations 115
malicious cybersecurity threats. As we enter into 2021, we can anticipate (with great
certainty) that the applicable data privacy, cybersecurity, and cybercriminal
provisions in these countries will continue to develop, evolve, and expand over the
next decade.
The applicable national laws related to various cybersecurity relationships and/or
offences for each of the above nations are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
4.6.1.2 Diversity
Diversity, in the context of national politics, is the practice or quality of including or
involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of
different genders, sexual orientations, etc. within the legal and political decision-
making process, from meaningful consultation to representative heads of govern-
ment. There are many benefits to encouraging diversity in a society. For example,
exposure to different ways of thinking and acting can often stimulate innovation,
creativity, and entrepreneurship. Diversity provides interest and excitement, as well
as being critical to resilience.
Even in the natural world, environmental biologists have pointed out that many
crop monocultures are often highly vulnerable to disease because they lack genetic
diversity. Indeed, genetic diversity is the catalyst of evolution itself, which relies on
genetic variation and adaptation. Ecologists have long worried about the loss of
diversity in many species around the world, in part because the reduction of genetic
diversity poses a real and substantial threat to long-term biological resilience.
Yet diversity is not the solution for everything. For example, Syria and
Afghanistan are very diverse places, but their unique diversity has yielded violence
and conflict rather than creativity and resilience. In Kenya, where there are sharp
divisions between ethnic groups, diversity feeds an inward-looking political corrup-
tion based on ethnic ties. Ethnic diversity led to the breakdown of the liberal Austro-
Hungarian Empire in the decades prior to the First World War, when the Empire’s
component nationalities began to rebel against living together in a common political
structure. Finally, the imperial capital of Vienna was, at one time, a melting pot that
produced such luminaries as psychologist Sigmund Freud, novelist and poet Hugo
von Hofmannsthal, and composer Gustav Mahler. But when the narrower national
identities of peoples within the Empire―Serbs, Bulgarians, Czechs, and Austro-
Germans―asserted themselves as distinct identity groups, the region descended into
violence and intolerance.
Identity is rooted in thymos, a term coined by Plato for the aspect of the human soul
that is emotionally experienced through feelings of pride, shame, and anger and that
craves recognition of dignity. An individual’s thymos has the potential to undermine
rational debate and deliberation by promoting blind attachment to one’s own com-
munity. Yet democracies will not survive if citizens are not in some measure
irrationally attached to the ideas of constitutional government and human equality
through feelings of pride and patriotism, as can be facilitated through a national
identity and the use of that schema in identity politics.
National identities can be built around liberal and democratic political values, and
around the shared experiences that provide the connective tissue allowing diverse
communities to thrive. Canada, France, India, and the United States are each
examples of countries that have tried to cultivate national identities along these
4.6 National Considerations 119
4.6.2.4 Trust
Trust is essential for facilitating healthy economic exchange as well as meaningful
political participation. The ability to cooperate with other people based on informal
norms and shared values—also called “social capital” is the basis of trust within the
scope of a national identity. While smaller community identity groups promote trust
among their members, their social capital is often seen to stay limited to the trusted
members within that community—that is, the “in-group” members. In this way,
strong community identities rather than national identities often serve to decrease the
trust between the in-group members and those who are outside of the more narrow
social community. Societies thrive on trust, but in order to truly flourish, they need
the widest possible radius of trust, which is enabled by an overarching sense of
shared national identity.
One of the places to look for features of identity in politics is to consider the
values expressed in constitutions, codes, or other statutory material, as well as the
international treaties to which a nation is a signatory.
cyber warfare, and the international legal principles as seen in international humani-
tarian law and private international law which influence national decision-making.
The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (more
simply known as the Tallinn Manual) was published by Cambridge University Press
in April 2013. The Manual was the first comprehensive and authoritative attempt to
analyze the application of international law to cyber warfare [23].
In late 2009, the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence convened an
international group of legal scholars and practitioners to draft a manual addressing
the issue of how to interpret international law in the context of cyber operations and
cyber warfare and to bring some degree of clarity to the associated complex legal
issues. As an academic and non-binding study, the Tallinn Manual followed similar
efforts, such as the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed
Conflicts at Sea by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law and the Manual
on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare, as written by the
Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research.
The Tallinn Manual was produced between 2009 and 2012 by an international
team of legal scholars at the request of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence
Center of Excellence, which is located in Tallinn, Estonia. While it was produced
upon invitation from a NATO organization, the Tallinn Manual is not a NATO
document, rather it is an independent academic research product representing only
the views of its authors in their personal capacity. The manual does not represent the
126 4 Global Relevance
views of NATO nor any other organization or state, including those represented by
the observers [23].
The manual is divided into sections of rules and their accompanying commentary.
The rules themselves are, in essence, restatements of international law in the cyber
context, as understood and agreed to, by all of the authors. Being the first authorita-
tive restatement of the application and interpretation of international law in the cyber
context, however, it may be anticipated that the manual will have an effect on how
states and organizations will formulate their approaches and positions in those
matters.
In February 2017, a follow-up report, The Tallinn Manual 2.0 on International
Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, was released. The Tallinn Manual 2.0
broadens the scope to assess how international legal principles can be applied to
malevolent cyber operations that do not rise to the level of an armed attack. The
focus of the original Tallinn Manual is on the most disruptive and destructive cyber
operations—those that qualify as ‘armed attacks’ and therefore allowing states to
respond in self-defence—and those taking place during armed conflict. Since the
threat of cyber operations with such consequences is especially alarming to states,
most academic research has focused on these issues. Tallinn 2.0 refers to “cyber
operations” as opposed to “cyber conflicts” as in the original Tallinn Manual [24].
It is important to keep in mind that the intent of the project was never to make law
or to produce a manual that would have the force of law. As the introduction to the
Tallinn Manual 2.0 makes clear:
128 4 Global Relevance
Table 4.6 International treaties relating to cybersecurity, data privacy, and cybercrime
Name of treaty Citation Authority Description
Universal Declaration of The United United The Declaration was
Human Rights (UDHR) Nations. (1948). Nations proclaimed by the
Universal U.N. General Assembly in
Declaration of 1948. The right to privacy is
Human Rights. enshrined in Article 12.
Although the Declaration is
not legally binding, many of
its principles have been
incorporated in international
treaties, regional human rights
instruments, and national
constitutions.
International Covenant 999 UNTS 171 United More than 160 countries are
on Civil and Political Nations state parties to this multilateral
Rights (1966) treaty. Article 17 recognizes
the right to privacy.
Convention on the 1577 UNTS. 3 United Article 34 of the Convention
Rights of the Child Nations obligates state parties to
(1989) protect children from all
forms of sexual exploitation
and abuse, including
prostitution and pornography.
United Nations 2225 UNTS 209 United This treaty, also known as the
Convention Against Nations Palermo Convention,
Transnational Organized obligates state parties to enact
Crime (2000) also domestic criminal offenses
known as the “Palermo that target organized criminal
Convention” groups and to adopt new
frameworks for extradition,
mutual legal assistance, and
law enforcement cooperation.
Although the treaty does not
explicitly address cybercrime,
its provisions are highly
relevant.
Optional Protocol to the 2171 United This protocol to the 1981
Convention on the U.N.T.S. 227 Nations Convention addresses the sale
Rights of the Child of children, child prostitution,
(2001) and child pornography.
Article 3(1)(c) prohibits the
production, distribution,
dissemination, sale, and
possession of child
pornography. The Preamble
mentions the Internet as a
means of distribution. The
definition of child
pornography, set forth in
Article 2(3), is broad enough
to encompass virtual images
of children.
(continued)
4.7 International Considerations 129
Ultimately, Tallinn Manual 2.0 must be understood only as an expression of the opinions of
the two International Groups of Experts as to the state of the law . . . . This Manual is meant
to be a reflection of the law as it existed at the point of the Manual’s adoption by the two
International Groups of Experts in June 2016. It is not a ‘best practices’ guide, does not
represent ‘progressive development of the law’, and is policy and politics-neutral. In other
words, Tallinn Manual 2.0 is intended as an objective restatement of the lex lata [25].
RULE 1—Sovereignty
A State may exercise control over cyberinfrastructure and activities within its sovereign territory.
RULE 2—Jurisdiction
Without prejudice to applicable international obligations, a State may exercise its jurisdiction:
(a) Over persons engaged in cyber activities on its territory;
(b) Over cyber infrastructure located on its territory; and
(c) Extraterritorially, in accordance with international law.
RULE 3—Jurisdiction of Flag States and States of Registration
Cyberinfrastructure located on aircraft, ships, or other platforms in international airspace, on the
high seas, or in outer space is subject to the jurisdiction of the flag State or State of registration.
RULE 4—Sovereign Immunity and Inviolability
Any inference by a State with cyberinfrastructure aboard a platform, wherever located, that enjoys
sovereign immunity constitutes a violation of sovereignty.
RULE 5—Control of Cyber Infrastructure
A State shall not knowingly allow the cyberinfrastructure located in its territory or under its
exclusive governmental control to be used for acts that adversely and unlawfully affect other
States.
Chapter Two discusses “The Use of Force” and divides the next 10 Rules into
three Sections: (1) Prohibition of the Use of Force; (2) Self-Defence; and (3) Actions
of International Governmental Organizations.
Section One of Chapter Two contains the Rules applicable to “Prohibition of the
Use of Force”:
research has focused on these issues. Tallinn 2.0 refers to “cyber operations” as
opposed to “cyber conflicts” as in the original Tallinn Manual [24].
It is important to keep in mind that the intent of the project was never to make law
or to produce a manual that would have the force of law. As the introduction to the
Tallinn Manual 2.0 makes clear:
Ultimately, Tallinn Manual 2.0 must be understood only as an expression of the opinions of
the two International Groups of Experts as to the state of the law . . . . This Manual is meant
to be a reflection of the law as it existed at the point of the Manual’s adoption by the two
International Groups of Experts in June 2016. It is not a ‘best practices’ guide, does not
represent ‘progressive development of the law’, and is policy and politics-neutral. In other
words, Tallinn Manual 2.0 is intended as an objective restatement of the lex lata [25].
The law of war is the subset of public international law that governs armed conflicts.
It includes criteria for determining whether the use of force is justifiable (in legal
terms “jus ad bellum”), as well as rules governing the conduct of warfare (or “jus in
bello”), also known as international humanitarian law. Legal scholars continue to
debate whether existing international law principles, including those that govern
international warfare, are sufficient to address cyber-attacks or whether a new legal
framework is needed to manage conflicts that occur in cyberspace. Although various
proposals for drafting a cyberspace treaty have been floated, none have evolved as of
yet and it is unlikely that a new treaty will emerge any time soon.
Some of the sources of influence on international legal policy and strategies—that
is, the factors which are considered prior to making a legal decision or domestic legal
policy with implications to international law—are provided in Fig. 4.1. While there
are many sources given in this figure, this list is not exhaustive.
We have previously discussed the sources of law in Part One of this book and now
we have added the sources of influence on law. From contrasting these, we can
understand that the sources of international law can include everything that an
international tribunal might rely on to decide international disputes. International
disputes include arguments or conflicts between nations, between individuals or
companies from different nations, and between individuals or companies and a
foreign nation-state.
Court of Justice lists four sources of international law: treaties and conventions,
custom, general principles of law, and judicial decisions and teachings.
The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine
years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. The
election of the first Members of the International Court of Justice took place at the
First Session of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council on
February 6, 1946, with work in the court beginning in April 1946. The ICJ only
hears lawsuits between nation-states and its jurisdiction is not compulsory, meaning
that both nations in a dispute must agree to have the ICJ hear the dispute.
The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague.1 Of the six principal
organs of the United Nations, it is the only one that is not located in New York, in the
United States. The role of the International Court of Justice is to settle, in accordance
with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by nation-states and to give
advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations
organs and specialized agencies.
1
In the Netherlands.
References 135
4.8 Summary
1. In what ways are the laws of Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the
United States, as discussed in this chapter, similar? In what ways are they
different?
2. What is national identity?
3. Why might the constitutional values of a nation be relevant to their creation of
cybersecurity and data privacy legislation?
4. How is a treaty similar to a contract? How is it different?
5. What is the Tallinn Manual, how did it come to exist, and what is the origin of
its name?
6. What is the World Court, which organization is it affiliated with, and why does it
matter?
References
1. Privacy Act (RSC 1985, c P-21)
2. Access to Information Act (RSC 1985, c A-1)
3. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (SC 2000, c 5).
4. Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (SC 2010, c 23)
5. Criminal Code (RSC (1985), c C-46)
6. Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act (SC 2014, c 31)
7. Jones v Tsige (2012 ONCA 32)
8. Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
9. Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012
10. Spam Bill 2003 (Cth)
11. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
12. Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
13. Data Protection Act 2018
14. Network and Information Security Regulations 2018
15. Computer Misuse Act 1990
16. Privacy Act of 1974
17. Federal Information Security Management Act
18. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
19. Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
136 4 Global Relevance
In this, our final chapter, we will discuss slime of the emergent, upcoming, and future
issues in cybersecurity law, which include: globalization and determination of
jurisdictional authority; digital marketplaces and consumer rights; anonymized
DarkNet markets and the influx of cryptocurrencies; existing and anticipated
challenges to law enforcement; and the issue of digital sovereignty in relation to
data governance, private ownership, and privacy protection.
The most popular illegal Dark Web marketplace, called the “Silk Road,” was
designed to use TOR for user anonymity and Bitcoin as a similarly anonymous
transactional currency. Silk Road was created and operated by Ross William
Ulbricht from 2011 until his arrest in 2013. As Ulbricht is an American citizen
and the arrest took place in the United States, he was indicted under the American
criminal justice system for a total of seven offences including: conspiracy to launder
money, conspiracy to commit computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics by
the means of the internet, and continuing a criminal enterprise. In May 2015, Ross
Ulbricht was sentenced to a double life sentence plus forty years without the
possibility of parole and was ordered to pay over $180-million (USD) in fines.
Pretty much as soon as the government shut down Ulbricht’s Silk Road, another
individual quickly launched a Silk Road 2.0 and was promptly charged with the
same crimes as Ross Ulbricht for his original Silk Road enterprise [1].
While these Silk Road cases were simplified because the United States had the
legal jurisdiction, the often international and cross-jurisdictional nature of the Dark
Web makes it essential for criminal investigators to be able to collaborate across law
enforcement agencies and without the limitation of borders if our goal is to regulate
or enforce law on the Dark Web/Dark Net.
# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 137
M. Lukings, A. Habibi Lashkari, Understanding Cybersecurity Law and Digital
Privacy, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88704-9_5
138 5 Emerging Issues
In law, jurisdiction refers to the practical authority to make, enforce, and administer
laws and justice, which is granted to a legal body based on the type and locational
circumstances of the case. In more casual terms, jurisdiction can also refer to a
specific regional, physical, territorial, or geographic area. When we consider online
activities, however, there is not necessarily a defined geographic area to distinguish
which governing authority of which nation or state has the legal jurisdiction over that
medium. While jurisdiction is often linked to sovereignty over a territorial location,
jurisdiction can also exist without a connection to territory. The type of jurisdictional
authority held by a governing body indicates whether that nation or state can
undertake enforcement action to uphold its law [2]. There are three types of
jurisdiction: (1) prescriptive jurisdiction; (2) adjudicative jurisdiction; and
(3) enforcement jurisdiction.
Prescriptive jurisdiction—or legislative jurisdiction—refers to the authority of
the governing body of a nation or state to establish laws and legal norms that are
applicable to individuals, groups, corporations, property, and events, both within and
outside of its territory. Under the prescriptive jurisdiction, the laws of a nation or
state are still binding on citizens of that jurisdiction while abroad. The same principle
of legal scope may also be applicable to certain events or activities conducted abroad
that could negatively impact the nation or state which is hoping to assert a prescrip-
tive jurisdiction. For example, a nation may choose to create legislation applicable to
crimes that occur abroad which the home nation considers to be a threat to its
security or economic interests [3].
Enforcement jurisdiction refers to the power of a nation or state to ensure
compliance with prescriptive legal commands which regulate people and situations
in the jurisdiction of that nation or state. Enforcement jurisdiction is closely tied to
the adjudicative jurisdiction and both can be contrasted with the prescriptive juris-
diction [4].
Adjudicative jurisdiction refers to the power of the governing body of a nation or
state to hear and settle legal disputes, as well as the authority to decide and determine
the outcomes of competing legal claims.
Both the adjudicative jurisdiction and enforcement jurisdiction are territorially
limited. The intention for this is to limit the power of a nation or state to enforce its
prescriptive or adjudicative jurisdiction within another nation or state. In this way,
the legal enforcement and court systems are restricted to operating within the
territorial boundaries of their corresponding nation or state. In the absence of
permission, a nation or state cannot exercise its prescriptive jurisdiction—either
through enforcement or adjudication—outside of its territory [5].
In common law legal systems, jurisdictional divisions are considered locally,
provincially, and federally. Jurisdictional divisions can also refer to the division of
legal powers, within the executive and legislative branches of government, to
analyze and allocate resources with the aim of promoting and serving the best
interests of the people who are governed by the laws within that jurisdiction.
5.1 Globalization and Jurisdictionally 139
As a fun example, if we consider the illustration below, we can see how establishing
legal jurisdiction over a specific criminal instance may additionally be complicated
by the cross-jurisdictional nature of cybercrime in the following scenarios below.
For each hypothetical case, refer to the Jurisdictional Hypothetical figure in Fig. 5.1.
Example One
Blue Government of Blue Nation detects criminal activity coming from Blue Person
within Blue Nation and being received by Pink Person in Pink Nation. Blue
Government and Pink Government have a treaty agreement which states that each
Nation must inform the other when cross-jurisdictional criminal activity is detected
online.
Consider:
independent nation
Example Two
Blue Government detects criminal activity coming from Blue Person in Blue Nation
and being received by Purple Person in Purple Nation. The Blue Government and
Purple Government do not have a treaty agreement.
Consider:
Example Three
Blue Government detects criminal activity coming from Purple Person in Purple
Nation and being received by Purple Person in Purple Nation. Blue Nation does not
have any tie to the criminal activity other than having detected it. Blue Nation and
Purple Nation do not have a treaty agreement.
Consider:
Example Four
Blue Government detects criminal activity coming from Blue Person in Pink Nation
and being received by Purple Person in Purple Nation. Pink Government has
individual treaty agreements with both Blue Government and Purple Government
which state that each Nation must inform the other when cross-jurisdictional crimi-
nal activity is detected online. The Blue Government and Purple Government do not
have a treaty agreement.
Consider:
• We know that Blue Nation must inform Pink Nation. Does Blue Nation also have
an obligation to inform Purple Nation?
• We know that the Pink Government has a treaty with both Blue Government and
Purple Government and is aware that there is no existing treaty relationship
between Blue Government and Purple Government. Does Pink Nation have an
obligation to inform Purple Nation about criminal activity detected between Pink
Nation and Purple Nation if that activity was detected and shared to Pink Nation
by Blue Nation?
• Does Blue Nation have the jurisdictional authority to intervene in Purple Nation
for a crime that originated with Blue Person in Pink Nation?
Example Five
Blue Nation and Green Nation have vastly different laws. What is criminalized in
Green Nation is not always criminalized in Blue Nation. Purple Government detects
criminal activity coming from Green Person in Pink Nation and being received by
Purple Person with Blue Server in Blue Nation. The nature of this particular activity
is not illegal in Blue Nation. Purple Government, who detected the activity, has
treaties with Pink Government and Green Government which state that each Nation
142 5 Emerging Issues
must inform the other when cross-jurisdictional criminal activity is detected online.
Green Government has similar treaties with Purple Government, Pink Government,
and Orange Government, but not with Blue Government. Pink Government has
treaties with Blue Government, Green Government, Purple Government, and
Orange Government. The Blue Government only has a treaty with the Pink
Government.
Consider:
In this section, we will discuss the current issues relating to digital marketplaces with
respect to consumer data and transactions done over the course of conducting
business. We will start by looking at consumer rights, as they are applied in the
global marketplace, including data protection agreements, and issues of privacy in
online communication services. We will then explore the issues surrounding the
regulation of commercial electronic messages (CEMs), also known as SPAM.
Finally, we will examine the commercial application of data privacy, personal
information protection, and cybersecurity laws on the international stage.
Consumer rights refer to the protections provided under consumer protection legis-
lation, which is implemented and enforced by the government and governmental
bodies [7]. The specific rights of the consumer which are protected vary between
jurisdictions. Some of the consumer rights which have been included in consumer
protection legislation are the:
6. Right to Be Heard
7. Right to Choose
8. Right to Safety
In this section, we will discuss the use of Consumer Data Privacy Agreements
which exist to protect consumer data and personal information and the issue of
privacy in online communications, particularly in organizations that collect, use,
share, or otherwise interact with the personal data of consumers [8].
Data protection agreements should be specific to the parties involved, the exact
data to be shared, the services to be provided, and the steps being undertaken to keep
the data protected [10].
Most data protection agreements will include the following information:
These attacks try to exploit vulnerabilities in the web application source code, mainly remote
code execution vulnerabilities, in order to download and run different crypto-mining
malware on the infected server. . . [which] usually uses all CPU computing power,
preventing the CPU from doing other tasks and effectively denies service to the application’s
users.
— Imperva
Uses malware to infect a Begins spamming protocol, Receive unsolicited or unwanted CEMs
network of computers, creating a flooding recipients with through the infected computer
botnet to send spam. unsolicited CEMs. network (botnet).
1. Export directly
2. Use of a foreign agent to sell and distribute
3. Use of a foreign distributor to on-sell to local customers
4. Manufacture products in the foreign country by either setting up business or by
acquiring a foreign subsidiary
5. License to a local producer for manufacturing
6. Enter into a joint commercial venture with a foreign entity
7. Appoint a franchisee in a foreign country
We have previously touched on most of these sources earlier in this book but we
have not yet discussed the World Trade Organization, which facilitates trade in
goods, services, and intellectual property among participating countries. We will
discuss that in more detail next.
disputes.1 Member governments look to the WTO to establish, revise, and enforce the
agreed-upon rules that govern international trade. When created, these agreements are
signed by representatives of national member governments and then ratified by the
legislature within each individual nation-state [19].
The functions of the World Trade Organization can be summarized as [20]:
The WTO establishes a framework for trade policies, but it does not define or
specify outcomes as it is specifically concerned with setting the rules of “trade
policy.” As an organization, the WTO prohibits discrimination between trading
partners but provides exceptions for environmental protection, national security,
and other important goals. The five primary principles underpinning the WTO are:
(1) non-discrimination; (2) reciprocity; (3) binding and enforceable commitments;
(4) transparency; and (5) safety values. These are summarized in Table 5.1.
The rapid growth of encryption technology has revolutionized the online marketplace
and helped to enable the creation of anonymous online networks, like the DarkNet—a
hidden forum for which has attracted individuals who wish to engage in criminal
activities while remaining anonymous and untraceable. Cybercriminal activity, unlike
typical localized or neighborhood crimes, is not confined by national or provincial
1
“U.S. Trade Policy: Going it Alone vs. Abiding by the WTO | Econofact”. Econofact.
15 June 2018.
5.3 Anonymized DarkNet Markets and Cryptocurrencies 149
borders or limited by physical geography. The fairly recent creation and development
of cryptocurrencies, through the DarkNet, has created the possibility of full transac-
tional anonymity for those involved in criminal activities both on- and offline.
For the most part, crime hidden on the Dark Web (accessed via the DarkNet) or
committing using the DarkNet is not a novel crime; it is an established crime the
commission of which is being facilitated through the use of anonymous encrypted
networks. Rather than being a unique section of Canadian criminal law, the Dark Web
merely acts as a different forum for activities that were already criminalized outside of
the context of the Dark Web. The difficulty in creating laws to regulate Dark
Web/DarkNet activity arises from the dual issues of detection/tracing and legal juris-
diction within an essentially unlimited and fully anonymous global encrypted network.
In this section, we will discuss the legal issues relating to encrypted online
criminal activities, specifically those involving or facilitated by the use of Dark
Web browsers and cryptocurrencies (such as TOR and Bitcoin, respectively) which
provide anonymity to both parties in an illegal transaction. Cybercriminal activity is
not confined by national borders or limited by geography so the main legal issues
150 5 Emerging Issues
which stem from hidden online criminal activities are the inherent difficulties of
detection/tracing on encrypted networks and the legal puzzle of navigating jurisdic-
tional authority and balancing foreign and domestic relations, treaties between
nations, and potentially conflicting interests on the international stage.
Illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (as we have discussed in Sect.
3.1.1) and DarkWet marketplaces go hand in hand, as individuals who are looking to
acquire illegal content in exchange for consideration typically want their identity and
the record of the transaction to be as discreet as possible. As DarkNets provide the
most encryption, through anonymization, it makes sense that purveyors of illegal
content would migrate to Dark Web marketplace forums accessed anonymously
through the DarkNet [22].
5.3.1.1 DarkNet
The DarkNet is an online file-sharing network that provides users with anonymity
through encryption and other cybersecurity technologies. This enables criminals to
broker illegal goods and services on the Internet and avoid detection through
anonymous online networks. The DarkNet attracts criminal activity by concealing
online transactions, such as the online buying and selling of illegal drugs, pirated
media, counterfeit goods, and other illicit products.
Through the use of the DarkNet and other anonymous online forums, criminals
can easily purchase cybercrime tools, services, and supporting infrastructure. This
service-based online market enables more criminals to take part in technologically
advanced cybercrime activities, such as DDoS attacks or malware distribution
through botnets. The online availability of such tools and services means that
more criminals can outsource their cybercrime operations in part or in whole.
2
Updated statistics from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) are available for convenient
and casual public perusal online at: unodc.org.
5.3 Anonymized DarkNet Markets and Cryptocurrencies 153
3
We will be using the terms intranet and intra-net interchangeably.
4
For consistent inconsistency, we will also be using the terms internet and inter-net
interchangeably.
154 5 Emerging Issues
find through a simple keyword search is considered to be Surface Web content and
can be accessed through a typical internet connection. Examples of Surface Web
sites include Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Wikipedia, and many news sites.
DeepWeb and DeepNet refer to the content and internet websites that exist and
can be accessed on an encrypted network through the use of a password or other
login credentials. It includes all unindexed sites; those which are not publicly
accessible through a standard internet search on a typical internet browser. In most
cases, these unindexed sites are not accessible because they are password-protected,
encrypted, or require a login to gain access. Network administrators can connect to
the Deep Web using the DeepNet when they have the username and password and
use the assigned IPs.
The creation of the Deep Web in the 1970s was originally intended to protect and
isolate networks from the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network and to hide
the locations and IP addresses of US military operations for security purposes. Much
of the content on the Deep Web comprises academic resources, patent information,
and large-scale databases which are maintained by universities, governmental
organizations, and other institutions. Examples of Deep Web content include online
banking, personal email accounts, libraries, user databases, members-only sites, and
other similar content which requires a password, login, or specific credential in order
to gain access.
The Dark Web (or DarkWeb)5 is the part of the greater unindexed Deep Web,
which is both encrypted and anonymized, thus making it an attractive medium of
communicating and transacting for the purpose of engaging in illegal activities.
Reported illegal Dark Web activities include illegal file-sharing; intellectual property
theft; drug and weapons dealing; trading in other illegal goods or criminalized
services; human trafficking; accessing, creating, and distributing child pornography;
and, allegedly, a myriad of just about anything else you could imagine.
In recent years, illegal Dark Web marketplaces have acted as a catalyst for the
development of cryptocurrencies because online exchanges which are completed
using cryptocurrency protect the identity of both the buyer and the seller in the
transactions, which can be highly desirable for both parties. The anonymity of
cryptocurrency also helps in preventing the build-up of a “paper trail” of traceable
evidence from being created while engaged in illegal activities. Without clear,
definitive, traceable evidence to tie an individual or group to a crime, the
anonymized Dark Web enables people who are engaging in online criminal activities
to better evade detection and identification by law enforcement.
The DarkNet (or Dark Net)6 refers to the unused address space of the internet
which is not speculated to interact with other computers in the world. It is “Dark”
because of its inherently anonymous nature, virtual marketplace, and use of
cryptocurrency. The Dark Web could be accessible through the DarkNet, beyond
the reach of the World Wide Web search engines.
5
As is likely suspected, we will be using the forms Dark Web and DarkWeb interchangeably.
6
Once again, we will be using the forms Dark Net and DarkNet interchangeably. This should no
longer be a surprise.
5.3 Anonymized DarkNet Markets and Cryptocurrencies 155
The DarkNet is a network of IPs that attackers can use as a medium for illegal
activities, such as connecting to the Dark Web to access illegal content without
detection and identification or to execute large-scale cyber-attack scenarios with
100% anonymity. As an example, a potential cyber-attacker could use thousands of
unassigned IPs in the DarkNet to prepare a DDoS attack on a large organization
knowing that no one will be able to trace the attack back to them. Together, the Dark
Web and DarkNet provide anonymous and encrypted access to hidden and poten-
tially illegal web content within the larger Deep Web.
These three layers of the overall internet are illustrated in Fig. 5.3, using the
popular iceberg metaphor [32].
• If you create or exercise control over content on the internet, then you may be
responsible for any damage caused by that content.
• If you have control over content that you learn is infringing upon a law or the
individual rights of another person and you choose to do nothing about it then you
may be liable for your inaction.
• If you intentionally or knowingly infringe upon the rights of another person, then
you may be liable for any damages caused as a result.
• If you use the Deep Web/DeepNet or Dark Web/DarkNet to commit an act
elsewhere that is illegal in your country, you may still be held accountable and
legally responsible under the law of your country of origin.
• If you develop or create illegal content, even if that content is subsequently made
available only from a server located outside of your country, you may still be held
criminally responsible.
• If you commit a criminal offence, regardless of whether it takes place on- or
offline, then you can be charged for that criminal offence and be held legally
responsible.
The Deep/Dark Web is not a separate or distinct legal realm, but merely an
alternative medium for communicating and interacting remotely with others. Crimi-
nal activities are illegal regardless of whether they take place in person, at a distance,
remotely, or through the use of technology. If you commit a crime then you can be
charged for that crime.
5.3.3 Cryptocurrencies
Some transactions, on both the Surface Web and the Dark Web, take place using
cryptocurrencies. Since its first introduction in 2009, the popularity of
cryptocurrencies, also called digital currencies, has grown substantially. Legislators
and corporations are finding it necessary to consider the widespread social, legal, and
financial implications of a growing online world of decentralized currencies, in the
form of cryptocurrencies, which can be used to anonymize online transactions on the
Surface Web just as they can on the DarkNet. As an extra bonus, some
cryptocurrencies can also be used—albeit infrequently—for purchases in traditional
physical in-person stores and marketplaces, known as “brick and mortar businesses.”
Cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin, are anonymous and cannot be traced because they
are decentralized. This allows a buyer in one region to convert their national
currency to a common cryptocurrency and complete an online transaction with a
seller in another region using that cryptocurrency. The seller, upon receipt of the
cryptocurrency at the end of the transaction, could then convert the cryptocurrency
from the buyer into the national currency of their region. The currency conversion on
both ends would be done anonymously and encrypted over the DarkNet,
circumventing the use of banking institutions for currency conversion, and essen-
tially eliminating all banking fees related to currency conversion services. Cutting
the cost of the conversion service provided by a bank also allows for individuals to
160 5 Emerging Issues
send money to family in other countries or regions without having to use a banking
and wire transfer service at a highly inflated cost, allowing the individual to retain
more of their own money.
Over the last decade, cryptocurrency schemes have become increasingly accessi-
ble, with increased public awareness and understanding as the years have passed.
The inherent benefits of the anonymous nature of cryptocurrency transactions were
quickly picked up and used by criminals to obtain payments for illegal goods and
services and to launder illegal revenue, from criminal activities, from the comfort of
their own homes.
A recent special report published by the Association of Certified Financial Crime
Specialists, explains that cryptocurrency gained traction in the financial world as
access to bitcoin became more widespread which started the gradual shift of criminal
enterprises from more traditional financial products to cryptocurrency. This massive
shift along with the protective features offered by the use of DarkWeb and DarkNet
technology made it inevitable that the human trafficking industry would begin to use
cryptocurrencies as well [33].
For the purpose of cyber-enabled human trafficking, it should be noted that
cryptocurrencies can be used in a wide variety of online and in-person transactions
relating to human trafficking, including payment to the trafficker; remittance of
funds to an organization leader; and/or dispersion of profits to all involved in
trafficking the individual, which would typically appear in the pattern of periodic
large cryptocurrency purchases and remittances. Additionally, cryptocurrencies can
be used to make untraceable payments to websites that advertise sexual services,
paid pornography sites, and other activities related to the nightly business of
prostitution, all of which would typically appear in an account as many frequent
“low dollar” transactions [34]. The result of all of this appears as a frequent but
inconsistent variety of transaction amounts and frequencies, at all times of the day,
all of which may be indicative of human trafficking [33].
Along with being associated with nefarious activities for which anonymization
would be fairly necessary, cryptocurrencies are also known for being especially
volatile as a trading option in the market.
The data in Table 5.2 below, which was sourced from CoinDesk Research, is
based on dividing bitcoin volatility into three ranges: high, mid, and low. High is
volatility at or above 100%. Mid is volatility at or above 50%, and below 100%. Low
is volatility below 50%. Volatility is the 30-day standard deviation of daily log
returns, annualized at 365 days of trading.
In our quickly changing world, it has become necessary for corporations to examine
their own strategies on how to either implement or avoid the influx of encrypted tech,
the expansion of cryptocurrencies, and the looming threat of large-scale data
breaches and ransomware attacks which are becoming more and more common.
5.3 Anonymized DarkNet Markets and Cryptocurrencies 161
The increasing use of encryption technology and the Dark Web as a platform for
intellectual property infringement as well as commercial and other crimes requires
governments, businesses, and individuals to be mindful of any current and future
potential impact of Dark Web activity in relation to their interests. Often, when
private corporate records obtained in data breaches are published and offered for
sale, the forum used to leak this stolen data involves the use of the Dark
Web/Dark Net.
prevention and protection are not enough and irreparable widespread damage is
caused from a privacy or data breach of a large magnitude.
This technology is powerful and unprecedented. We are more connected to our
devices and the online world than ever before. Now, more than ever, it is necessary
for corporations and legislators alike to become more aware and informed of
encrypted online networks and the risks of massive, large-scale data hacks and
subsequent anonymous Dark Web data dumps. The added complexity of determin-
ing legal jurisdictional authority in a naturally cross-jurisdictional and international
encrypted and anonymized realm, while ominous and off-putting, is a challenge that
must be tackled before international Dark Web/Dark Net cryptocurrency-enabled
cross-jurisdictional crimes become more prevalent and we are forced to deal with the
influx of class-action lawsuits which may inundate us sooner than we ever thought
possible.
5.3.4.2 Cryptocurrencies
For businesses who want to connect with the anonymous online market or accept a
wider range of international currencies, this could involve expanding current finan-
cial services to accept specific cryptocurrencies as payment for both online and
in-person transactions or providing a variable conversion rate for specified
cryptocurrencies. This would allow a buyer in one region to convert their national
currency to a common cryptocurrency, complete an online transaction with a seller
in another region using the agreed-upon cryptocurrency. The seller, upon receipt of
the cryptocurrency at the end of the transaction, could then convert the
cryptocurrency into the national currency of their region.
For example, in Canada, the law of securities regulation and banking is under the
federal division of power. This means that any laws or legislation relating to the
regulation and legal exchange of cryptocurrencies (as a security) falls under federal
legal jurisdiction. The main issues facing federal legislators in tackling the
cryptocurrency markets are a general lack of understanding and awareness of
cryptocurrencies, the perceived complexity of blockchain structure, the lack of a
centralized data depository for keeping records of transaction history, the difficulty
in tracing and identifying the individual parties on either side of a transaction, the
inability to determine the contents or context of a transaction, and the general
uncertainty and fear of a notoriously volatile online currency which many in
government and law still do not fully understand.
release by 24 hours for each payment. Chaos ensued but Company X publicly
refused to give in to the demands made by Group A.
The time slowly crept by, and the third day came along. Public outcry seemed to
grow by the hour and public opinion became markedly more divisive with factions
breaking out between: those who felt the data should be released regardless of a
ransom; those who felt the data should be protected at all costs; those who felt it was
the responsibility of Company X to take care of any necessary ransom payments in
order to protect the data; and those who did not care. After receiving substantial
feedback from fearful subscribers and gathering plentiful input from a variety of
investors and stakeholders, Company X declined to submit to Group A’s demand
and waited in anticipation of what they hoped was a bluff.
On the fourth day, as was threatened, the first mass data release occurred. Over
60GB of subscriber personal information was made available via the DarkNet and
quickly spread to mainstream surface internet forums. The breach was promptly
validated by cybersecurity experts who found the personal information to be highly
accurate and the chat logs to be extensive and disturbingly detailed. Company X
continued to refuse to submit to Group A’s demands and held strong.
The second successful breach took place on the fifth day, with the release of a
further 80GB of user data. By this time, after only 36 hours of the personal
information being available online, some of Company X’s subscribers reported
receiving extortion mails requesting payment in cryptocurrency to prevent the public
release of their personal information. Other subscribers, specific to the paid site, were
threatened with the release of all of their in-app chat logs and account information to
their significant other.
The sixth day followed with an additional 20GB of data. Police services indicated
reports of suicide and many extortion attempts associated with the leak of individual
user profiles. Company X responded by offering a reward of and offered a reward of
$500,000—notably higher than the total amount of “extension payments” which
would have been made for a 3-day delay on the data releases—for any information
which would lead to the arrest of the hackers.
On the seventh day, Group E returned with the results of their investigation into
the cyberattack, the data breach, and the subsequent data release. The reports
suggested that Company X was using an outdated cybersecurity system which was
a couple of years behind the standard cybersecurity system used in other websites
with high traffic and user-generated content. As well, Group E had uncovered a few
years’ worth of emails in the Junk mailbox folder of the CEO of Company X, which
specifically warned that the cybersecurity system was about to expire, and then
expired, out-of-date, and in need of an upgrade. While these emails did come from
the previous cybersecurity system provider, they were mislabelled as SPAM and
ended up in the Junk folder, unbeknownst to the CEO.
Following this massive data breach, a $500 million class-action lawsuit was filed
against Company X by subscribers who had been negatively impacted by the data
breach and who alleged that Company X was negligent and should be held respon-
sible for damage incurred because of the data breach. No one associated with Group
A has been identified by law enforcement and there are no leads at this time.
5.4 Challenges to Law Enforcement 165
Consider:
Law enforcement faces many challenges in their work to enforce and apply the laws
within their respective jurisdictions. Some of the challenges in applying the law
include the issues of: decentralization; detection, tracing, and localization; determi-
nation of jurisdiction and type of jurisdiction necessary to enforce and apply the law;
and the issue of law enforcement capacity and resource allocation. Regarding
enforcing existing laws against online crime and illegal activity, there are four
main goals of law enforcement:
Sites and content on the Dark Web cannot be indexed by a crawling web browser
like Google. The IPs on the DarkNet are not assigned to any user, so are anonymous.
This makes it definitely difficult for law enforcement to find and access specific Dark
Web/DarkNet websites and connection methods, to detect and monitor illegal
activities, to trace and localize the source of the illegal activities, and to enforce
the applicable laws on the involved parties [36].
The often international and/or cross-jurisdictional nature of the DarkWeb and
DarkNet makes it essential for criminal investigators to be able to collaborate across
law enforcement agencies and without the limitation of borders to have any chance
of effectively regulating or enforcing law on the DarkWeb and DarkNet.
166 5 Emerging Issues
5.4.1 Decentralization
Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, Etherium, etc., are anonymous and cannot
be easily traced because the ledgers for cryptocurrency transactions are decentralized.
This allows a buyer in one region to convert their national currency to a common
cryptocurrency and complete an online transaction with a seller in another region
using that cryptocurrency. The seller, upon receipt of the cryptocurrency at the end of
the transaction, could then convert the cryptocurrency balance received from the buyer
into their own national or regional currency. The currency conversion on both ends
would be done anonymously and encrypted over the DarkNet, circumventing the use
of banking institutions for currency conversion, and essentially eliminating all banking
fees related to currency conversion services [37].
By cutting the cost of the conversion service provided by a bank also allows for
individuals to send money to family in other countries or regions without having to
use a banking and wire transfer service at a highly inflated cost, allowing the
individual to retain more of their own money.
In Fig. 5.5, the structural and operational differences between centralized network
transactions and decentralized network transactions are visually provided for better
understanding.
The Dark Web/DarkNet are “dark” because they are hidden. Sites and content on the
Dark Web cannot be indexed by a crawling web browser like Google. The IPs on the
DarkNet are not assigned to any user, they are anonymous. This makes it definitively
difficult for law enforcement to find and access specific Dark Web/DarkNet websites
and connection methods, to detect and monitor illegal activities, to trace and localize
the source of the illegal activities, and to enforce the applicable criminal laws on the
involved parties.
For example, over two million people per day use TOR to access the Dark Web,
but we do not yet have a highly accurate solution to detect the content and behaviors
in the users’ activities on TOR. In 2014, He Gaofeng and his team from the China
Electronic Power Resource proposed an idea that would detect the Browsing, File
Transfer, and P2P Connection activities in TOR traffic within 600 seconds. Later in
2016, Dr. Lashkari and his team from the University of New Brunswick (UNB)
proposed a highly accurate solution using network traffic analysis to detect and
characterize user behaviors on TOR and VPN within ten seconds.
Few currently available solutions have coverage that is sophisticated enough to be
truly effective at detecting, monitoring, characterizing, and tracing TOR-based
activity. As a result, there is a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt concerning the
effectiveness of cybersecurity laws in this complex, rapidly evolving arena. As
research in this field continues, there are likely to be novel solutions proposed to
deal with criminal activity on the Dark Web. Since 2015, Dr. Lashkari and his team
working in this area, and recently as 2020, they proposed a new solution using image
5.4 Challenges to Law Enforcement
processing and AI, called “Deep Image DarkNet” (or “DIDarknet”) to detect and
characterize user activities [38]. So far, these activities include detection and char-
acterization for browsing, chat, email communication, file transfers, streaming, VoIP
and P2P, and can already be applied to over eighteen representative applications,
including Facebook, Skype, Spotify, and Gmail.
Unlike visible criminal activity on the street, the anonymous nature of the Dark
Web/DarkNet makes it challenging for law enforcement to immediately know when
a law is being broken or harm is being done. When law enforcement has been
notified of illegal transactions, the use of a decentralized network for confirmation
and verification of Dark Net transactions limits the ability of law enforcement to
localize an offence to a specific jurisdiction, even when there is very clearly a law
being broken somewhere by someone. Compounding this issue is the inherent cross-
jurisdictional and international nature of the Dark Web/DarkNet, which can be
hindered by testy international relations, unsigned treaties, and conflicting interests
between jurisdictional parties and law enforcement organizations.
Digital evidence, also known as electronic evidence, refers to evidence that is stored
or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. The use of
digital evidence has increased tremendously as courts have allowed the use of
emails, ATM transaction logs, mobile phone message histories, databases, the
contents of computer hard drives, computer printouts, GPS logs, and digital video
and audio files [39].
As with other types of evidence, the courts require proper use and presentation of
the electronic evidence under current provincial and federal evidence legislation. In
addition, because electronic evidence can be both more accurate and more easily
tampered with than other forms of evidence, the courts may require additional
information before allowing the evidence to be introduced.
It is estimated that over two million people use TOR to access the DarkWeb every
day, but we do not yet have a highly accurate solution to detect the content and
behavior context in activities on the DarkWeb. Few currently available solutions
have data coverage that is sophisticated enough to be effective at detecting, moni-
toring, characterizing, and tracing TOR-based activity. This flows into the next
challenge: how to gather evidence when the activities cannot be accurately detected
and traced. For this topic, we must turn to the Law of Evidence.
Evidentiary law is the body of regulations governing the proof of the existence of
a fact before a court. It is the machinery by which substantive laws are set and kept in
motion. So it can be said that the law of evidence deals with rights, as well as,
5.4 Challenges to Law Enforcement 169
procedures. The general meaning of the term “evidence” is “the available body of
facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and
type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether
the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdic-
tion. The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof
is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern
admissibility, concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses,
opinions, expert testimony, identification, and the rules of physical evidence.
There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence
must be to meet the legal burden of proof required in a given situation, ranging from
reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, to clear and convincing
evidence, or to beyond a reasonable doubt. The rules vary depending upon whether
the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdic-
tion. As an example, we can look at the Law of Evidence in Canada [40].
Section 31.1 of the Canada Evidence Act allows electronic evidence to be admitted
into evidence as long as the person seeking to admit such evidence proves its
authenticity.7
31.1 Any person seeking to admit an electronic document as evidence has the burden
of proving its authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the
electronic document is that which it is purported to be.
31.2 (1) The best evidence rule in respect of an electronic document is satisfied
(a) on proof of the integrity of the electronic documents system by or in which the
electronic document was recorded or stored; or
(b) if an evidentiary presumption established under section 31.4 applies.
(2) Despite subsection (1), in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an electronic
document in the form of a printout satisfies the best evidence rule if the printout
has been manifestly or consistently acted on, relied on or used as a record of the
information recorded or stored in the printout.
31.3 For the purposes of subsection 31.2, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the integrity of an electronic documents system by or in which an electronic
document is recorded or stored is proven
(a) by evidence capable of supporting a finding that at all material times the
computer system or other similar device used by the electronic documents
system was operating properly or, if it was not, the fact of its not operating
properly did not affect the integrity of the electronic document and there are no
7
Canada Evidence Act (RSC, 1985, c C-5), s 31.1.
170 5 Emerging Issues
Country X taxes all personal income generated by its citizens and requires all
individuals, businesses, and organizations to report any earnings or losses made
throughout the fiscal year.
Country Z—a neighboring country of Country X—has far less taxation on
income than Country X. Also, conversely to Country X, Country Z is known for
having an extremely strict criminal justice system in which the laws are heavily
enforced.
Person A is a citizen of Country X, but has been living in Country Z for the last
six months. During that time, Person A has generated a large sum of cash that was
gained through transactions related to activities that are illegal in Country Z but not
in Country X. The cash is in the form of a currency used by Country X, not Country
Z. Person A would like to launder the cash through the DarkNet to avoid any
taxation costs or other penalties assigned by Country X, as that is where Person A
is expected to pay taxes on income.
To this end, Person A converts the cash—through a third party based in Country
Y—to a popular digital currency. Person A then transfers the decentralized currency
through multiple holding parties, each of which are anonymized and spread over
many different jurisdictions. Finally, Person A converts the digital currency into the
local currency used by Country Z. Person A reports no income on taxes from this
series of transactions.
Officer K is a law enforcement officer in Country X who has received information
from a private citizen—Person B—that leads them to believe that Person A has been
wilfully evading taxes. Officer K is put in charge of the investigation into the tax
evasion activities of Person A. In Country Z, Officer Q is assigned to be the liaison
for inter-jurisdictional matters between Country Z and Country X.
A few of the issues:
Over the last decade, digital sovereignty has become a central element in policy
discourses on digital issues. Although it has become popular in both authoritarian
and democratic countries alike, the concept remains highly contested.
In July 2020, in its officially published program for its presidency of the European
Council, the German government announced its intention “to establish digital
sovereignty as a leitmotiv of European digital policy.”8 This is one of many recent
examples in which the term “digital sovereignty” has been used within government
to convey the suggestion that states should have the power to assert their authority
over the internet, and the ability to protect their citizens, businesses, and
organizations from changes to online self-determination.
Digital sovereignty refers to the ability to control the use of the data, hardware,
and software that you rely on and create and to direct international actors through the
use of digital technologies such as the Internet, social media, and other digital media.
The movement towards the pursuit of digital sovereignty—in which a fundamental
principle is to regulate and access, entry, content, connectivity, networks, and
infrastructure—has been escalating the complications and uncertainties of interna-
tional cyberspace legislation [41].
One of the biggest challenges is that existing binding and well-directed international
law does not yet effectively apply to governing states that are granted access to
challenges taking place outside the realm of public international law in terms of
jurisdiction, arbitration, legal instruments, and jurisprudence. Put simply, interna-
tional law in cyberspace is currently beyond the scope of what it imposes on state
actors and none of this can be overcome without a clear understanding of how
international law can be effectively applied to all governing states and how it will
address various issues at cyberspace, from cybercrime to procedural formalities.
8
The German Presidency of the EU Council, 2020, p. 8.
172 5 Emerging Issues
In a gig economy, temporary, flexible jobs are commonplace, and companies tend to
hire independent contractors and freelancers instead of full-time employees. A gig
economy undermines the traditional economy of full-time workers who often focus
on their career development. The result of a gig economy is cheaper, more efficient
services, such as Uber or Airbnb, for those willing to use them. People who do not
use technological services such as the Internet may be left behind by the benefits of
the gig economy. Cities tend to have the most highly developed services and are the
most entrenched in the gig economy.
What this looks like is large numbers of people working in part-time or temporary
positions or as independent contractors. The concept of a gig covers a wide range of
jobs from writing code or freelance articles to gaining a contract as an adjunct and
part-time professor.9 Colleges and universities can cut costs and match professors to
their academic needs by hiring more adjunct and part-time professors. Gig workers
9
Adjunct and part-time professors are contracted employees as opposed to tenure-track or tenured
professors.
5.5 Digital Sovereignty and Data Governance 173
While we cannot always accurately predict the issues which lay before us, what is
certain is that issues in data privacy, cybersecurity, cybercrime, digital sovereignty,
and many others will absolutely have an impact on the evolution of our laws. As our
dual worlds—the “real world” and the online world—become more entwined, it is
only natural to expect that the laws of the real world would have to somehow shift to
be applied equally to issues arising digitally.
As fun as it might be to discuss all potential upcoming, emergent, and mildly
foreseeable issues in cybersecurity and law, it would surely not be feasible to do so in
only one chapter of a book. Undoubtedly the future will include discussions on a
wide range of topics that intersect with the legal and the digital worlds. In addition to
what we have already covered in the preceding pages of this chapter, we can foresee
upcoming cybersecurity/data privacy legal issues touching on areas in:
Those are just three examples. The future is infinite and so are the possibilities.
Our universe is expanding and so is the scope of our collective legal repertoire.
5.7 Summary
References
1. Lacson, W., & Jones, B. (2016). The 21st century DarkNet market: Lessons from the fall of silk
road. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 10(1).
2. Ryngaert, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in international law. OUP Oxford.
3. Timofeeva, Y. A. (2004). Worldwide prescriptive jurisdiction in Internet content controversies:
a comparative analysis. Conn J Int’l L, 20, 199.
4. Ghappour, A. (2017). Searching places unknown: Law enforcement jurisdiction on the dark
web. Stan L Rev, 69, 1075.
5. Brilmayer, L., Haverkamp, J., Logan, B., & Lynch, L. (1987). General look at general
jurisdiction. Tex L Rev, 66, 721.
6. Kohl, U. (2007). Jurisdiction and the Internet: Regulatory competence over online activity.
Cambridge University Press.
7. Cassel, D. (2001). Human rights and business responsibilities in the global marketplace.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 261–274.
8. Alboukrek, K. (2003). Adapting to a new world of e-commerce: The need for uniform consumer
protection in the international electronic marketplace. Geo Wash Int’l L Rev, 35, 425.
9. Irion, K., Yakovleva, S., & Bartl, M. (2016). Trade and Privacy: Complicated Bedfellows? How
to achieve data protection-proof free trade agreements. How to achieve data protection-proof
free trade agreements (July 13, 2016).
10. Lindqvist, J. (2018). New challenges to personal data processing agreements: is the GDPR fit to
deal with contract, accountability and liability in a world of the Internet of Things? International
Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(1), 45–63.
11. Robison, W. J. (2009). Free at what cost: Cloud computing privacy under the stored
communications act. Geo LJ, 98, 1195.
12. Moustakas, E., Ranganathan, C., & Duquenoy, P. (2006). E‐mail marketing at the crossroads: A
stakeholder analysis of unsolicited commercial e‐mail (spam). Internet Research.
13. Matwyshyn, A. M. (2005). Material vulnerabilities: Data privacy, corporate information secu-
rity, and securities regulation. Berkeley Bus LJ, 3, 129.
14. Mo, J. S. International Commercial Law (2003) 1.
15. Gilligan, Colin and Hird, Marin; International marketing: Strategy and management (1986) 99.
16. Pryles, Jeff Waincymer, and Davis, Martin; International trade law (2004) 74.
17. WTO Agreement. (1994). Marrakesh agreement establishing the world trade organization,
Apr. 15, 1994, 1867 U.N.T.S. 154, 33 I.L.M. 1144.
18. Oatley, T. (2019). International political economy (6th ed., pp. 51–52). Routledge.
19. Malanczuk, P. (1999). International Organisations and space law: World trade organization.
Encyclopædia Britannica, 442, 305.
20. Main Functions. Archived 30 December 2006 at the Wayback machine, WTO official site.
21. DSU. (1994). Dispute settlement rules: Understanding on rules and procedures governing the
settlement of disputes, marrakesh agreement establishing the World Trade Organization,
Annex 2, 1869 U.N.T.S. 401, 33 I.L.M. 1226.
22. Rudesill, D. S., Caverlee, J., & Sui, D. (2015). The deep web and the darknet: A look inside the
internet’s massive black box (p. 3). Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, STIP.
23. Pianta, L. Researchers simulate mafia and terrorism recruitment, Phys.org, 25 July 2019.
24. United Nations. Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially
women and children, supplementing the United Nations convention against transnational
organized crime (was signed in New York in November 2000 and came into force in December
2003).
References 177
25. United Nations. protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially
women and children, supplementing the united nations convention against transnational
organized crime, article 3(a).
26. Housefather, A. (2018). Moving forward in the fight against human trafficking in canada, 24th
report of the standing committee on justice and human rights. 1st Session. In 42nd parliament,
Ottawa. www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/report-24
27. Tetlow, E. M. (2004). Sumer. In Women, crime and punishment in ancient law and society:
Volume 1: The ancient near east. A&C Black. isbn: 9780826416285.
28. Kelly, A. (2017, July 31). ‘Human life is more expendable’: Why slavery has never made more
money. In Modern-day slavery in focus, UK. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/
global-development/2017/jul/31/human-life-is-more-expendable-why-slavery-has-never-
made-more-money
29. “Ratifying countries are now obliged to implement the treaty and report on measures taken.”
Committee on Forced Labour, ILC 2014.
30. Kelly, A. (2017, July 31). ‘Human life is more expendable’: Why slavery has never made more
money. In Modern-day slavery in focus, UK. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/
global-development/2017/jul/31/human-life-is-more-expendable-why-slavery-has-never-
made-more-money
31. Siddharth, K. (2017). Modern slavery: A global perspective. Columbia University Press.
32. Lashkari, A., & Lukings, M. “Deep, dark, and (un)detectable – Canadian jurisdictional
considerations in global encrypted networks (article 7)” understanding Canadian cybersecurity
Laws. (Online: ITWorldCanada.com, 2020).
33. Sattler, S. (2020, December 12). Special ATII report: Crypto transactions and human
trafficking – A non-traditional investigation perspective for traditional financial
institutions. US: Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists. https://www.acfcs.org/
special-atii-report-crypto-transactions-and-human-trafficking-a-non-traditional-investigation-
perspective-for-traditional-financial-institutions/
34. FinCEN. Guidance on recognizing activity that may be associated with human smuggling and
human trafficking – financial red flags. FIN-2014-A008. September 11, 2014. (Available
online at: https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/advisory/FIN-2014-A008.pdf).
35. Wright, C. S. (2000). Actual versus legal control: Reading vicarious liabilty for copyright
infringement into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Wash L Rev, 75, 1005.
36. Fidalgo, E., Alegre, E., Fernández-Robles, L., & González-Castro, V. (2019). Classifying
suspicious content in tor darknet through semantic attention keypoint filtering. Digital Investi-
gation, 30, 12–22.
37. Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex
cryptographia. Available at SSRN 2580664.
38. “DIDarknet: A contemporary approach to detect and characterize the darknet traffic using deep
image learning”, Arash Habibi Lashkari, Gurdip Kaur, Abir Rahal, The 10th International
Conference on Communication and Network Security (ICCNS2020), Tokyo, Japan, September
2020.
39. Taylor, M., Haggerty, J., Gresty, D., & Hegarty, R. (2010). Digital evidence in cloud computing
systems. Computer Law & Security Review, 26(3), 304–308.
40. Sopinka, J., Fuerst, M. K., Lederman, S. N., & Bryant, A. W. (1991). The law of evidence in
Canada. LexisNexis.
41. Floridi, L. (2020). The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for
the EU. Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 369–378.
42. Gorwa, R. (2019). The platform governance triangle: Conceptualising the informal regulation
of online content. Internet Policy Review, 8(2), 1–22.
Conclusion
We have reached the end of our journey—for now. While more books in this series
are surely to follow, we have reached the end of our preliminary dive into the
intersection of law and cybersecurity, and a greater understanding of cybersecurity
law. To wrap up, let us briefly summarize the general topics that we have covered so
far in this book.
In the first chapter, on legal foundations, we discussed the purpose and principles
of law and legal jurisprudence. From there, we extended into the sources of law and
legal influence, the various systems and categories of law, and some of the forms of
legal governance. Finally, we rounded off chapter one with a look at the concept of
constitutionalism and the division of jurisdictional power and authority.
In chapter two, we looked at property and privacy in context; outlining some of
the historical perceptions of property before moving on to distinguish between the
interwoven concepts of ownership, possession, and interest. We examined the
relationship between property and privacy, as well as the intersection of property,
privacy, and cybersecurity in the law and legal system.
Chapter three, on cybersecurity and cybercrime, started off with the categoriza-
tion of cybercriminal activities into three groups—cyber-enabled offences, cyber-
dependent offences, and cyber-supported offences—along with a description of the
nature of these different types of offences. We went on to discuss the growing
prevalence of cybercrime, digital privacy infringement, data theft, and other online
offences. Finally, we rounded off by neatly sorting the specific subsets of criminal
offences respectively within each of the three branches of cybercriminal activity
categorization.
The fourth chapter looked at the global relevance of cybersecurity law, using four
common law nations as comparators. We started off by reviewing the Canadian
cybersecurity laws, followed by those of Australia, then the United Kingdom, and
finally the United States. Using tables, we compared and contrasted the methods of
regulating cyber offences between these four example nations. After establishing an
understanding of some of the different strategies employed by individual nations to
apply existing law to the online world, we outlined some of the national and
international considerations which influence individual national and/or state policies
pertaining to cybersecurity, data privacy, and online crime.
# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 179
M. Lukings, A. Habibi Lashkari, Understanding Cybersecurity Law and Digital
Privacy, Future of Business and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88704-9
180 Conclusion
In our fifth and final chapter, we discussed some of the emerging issues in
cybersecurity and data privacy law. We outlined the dual-headed issue of globaliza-
tion and jurisdictionality on an international stage and examined the relationship
between digital marketplaces and the online consumer. We then ventured onto the
DarkNet, giving an overview of anonymized darkness marketplaces and the rise of
transactions and online exchangers made using cryptocurrencies. Stemming from
these unique issues, we branched into a discussion on some of the existing
challenges to law enforcement, as well as the complexity of digital sovereignty
and data governance in law. We finished off this chapter by discussing some of the
potential future directions for further research and exploration into the field of
cybersecurity law.
When we initially set out to write this book, our goal was to bridge the knowledge
gap between the dually insular worlds of cybersecurity research and development
and that of the legal profession. While this book may be part of the solution to bridge
this gap, further engagement from both of these “ivory towers” is necessary to fully
integrate an understanding of the law within cybersecurity education, research, and
industry. Respectively, further engagement is also necessary in order to integrate an
understanding of some of the challenges of cybersecurity, and the complexities of
the online world, with those who teach, learn, or research in the field of law and legal
education, as well as those who choose to practice law.
While we may have only just begun to scratch the surface of the deeper issues of
our increasingly digitally-reliant society, we hope that this book has been a solid
stepping stone onto the bridge, and over the knowledge gap. It is our great hope that
some of the topics covered in this book have served as a catalyst to encourage
readers to further engage with the material.
If our future is limitless, then our law must be limitlessly adaptable as well. In our
rapidly changing world of technological advancements and increased digital con-
nectedness, having an integrated knowledge of cybersecurity and the law is abso-
lutely fundamental and necessary as a step forward to securing our successes in the
future.