From: mgream@acacia.itd.uts.edu.au (Matthew Gream)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 00:31:10 PDT
To: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
Subject: Re: Cyberspace is by nature crime-free
In-Reply-To: <199406080612.XAA13707@netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9406080736.AA25638@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"James A. Donald" wrote:

> > - break and enter --> cracking/hacking (whatever you want
> >   to call it)
>  
> Can be limited to acceptable levels by normal precautions.
> The owner ultimately has physical control, the cracker does
> not.

It's still a crime, and still everpresent in cyberspace, and it still
occurs.

> >  - vilification, discrimination
>  
> Not a crime.

Is in Australia, probably in other countries as well. Naturally
there are going to be problems with international aspects of
crime in this respect, jurisdictions and so on, but those are
only technicalities -- the crime can easily occur in a localised
environment.

> >  - sedition
>  
> Not a crime.

as above.

> >  - inciting violence
>
> Not a crime.

as above.

> >  - transfering funds, tax evasion
>  
> Not a crime.  Neither of these are extraditable offenses.

as above (re. tax evasion). Does it matter if it's not extradictable ?
what happens if it occurs locally ? not all crimes require
extradition.

> >  - illegal business activity, false advertising
>  
> Not a crime, except for fraud, discussed above.

False and misleading advertising is a crime in Australia, and granted
it is a form of fraud.

> >  - contempt of court
>  
> There is plenty of contempt of court.  Courts are coming
> to accept the reality that cyberspace is beyond their
> power, hence not a crime.  Note that contempt of court has
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> never been an extraditable offense.

Huh, you're asserting that because it is beyond their control, it isn't
a crime ? Whether or not it's beyond control or not does not disguise
the fact that legally it's still a crime, and the entire fact that it
is totally beyond their control is debatable. Whilst at the moment, it
seems that that is the case, who's to say things aren't going to be
instigated a little further down the track ?

That's a fairly sweeping argument that `courts are _coming to accept_
the reality ...', they've had a hard time dealing with cyberspace --
and going to have much harder times, but I don't think they're going to
just forget cyberspace.

> >  - copyright infringment
>  
> There is plenty of copyright infringement, but the old
> concept of copyright does not fit well on the net, because
> information is separated from its physical embodiment and
> is endlessly mutable.

Yup, the definition of copyright has problems in cyberspace, that is
true, but that doesn't mean it isn't a crime.

> If a law cannot be enforced, or cannot be enforced except
> by grossly violating someone's rights, then it is no law.

I don't agree with this, all these crimes _could_ be enforced to
certain extents -- and regardless of whether they can or not, they are
still crimes, still defined as crimes, and still exist to be used if
the possibility arises.

If I use a pseudonym to run a mailing list for the purpose of
discussing seditious activities and planning such activities,
regardless of how infeasable it is to associate a real name with the
pseudonym or to enforce the law, the activity is still (legally, in
terms of the laws of this nation) a crime.

Matthew.

-- 
Matthew Gream
Consent Technologies
Sydney, (02) 821-2043
M.Gream@uts.edu.au