Legal guidelines for private-public partnership in combating cyber-crime Andrzej Adamski Chair of Criminal Law & Criminal Policy Law Faculty Nicholas Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Overview Growth of on-line behaviors including anti-social and criminal behaviors, Criminalization as a response, Unparalled trends in cybercrime and its prosecution, Drift to vigilante control of cybercrime, Legal „pros” and „cons” of private- public partnership in combating cybercrime.

Reported network incidents by internet users ( ) Poland, telecom data

Law in the books – 1997 penal code Most of the computer-related infringements that compose „the minimum list” of the 1989 Council of Europe recommendation were criminalized in Poland under the 1997 penal code: unauthorised access computer eavesdropping data interference computer sabotage computer fraud computer forgery unauthorised reproduction of a protected computer program

Law in action a. Prevalence of computer security attacks : telecom data (2002) 30,000 reported incidents against network security: port scanning, attempts of unauthorized access, break-ins, theft of information incl. passwords, destruction and modification of data. –Most reports (60%) from abroad. –Others (40%) 10, ,000 from Poland –baseline: 12, 000 = 100% b. Official reaction against CIA crime: law enforcement data (2002) 400 crimes known to the police rate: 3% 23 cases prosecuted ( ) rate: less than 1 per cent (0,19 %)

Internet-related offences (N=658) prosecuted in Poland ( ) Offences against protection of information Other internet- related offences Offence type No. of cases Offence type No. of cases hacking & computer eavesdropping 11 (auction) fraud 524 (79%) data interference 11 software piracy 31 (4,7%) computer sabotage 1 defamation17 (2,5%) pornography 16 (2,4%) threats 13 (1,9%) others34 (5,1%) Total: 23 (3,4%) Total:635 (96,6%)

Law reform – Cyber-crime Convention new offences: misuse of devices, system interference, possession of child pornography. new procedural measures: search & seizure of computer system/data, preservation of data, production order. will this change much?

Partnership is essential to combating cyber-crime! ( EURIM) PARTNERSHIP between whom? A. NATIONAL LEVEL - police and victims of crime; - internet users, hotlines and the police; - police and ISPs, telecom operators, hotlines. E-crime is an international problem, and requires international cooperation to combat it. B. INTERNATIONAL LEVEL - Law enforcement (24/7 contact points), criminal justice authorities; - ISPs, telecoms, hotlines

Official control of cyber-crime a)reactive mode incident  victim/ third party  reporting to: the police  IAP, ISP, hotline; b) pro-active mode entrapment : bogus web sites, role playing, masquerade; c) peace-keeping mode - patroling the net.

Vigilante models of cyber-crime control Intermediary – passive, contact point, LE collaborative; Admonitory – reactive, warning and reprimand, LE collaborative; Investigatory, pro-active, LE collaborative; Punitive – both pro-active and reactive, stigmatisation, pillory, LE non-collaborative.

Contact point model („hot lines”) -information clearinghouse and referral system between the general public and law enforcement agencies, or other hotlines; -running of database where the illegal/harmful material can be assessed and forwarded to LE; -co-operation with law enforcement authorities based on agreement; -transparent mission and functioning

Contact point model – legal constrains - unclear legal status, - data protection constrains (processing of offender data), - illegal activities (downloading and possession of child pornography), - difficulties in cooperation between law enforcement hotlines and non- law enforcement hotlines, - monitoring of one-to-one communications, - risk of ‘mala fide’ hotlines (Jos Dumortier)

Admonitory model „POLPAK” ABUSE TP TEAM Reporting of on-line incidents to Internet Access Provider Incidents should be reported in the following manner: using an online report form via addressed to: PROCEDURES - response : 1.Logging and classification of the report. 2.Location of source of event (attack): - IP, date; - telephone number; - home or company street address. 3.Dispatch of warning (appropriate to the event). 4.Submission of request to the Police (if the event concerns the resources of TP). 5.Blocking the access to Internet. 6.Blocking the telephone number.

Admonitory model advantages and constrains  persuasion, rather than repression,  approach relatively rational and criminologically sound (youthful nature of much IT abuse);  fair and lawful.  unknown effectiveness;  high costs,  limited applicability.

Investigatory model Private policing by volunteers - provocation & entrapment: „The law is deficient. Police has no legal tools for the efficient prosecution of cyber- paedophiles. Entrapment by the police is not allowed. However, it is not prohibited to ordinary citizens. So..... Let’s do it!”

Investigatory model pros & cons  some general preventive effects.  inexperience may be harming - dealing with child pornography, child sex abusers, or with the victims of child sex abuse, is no place for amateurs (John Carr).  risk of unlawful conduct, Polish penal code: –Article 24. Whoever incites another person to commit a prohibited act, in order to direct criminal proceedings towards such a person, shall be liable as for instigating (...)

volunteers pose as kids in chat rooms, and when an adult engages them in sexual banter, they publish the person's personal data on the site so the group's supporters can harass the adult by phone and . Punitive model

Conclusions Private-public partnership in combating cyber-crime is indispensable, It must be based on internationally recognized normative standards and clear procedures, They are required for the lawful and efficient co-operation of the partners.