Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Trends in the fight against computer-related delinquency

  • Section 1 Introduction
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Security and Industrial Cryptography

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 741))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. It seems that every major writer in the field handles its own terms. See: SCHJØLBERG, “Computers and penal legislation”, Oslo, 1983, p. 3; SOLARZ, “Computer technology and computer crime”, Stockholm, 1981, p. 23. The computer is sometimes the instrument or target of an act (VON ZUR MUHLEN), “Computer Kriminalität”, Berlin 1972, p. 17); The specific purpose (PARKER, D.B., “Computer Abuse Assessment”, Washington, 1975, p. 3); Bequai only goes for “part of larger forms of criminal activity: white collar crime” (BEQUAI, Computer crime, Lexington, 1978, p.1).

    Google Scholar 

  2. OECD-ICCP, Computer related crime — analysis of legal policy, Paris (1986), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See U.K.: A. NORMAN, “Computer Insecurity”, London, 1983 and K. WONG & FARQUHAR, W., “Computer related Fraud Casebook”, BIS Applied Systems, Ltd., Manchester, March 1983, 106 p. See also: Australia's information at the Caulfield Institute of Technology, Computer-Abuse Research Bureaus (CIT-CARB); Japan, National Police Department, “White paper on computer crime”.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Within SRI, D. Parker's publications are the more important ones: D.B. PARKER, “Crime by computer”, New York, Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1976, 308 p.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D.B. PARKER and S.B. NYCUM, “Computer abuse”, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, NTIS, 1973, 131 p.

    Google Scholar 

  6. D.B. PARKER, “Computer Security Management”, Prentice Hall, 1981, 308 p.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D.B. PARKER, “Fighting Computer Crime”, New York, Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1983, 352 p.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Drs. J.C. VON DIJK R.A., “Computercriminaliteit”, Ars Aequi Libri (ser. Strafrecht en criminologie, dl. 3), p. 203, 1984; Ph. JOST, “Les pillards d'ordinateur défient le FBI”, VSD, 27 jan. 1983, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Local government Audit Inspectorate — Department of the Environment, Computer Fraud Survey Report, Crown copyright, July 1981, 33 p.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Scottish Law Commission, Consultative Memorandum no. 68, Computer Crime, (March 1986), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. L.J. SEIDLER, F. ANDREWS and M.J. EPSTEIN: “The Equity Funding Papers, the anatomy of a fraud”, New York (J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  12. “10.2 Million $ theft may yield profit for victim”, EDCAPS, Jan. '79, p. 11–12, Aug. '79, p. 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Whiz-kids managed to establish a link with a private network of the General Telephone Electronic Telenet.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. HERTEN, “Computercriminaliteit: er is nog toekomst in de toekomst”, Humo, 26 Jan. 1984, nr. 2264, p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. O'DY, “Informatique: La chasse aux perceurs de codes”, L'express, 9 March 1984, p. 74–75.

    Google Scholar 

  16. L'express, 26 April 1980, L'informatique nouvelle, Sept. 1980, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Science et Vie micro, Dec. 1983, p. 52. J. BLOOMBECKER, “International Computer Crime: Where Terrorism and Transborder Data Flow Meet”, Computers & Security, 1982, p. 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. LEVEILLE, “Data base security systems, protecting the source”, Today's Office, Oct. 1982, p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D.B. PARKER, “Computer abuse Assessment”, Washington D.C. (National Science Foundation), 1975, p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  20. B. ALLAN, “The biggest computer frauds: lessons for CPA's”, The Journal of Accountancy, May 1977, p. 52–62.

    Google Scholar 

  21. U. SIEBER, “Gefahr und Abwehr der Computercriminalität”, Betriebs-Berater 1982, p. 1433; A. NORMAN, “Computer Insecurity”, London (1983); US Department of Justice, Computer Crime, Criminal Justice Resource Manual, Washington, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  22. We refer to the work of the OECD-ICCP ad hoc group of experts on computer-related criminality (1984–85) and the Council of Europe's Select Committee of experts on Computer-related Crime (CDPC-PC-R-CC) (1985–1989).

    Google Scholar 

  23. See e.g. the 8 categories of the Scottish Law Commission, including a.o. eavesdropping on a computer. Supra note 6, p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  24. As to the criminal law initiative, one can only refer to the excellent study of Miss. M. Briat and Prof. U. Sieber leading to the OECD publication on computer related crime. OECD-ICCP, Computer related crime — analysis of legal policy, Paris 1986, p. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  25. OECD Guidelines governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 1981, in force Oct. 1, 1985, ratified by France, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Sweden, U.K.

    Google Scholar 

  27. U. SIEBER, The “international handbook on computer crime”, West Chicester (1986) p. 94 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Council Directive of Dec. 16, 1986 on the legal protection of topografics of semi-conductor products, COM (86).

    Google Scholar 

  29. See e.g. the call for proposals in the field of data processing (85/C 204/02) O.J. 13.8.85, no. C 204/2, including the item of a data protective guide for European users.

    Google Scholar 

  30. E.g. Denmark: (the Danish Private registers etc. Act No. 293, 8 June 1978 and the Danish Public Authorities' Registers Act, No. 294 of 8 June 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  31. France: (La loi relative d l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, no. 78-17, 6 January 1977, B.G.B.I., I S 201).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Luxembourg: (Loi du 31 mars 1979 réglementant l'utilisation des données nominatives dans les traitements informatiques Mém. 1 1979, p. 582).

    Google Scholar 

  33. United Kingdom: (Data Protection Act 1984, 12 July 1984, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, C. 30 9/84 CCP).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Model Provisions on the Protection of Computer Software, World Intellectual Property Organization, Genève, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  35. A. VAN MENSEL, “De bescherming van fabricagegeheimen of technische knowhow naar Belgisch recht”, R.W., 1981–82 kol. 2001, op kol. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. LUCAS, “La protection des créations industrielles abstraites”, Citée (Paris) 1978, p. 230, no. 358.

    Google Scholar 

  37. E. WEISS, “Telecommunications policy: the users need for telecommunication systems. A review of trends in Europe”, in Communication regulation and international business, Proceedings of a Workshop held at the I.M.I., April 1983, J.F. RADA, G.R. PIPE, ed., 1984, p. 136. E.g. what is the effect of the privatisation of B.T.? M.E. BEESLEY, “Liberalisation of the use of British Telecommunications Network”, Department of Industry, Report to the Secretary of State, London, 1981. France: Loi, no. 84, 939 du 23 octobre 1984, J.O., 25 octobre 1984, p. 3335.

    Google Scholar 

  38. This is the case e.g. in Belgium and apparently also in Japan. Only at academic research level initiatives are under way to adapt the legislation.

    Google Scholar 

  39. A solution favoured by countries such as Austria, Finland, Denmark, or Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  40. E.g. the U.S.A. Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (1984), The Swedish Data Act of 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  41. E.g. the Danish Penal Code Amendment Act of June 6, 1985; the Canadian Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1985; the French law of 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Revisions are under way in o.a. Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  43. OECD — Information Computer Communications Policy, vol. 10. Computer — related crime: analysis of legal policy, Paris (1986), 71 p.

    Google Scholar 

  44. COE — Computer related crime (final report of the European Committee on Crime Problems, Strasbourg, 1990, 124 p.

    Google Scholar 

  45. E.g. U.K. Computer Misuse Act, August 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  46. FRANCE: Loi no. 88-19 du 5 janvier 1988 relative á la fraude informatique, J.O., 6 janvier 1988, p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. DE HOUWER, “Privacy en grensoverschrijdend dataverkeer”, in: Soft-en Hard, ware het niet om de fraude, IUS, nr. 7 (1985) p. 92.

    Google Scholar 

  48. DENMARK: The Danish Private Registers etc. Act No. 293, 8 June, 1978. The Danish Public Authorities' Registers Act No. 294, 8 June, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  49. FRANCE: Loi relative á l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, No. 78-17, 6 January, 1978, J.O., 7 January, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  50. ISRAEL: Protection of Privacy Law, 5741 — 1981 of 23 February, 1981, Sefer Ha-Chukkim No. 1011 of the 5th Adar Bet, 5741 (AA March 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  51. ICELAND: Act concerning the systematic recording of personal data, Law nr. 63 of 25 May 25, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  52. LUXEMBOURG: Loi du 31 mars 1979 réglementant l'utilisation des données nominatives dans les traitements informatiques, Mém. A 1979, p. 582.

    Google Scholar 

  53. NORWAY: Act relating to personal data registers etc., Law nr. 48 of 9 June, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  54. AUSTRIA: Datenschutzgesetz D.S.G., October 18, 1978, Bundesgesetzblatt 1978, November 28, 1978, 3619–3631.

    Google Scholar 

  55. U.K.: Data Protection Act 1984, chapter 35, July 12, 1984, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, C30 9/84 CCP.

    Google Scholar 

  56. WEST GERMANY: Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, January 27, 1977, BGBI, I S.201.

    Google Scholar 

  57. SWEDEN: Data Act (1973: 289).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Even though only a proposal, the Federal Computer System Act proposal (1984) acted as an example for some state laws, e.g. in California (January 1, 1985) Virginia Computer Crimes Act, Senate Bill no. 347, March 7, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  59. OECD, DSTI/ICCP/84.22 (1985) p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  60. D. REMER, “Legal Care for your software”, Gower, ershot 1984, 272 p.

    Google Scholar 

  61. W. HANNEMAN, “The Patentability of Computer Software”, Kluwer, Deventer, 1985, 258 p.

    Google Scholar 

  62. N. FREED, “Software protection: Introductory observations on the study sponsored by the National Commission on new technological uses of Copyright Works”, Jurimetrice Journal, 1977–1978, p. 352.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Council of Europe, Computer-related crime, Strasbourg, 1990, Appendix I, No. Ia and b.

    Google Scholar 

  64. B. SPRUYT (B. DE SCHUTTER, collaborating), “Grensoverschrijdende Informatica-criminaliteit en de Europese strafrechtelijke samenwerking”, Kluwer (Antwerpen), 1989, 163 p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Criminal Law, Vrije Universiteit, Brussel

    Prof. Dr. B. De Schutter (Director)

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. B. De Schutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Bart Preneel René Govaerts Joos Vandewalle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

De Schutter, B. (1993). Trends in the fight against computer-related delinquency. In: Preneel, B., Govaerts, R., Vandewalle, J. (eds) Computer Security and Industrial Cryptography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 741. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57341-0_52

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57341-0_52

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-57341-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48074-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics