⁽¹⁾ The Group of Eight (G8) consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Together, these countries represent about 65% of the world economy. The hallmark of the G8 is an annual political summit meeting of the heads of government with international officials, though there are numerous subsidiary meetings and policy research.

⁽²⁾ The convention (CETS No. 185) was opened for signature in Budapest on November 23, 2001. The number of signatures not followed by ratification as of October 16, 2006 is 29; the number of ratifications, 17. Of the major Western European countries, only France has ratified the Convention. Countries not members of the Council of Europe that have ratified the convention are Canada, Japan, Montenegro, South Africa and the United States (September 9, 2006).

⁽³⁾ The Convention on Cybercrime includes sections on “Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems”, “Computer-related offenses”, “Content-related offenses”, and “Offenses related to infringements of copyright and related rights”. Each of these categories also includes subsections.

⁽⁴⁾ Ellen S. Fodgor, “International Computer Fraud : A Paradigm for Limiting National Jurisdiction”, 35 U.C. Davis L. Rev. (Jan 2002), 273.

⁽⁵⁾ Pamela Samuelson, “Five Challenges for Regulating the Global Information Society”, pp. 316-330 in Christopher T. Marsden (editor), Regulating the Global Information Society. London and New York : Routledge.

⁽⁶⁾ Ellen S. Podgor, “Computer Crime”, in Encyclopedia of Crime & Justice 221-28 (Joshua Dressier, ed., 2nd ed. 2002); see also Scott Charney & Kent Alexander, “Computer Crime”, 45 Emory L.J. 931, 934 (1996) (discussing how computer can be “target of the offense”, “tool of the offense”, or “incidental to the offense”); Joe D. Whitley & William H. Jordan, “Computer Crime”, E-I ABA White Collar Crime Inst. 21.01[1], at 21-3 to 216 (1999) (describing how computer can be “object, subject, or instrument of a crime”).

⁽⁷⁾ The “hacker” who engages in the computer activity with a criminal intent to cause damage is often described as a “cracker”. See Eric J. Sinrod & William P. Reilly, “Cybercrimes : A Practical Approach to the Application of Federal Computer Crime Laws”, 16 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 177, 181-83 (2000).

⁽⁸⁾ World Intellectual Property Organization, The Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues. Geneva: WIPO, 1999, p. 45-47.

⁽⁹⁾ See, e.g., William Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England : Of Public Wrongs” 168; Bouviers Law Dictionary (1856) (defining fraud), In the U.S., States have, of course, adopted statutes specifically outlawing the use of the telephone or radio to perpetrate fraud. See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.05(A). The Ohio statute states : “No person, having devised a scheme to defraud, shall knowingly disseminate, transmit, or cause to be disseminated or transmitted by means of a wire, radio, satellite, telecommunication, telecommunications device, or telecommunications service any writing, data, sign, signal, picture, sound, or image with purpose to execute or otherwise further the scheme to defraud.” Id.

⁽¹⁰⁾ See, e.g. Cal. Penal § 187 (“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought”); see also Tex. Penal Code § 19.01(a) (1994) (“A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual”); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(2) (2000) (“‘Homicide’ means first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide”). According to English law, the actus reus of homicide is that the accused must have unlawfully killed a human being, Homicide Act 1957, s. 1.

⁽¹¹⁾ There are, of course, exceptions to this principle, one being the crime of vehicular homicide.

⁽¹²⁾ Harry Rajak, “Legal Pathology and the Challenges of Cyberspace Transactions”, pp. 145-161 in Toshiyuki Kono, Christoph G. Paulus and Harry Rajak, Selected Legal Issues of E-Commerce. The Hague : Kluwer, 2002.

⁽¹³⁾ Susan W. Brenner, “Is There Such Thing as ‘Virtual Crime?”, 4 Cal Crim. Rev. 1, para. 10-12.

⁽¹⁴⁾ See, e.g., Bruce P. Keller, “The Game’s the Same : Why Gambling in Cyberspace Violates Federal Law”, 108 Yale L.J. 1569, 1575 (1999) (“There is nothing unique about Internet gambling that should lead the federal government to abandon its traditional protective role in this area ….”).

⁽¹⁵⁾ “Internet Gambling, Port Deals Reached”, by Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, Saturday, September 30, 2006; Page A08; “Bush Signs Port-Security, Internet Gambling Bill”, The Associated Press, October 13, 2006; “Gambling Online Faces Collapse in US After Senate Ban”, by Dominic Walsh, The Times, October 2, 2006.

⁽¹⁶⁾ For a comprehensive review of United States’ policy, international initiatives on cryptography and a country by country guide to encryption regulation, see Stewart A. Baker and Paul R. Hurst, The Limits of Trust : Cryptography, Governments, and Electronic Commerce. The Hague: Kluwer, 1998.

⁽¹⁷⁾ Robert C. Dorr and Christopher H. Munch, Protecting Trade Secrets : Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks. New York: Wiley, 1990.

⁽¹⁸⁾ On September 8, 1995, the Council of Europe approved a recommendation to limit strong cryptography in its member states. The Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning Problems of Criminal Procedure Law Connected with Information states : “…Authorities should have the power to order persons who have data in a computer system under their control to provide all necessary information to enable access to a computer system and the data herein. Criminal procedure law should ensure that a similar order can be given to other persons who have knowledge about the functioning of the computer system… Measures should be considered to minimize the negative effects of the use of cryptography on the investigation of criminal offenses…” R (95) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning Problems of Criminal Procedure Law Connected with Information Technology. Adopted by the Council of Ministers on September 11, 1995.

⁽¹⁹⁾ Cryptography and Liberty : An International Survey of Encryption Policy, Electronic Privacy Information Center. Washington DC 1999.

⁽²⁰⁾ William Ford Gibson is an American-born science fiction author resident in Canada since 1968. He has been called the founder of the cyberpunk subgenre of science fiction. Gibson did not view cyberspace as an autonomous place but rather as a “consensual hallucination” in this world.

⁽²¹⁾ Howard Rheingold is a recognized American thinker on the cultural, social and political implications of modern communications media such as the Internet, mobile telephony and virtual communities (a term he is credited with inventing). In 1985 he wrote Tools for Thought, a history of the people behind the personal computer. He explored his experience with an online community in his book, The Virtual Community. In 1991, Rheingold wrote Virtual Reality : Exploring the Brave New Technologies of Artificial Experience and Interactive Worlds and in 2002 Smart Mobs, exploring the potential for technology to augment collective intelligence.

⁽²²⁾ www.eff.org./pub/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/barlow0296.declaration. Barlow, an engineer and open mind who laid the foundation for the concept of free software, issued in 1996 a manifesto called : “A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace.”

⁽²³⁾ Some prefer the expression : “online world” because it includes not only the internet but also commercial online services (for example, America Online), private databases (e.g. Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw and others), and private networks (intranets). The internet contains email, the World Wide Web (www), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), newsgroups (e.g. Usenet) and Internet Relay Chats (IRC). Another term used to describe the global electronic network is “information superhighway”. It is an expression introduced in the political discourse by former U.S. Vice-President Albert Gore. In several speeches he stressed the idea that the speedy transmission of information is replacing the physical transportation of people and goods. In this article we use the word “cyberspace” because it is more popular and widely used but in the wider sense of “online world.”

⁽²⁴⁾ Klaus W. Grewlich, Governance in ‘Cyberspace’ : Access and Public Interest in Global Communications. The Hague: Kluwer, 1999: 133.

⁽²⁵⁾ Barry B. Sookman, Computer, Internet and Electronic Commerce Terms : Judicial, Legislative and Technical Definitions. Toronto : Thomson Carswell, 2002.

⁽²⁶⁾ R. van Wendel de Joode, J.A. de Bruun and M.I.G. van Eeten, Protecting the Virtual Commons. The Hague : T.M. Asser, 2003.

⁽²⁷⁾ Antony J. Sebok, “The Invisible Borderlines of Tort on the Internet”, pp. 57-77 in Toshiyuki Kono, Christoph G. Paulus and Harry Rajak, Selected Legal Issues of E-Commerce. The Hague : Kluwer, 2002.

⁽²⁸⁾ Chantico Publishing Company, Combating Computer Crime : Prevention, Detection, Investigation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.

⁽²⁹⁾ Marcus Franda, Governing the Internet : The Emergence of an International Regime. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001.

⁽³⁰⁾ Niva Elkin-Koren and Eli M. Salzberger, Law, Economics and Cyberspace. Northampton MA : Edward Elgar, 2004.

⁽³¹⁾ The European Union (EU) has one of the most stringent data protections regulations in the world. Unlike the EU, the United States rules on data protection are a mixture of federal and state laws and self-regulatory programs, with self-regulation predominating. The United States fails to meet EU data transfer requirements.

⁽³²⁾ Michael Hirst, “Computers, Hearsay and the English Law of Evidence”, pp. 175-196 in Indira Carr and Katherine Williams, Computers and the Law. Oxford: Intellect, 1994.

⁽³³⁾ Andrew P. Sparrow, The Law of the Internet and Mobile Communications. Harley : Andrew P. Sparrow, 2004.

⁽³⁴⁾ Paul Nihoul, “Will Electronic Commerce Change the Law? Towards a Regulatory Perspective Based on Competition, Information and Learning Skills”, pp. 79-90 in Christopher T. Marsden (editor), Regulating the Global Information Society. London and New York : Routledge.

⁽³⁵⁾ Rolf H. Weber, Regulatory Models for the Online World. The Hague : Kluwer, 2002.

⁽³⁶⁾ Duncan Campbell and Steve Connor, On the Record : Surveillance, Computers and Privacy : The Inside Story. London: Michael Joseph, 1986.

⁽³⁷⁾ P.A. Collier and B.J. Spaul, “A Forensic Methodology for Countering Computer Crime”, pp. 145-158 in Indira Carr and Katherine Williams, Computers and the Law. Oxford: Intellect, 1994.

⁽³⁸⁾ M.H.M. Schellekens, Electronic Signatures : Authentication Technology from a Legal Perspective. The Hague : T.M.C. Asser Press, 2004.

⁽³⁹⁾ Computers : Crimes, Clues and Control : A Management Guide. Washington DC : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.

⁽⁴⁰⁾ John T. Chu, “Computer Crime and Victim Justice”, in Diane Sank and David I. Caplan. To Be a Victim: Encounters with Crime and Injustice. New York: Plenum Press, 1991.