"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