20
21
differences between cybercrime and physical space crime. The implication of this is that traditional model of law enforcement cannot be effective in combating cybercrime.
7.0 OBJECTIVE
This unit explains the meaning of cyberspace and examines the various differences between physical space crime and cybercrime.
8.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Meaning of Cyberspace
Gibson (1984, p. 51) who coined the term “cyberspace” in 1982 described it as:
A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billons of legitimate operators, in every nation… A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the non space of the mind, clusters and constellation of data like city lights receding.
However, according to Manap, Rahim and Taji (2015, p.595) cyberspace is “a space having a digitalized form where all its activities, data and content are transmitted and actualized through a „networked communication technology‟ ”.
The foregoing definition suggests that cyberspace is virtual in nature and is enabled by a networked communication technology. The features of cyberspace are fundamentally different from those of the physical space or real world. For example, whilst boundaries can be delineated in the physical space, they cannot be done in the cyberspace they way it obtains in the physical space because of the „deterritorisation‟ of cyberspace. This therefore explains why there are differences between physical space crime and cybercrime.
22
3.2 Difference between Cybercrime and Physical Space Crime
Brenner (2004) argued that traditional model of law enforcement is not an effective strategy for combating cybercrime. To buttress her argument she identified the following differences between physical space crime (i.e. real world crime) and cybercrime.
i. Proximity: Unlike physical space crime, cybercrime does not require any form of physical proximity between the victim and the offender at the time crime is committed. As an unbounded and borderless crime, it can be committed against a victim who is in another geographical location. For example, an offender in Belgium can victimize a person in Nigeria.
ii. Scale: Cybercrime differs from physical space crime in that it is not one-to-one crime. It is not corporeal crime. Cybercrime is largely and increasingly an automated crime. Automation utilizes technology to multiply the number of offences that the cybercriminal can commit in a given period of time.
Automation also increases the speed with which such offences are committed.
Moreover, automation allows the offender to start a process of victimization and leaves the completion of the process to automated system. For example, while a typical nineteenth-century advance fee fraudster defrauded victim A, then victim B, then victim C, and so on at different period of time; a twenty-first-century online advance fee fraudster can automate the process, thereby defrauding very many victims in different locations simultaneously and with less effort.
iii. Physical constraints: Cybercriminals are not restricted by the kind of constraints that govern action in the physical space. Unlike physical space crime, cybercrime can be committed instantaneously with victims spread across different locations. Therefore, more rapid response is required from law enforcement in the investigation of cybercrime than traditional crimes.
iv. Perfect Anonymity: Cyberspace allows criminals to disguise or hide their identities in ways that are not possible in the physical space. In the physical
23
space, when an offender tries to conceal his or her identify, for example, by wearing a mask, certain characteristics like height, weight, accent, and age can be discerned. But offenders can achieve perfect anonymity in the cyberspace.
For example, a man can disguise as a woman, a teenager can disguise as an adult and so on in the cyberspace.
v. Patterns: Unlike with physical space, cybercrime patterns are difficult to identify. This may be due to the fact that cybercrime is still relatively new. As such the crime map that law enforcement used to allocate resources for physical space may not apply to cybercrime. The challenge of identifying cybercrime patterns is also compounded by the fact that cybercrime is not accurately documented and countries do not track the incidence of cybercrime in the same way physical space crime is tracked.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The various differences between cybercrime and physical space crime have made cybercrime policing a difficult task for law enforcement agencies. This is basically because traditional model of law enforcement cannot be effective in combating cybercrime. Not all law enforcement personnel are computer/internet-savvy. Law enforcement personnel who cannot use the computer and internet very well may not be able to detect cybercrime. Similarly, investigators who are not well trained in digital forensics cannot investigate cybercrime. Special training and re-training are required for law enforcement officers in order to orient them towards cybercrime control.
5.0 SUMMARY
The unit explained the meaning of cyberspace and discussed the various differences between cybercrime and physical space crime.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
24
Discuss the differences between cybercrime and physical space crime.
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Brenner, S. (2004). Towards a criminal law for cyberspace: Distributed Security.
Available:file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Toward_a_Criminal_Law _for_Cyberspace_ Distributed_S%20(1).pdf
Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer. New York: Acc.
Manap, N.A. Rahim, A.A. & Taji, H. (2015). Cyber identity theft: The conceptual framework. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, 6 (4) 595-605.
25
UNIT 4 CYBER CRIMINOLOGY: CONTEXT/INTELLECTUAL ROOTS,