Issues of Cybercrime in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates - Term Paper Example

Summary 1.0 Background Information In comparison to cyber crime law in the United Kingdom (UK), cybercrime legislation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are challenged by various ideological inadequacies especially in dealing with cyber victimization. In UAE, cybercrime laws originated from penalties set in the 2006 law which later became the Cyber Crime Law 2012. When mirrored against cyber crime laws provided in the Police and Justice Act of the UK, it is evident that the Cybercrime Law 2012 (UAE) does not cater for various recent offences in relation to cyber victimization. Moreover, Cyber Crime Law 2012 (UAE) does not sensitize cyber victimization offences with the motive of addressing the responsibilities of United Arab Emirates’ pursuit to the international agreements. Both the recently amended Cyber Crime Laws 2012 of the UAE and the 2006 law still do not have provisions for specific aspects of cyber crime victimization such as those that address IT security. This was noted so in a recent case that involved Shezanne Casim. In contrast, when dealing with ‘cyber crime war that involved Christopher Pile, also known as ‘Black Baron’, the UK laws displayed provisions for such specific aspects of cyber victimization that bars any person from unlawful access to either personal data or government IT systems. Historically, the legislative measures against cyber war in the UK dates back as early as 1984 when Robert Schifreen and Stephen Gold could not be convicted after gaining unauthorized access to BT’s Prestel service due to lack of such provisions within its constitution (Lusthaus, 2013). Following this incident, the UK government made tremendous efforts to address the loopholes within the constitution and eventually the cyber crime offenders were convicted under Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. Similarly, this lack of sections within the law that thoroughly deal particular issues of cyber crime has been the challenge facing the Cybercrime Law in UAE which have been in place since 2006. It is for this reason that the expulsion of Gallup, a US- based National Democratic Institute in Abu Dhabi could not be defended based on Article No. 4 of the law. This was similar to the case which involved arrest of 50 members of Amnesty International alleged to have participated in cyber victimization and attempt to use internet to ground the operations of the government. These cases painted the 2006 legislation and the recently amended 2012 law as weak and insufficient compared to the UK laws on cyber crime. 2.0 Literature Review Over the years, a considerable number of researchers within the realm of cyber crime have explored a wide range of issues on cyber victimization and have provided different perspectives. For instance, McCusker (2006), while researching on Transnational Organised Crime argues that acts of cyber victimization are usually committed with the ill motive of monetary gain. Therefore, financial institutions such as banks and e-commerce sites are often the main target. Such a case was witnessed in January 2008 when the United Arab Bank headquartered in Sharjan was victimized. Although incidences of cyber victimization occur quite often a research study by Inman & Rudin (2009) established that only 5% of the total cases of cyber victimization that occurred in Saudi Arabia were reported to the banks and other financial institutions. Conversely, a research study by Ipsos MORI (2013) showed that most victims of cyber victimizations report their incidences to Internet Service Providers. This is particularly common in the UK where many loge complaints to their service providers because the existing legal processes are lengthy and time consuming. Based on the statistics in both UK and UAE on reporting incidences of cyber victimization, it is evident that in both countries many people lack awareness on the exiting legal support or law enforcement agencies that deal with cyber victimization. Research indicates that cyber victimization is rampant in both the UK and the UAE. A study by Boyd (2007) measured incidences of cyber victimization on bank account holders in UAE and found that in a sample of 96 account holders from different financial institutions 60% had experienced some form of cyber victimization. This study further revealed that 48% of the participants felt that it was not important to report such cases to the authority due to its complex procedure and time. On the other hand 23% of the respondents argued that they pursued the matter with their respective banks and authorities. However after some time the cases could not be pursued further due to lack of enough evidence and the complexity of available structures. These findings to some extent contradicts report by Clore and Jeffrey (2008), Davis (2010) and Kirwan and Power (2012) who established that 2,732 cases related to cyber victimizations were dealt with by Fraud Act thus sentencing 248 with others pending determination. This is a major problem that this proposal finds; that while both United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom have instituted firms and laws to check on cyber victimizations, laws in UAE may not be as effective as those in UK especially in capturing or handling cases related to technology(Decety and Jackson, 2004). Moreover, different literatures in this field have highlighted the exiting impediments that have over the years hindered the development of effective laws to deal with cyber victimizations. In reference to a framework developed by James (2008), there has been strong evidence to suggest that there is an overlap between what has been represented as cyber victimization. Based on the definition provided by Heath (2008), umbrella terms like cyber targeting have been coined to insinuate victimization. Conversely, some commentators have all together avoided individual terms for different cyber-wrongs on the basis that they can overlap between the classes of wrongs. These trends have significantly jeopardized the analysis and creation of an effective legal framework that can be used to find solutions to this problem. Over the years, different aspects that constitute cyber victimization have been established and researches have been conducted in the efforts to find legal solution to curb this crime. For example, measures such as regulating online conduct, public education and use of commercial reputation protection services have been taken. It is argued that in UK cybercrime victimization laws point out specific suggestions relating to reforms within the criminal laws and more importantly present debate into methodologies aimed at protecting online reputations. Comparison between the laws dealing with cyber victimization UK and UAE and have thus provided valuable information relating to the challenges and the intervention measures. Similar research conducted both in the UK and UAE suggest that there is uniformity in the mode of operation among the cybercrime offenders in that they strike cautiously so as to avoid arousing attention of their victims. According to the statistics sourced from Microsoft Security Intelligence Report (2013), the laws combating cyber victimization in UAE are greatly challenged by a number of issues and as a result the rate of cyber crime is escalating. One such challenge is in regard to the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (TRA) of UAE. Basically, TRA is the body responsible for regulating IT sector and controlling internet providers such as Etisalat, Emirates telecommunication Corporation and Emirates Integrated Telecommunication Company as well as providing censorship so as intercept cases of cyber victimization in UAE (Ipsos MORI, 2013). However, researches indicate that TRA has failed in discharging its mandate because high rates of cyber victimization are still being observed. For instance, Ipsos MORI (2013) argue that the 34 suspicious website discovered by TRA in 2011 were not censored according to the standards set by Federal Legal Decree No. 5/2012. On the other hand, the reports issued by the anti-virus providers indicate that rates of cyber victimization in UK increased by 29% in 2013 compared to Canada, Australia and Germany (Ipsos MORI,2013). 3.0 Current/ Present State In the recent years, the numbers of cyber victimization incidences have been gradually increasing. Consequently, this increase has brought significant economic losses not only to the government but also the citizenry. A study by Ipsos Mori (2013) shows that £191.7 million and £125.1 million were lost by UK and UAE respectively between 2008 and 2013. Despite of this challenge, the number reported cases by the victim of cyber victimization are generally lower. This is mainly because the existing legal framework has several inadequacies. As a result of these inadequacies cybercrime offenders are convicted discriminatively in both countries (Ipsos MORI, 2013 p. 36). Evidently, there is need to assess the effectiveness of the existing laws that in the UK and UAE in order to identify their inadequacies and subsequently establish suitable measures that can be implemented so as to curb cyber victimization. It is for these reasons that this study seeks to compare the effectiveness of the legal framework used in UK and UAE to combat cyber victimization. 4.0 Intervention measures Answers to cyber victimization do not entirely rely on laws (Fienberg & Kadane 2008). Measures that inspire the confidence of the internet users toward such laws should be enhanced as well. Applying the rule of law in cyber victimization is recognized as one of the vital steps in earning the trust of business people. On that note, the relevant governments should strategize on how to increase awareness on cyber malpractices. Furthermore, there is need to recognize and appreciate the criminal laws from other countries to effectively deal with the internal cyber crime particularly victimization. For instance, in this proposal, comparison is made by reviewing Computer Misuse Act (CMA) 1990 of UK and the Emirates’ law of 2006 on Prevention of Information Technology Crimes (PITC). Additionally, Choi, (2006) observes that all information that is published online should be granted legal protection. This should also extend to credit card numbers, bank account details and online payment methods. 5.0 Aims and objectives of the Study The main aim of this research study is to investigate the measures or approaches that can be used to combat cyber victimization. In order to achieve this aim, this study will compare the effectiveness of laws against cyber victimization in UK in UAE. Some of the specific objectives that this study will seek to achieve include; Compare quantitative and qualitative data from secondary and primary sources with a view to integrate the data obtained on cyber victimisation in the UK and UEA. Establish the underlying reasons why laws in United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom’s punish the same offence differently especially when amendments to Qatari Penal law and UK Computer Misuse Act 1990 are considered. Examine the extent that criminal structures in UAE and UK are committed in dealing with cyber victimisation owing to the increasing number of cases. Effectively assess the effectiveness of cyber victimisation strategies by looking at the number of cases handled vis-à-vis mitigated cases. 4.1 Research Question Some of the key research questions that this study will seek to answer include; 1. How do laws in UAE and UK compare when dealing with cyber victimization? 2. How effective are the laws combating cyber victimization in UAE and UK are in the face of rising technology? 3. How have both national and international law enforcement agencies in UK and UAE responded to the emerging issues in cyber victimization? 5.0 Research Design and Methods Although the nature of this research study requires it to be designed in a way that extends beyond national boundaries, it would be both costly and time consuming to do so. This study will therefore focus on available primary and secondary sources such as concluded court cases and case studies. Using the framework suggested by Tapscott (2008), secondary data also will also be collected by critically reviewing official reports and available literature obtained from online libraries. On the other hand, primary data will be obtained by administering questionnaires to a sample of 40 participants drawn from both the UK and the UAE. This research study will be embedded within the space transition theory since it provides contemporary explanations on cybercrime. 6.0 Rationale and Importance of the study According to Rosenmann and Safi (2013) and Tapscott, ( 2008) internet is widely used both in UK and UAE to support social networks. Therefore, there is need to compare laws that regulate cyber related crimes in UAE and UK so as to uphold the sharing culture which enhances understanding between various races. Additionally, both UK and UAE share similar education and educational forums, therefore, the movements of students to and from either country to study or attend educational forums are a common practice. Much of the programmes are also conducted online hence it is appropriate safeguard both the current and future of education sector in both UK and UAE. Following this further, it is easy to observe that all gains achieved through use of ICT might be lost if there is no proper comparisons on how laws in United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom fight cybercrime. In conclusion, it is therefore very significant to conduct this study so as to provide insight into the methodologies and legal frameworks adopted by both countries so as to enable each country to identify their inadequacies and subsequently establish suitable measures that can be implemented so as to curb cyber victimization. 9.0 Contribution to new knowledge and gaps identified from previous studies This research proposal contributes to acquisition of new knowledge in a number of significant ways. Foremost, this it will elaborate the phenomenon of Space Transition Theory which was not established in the previous researches like the one conducted by Flewitt (2005). Secondly this research will be the second, to the research conducted by Heath (2008), to draw a comparison between the recently ratified United Arab Emirates Federal Law No (2) of 2006 and the Police Act of the UK. Finally, this research brings to understanding the fact that the establishment of UAE Federal Law No (2) 2006 and the Police Act of UK was subsequently followed by arise in the third category of cybercrime which is organized crime mafias and hostile government. Similarly, this research proposal also notes that there are gaps in the previously conducted researches in relation to cyber victimization in UAE and UK. Some of the research conducted, only focuses on how business activities and international collaboration is greatly advantaged by cybercrimes but does not indicate laws that can combat such crimes effectively. They have failed to identify specific aspects of cyber crimes and to compare them with the laws that regulate them such as Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA) and Police and Justice Act 2006. Instead, they generalize cybercrimes in UK and the United Arab Emirates and by so doing they fail to acknowledge specific aspects of these laws. Additionally, by failing to compare the two laws, previous studies fail to realize that criminal laws need to be flexible and adapt to the numerous changes that are caused by advancements in IT. Such changes usually demand regular ratification of traditional laws which cannot combat contemporary cybercrimes. Ultimately, the afore conducted researches also fail to note certain comparative aspects between the cyber crime laws in United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates. For instance, these studies are blind to the fact that UK and UAE are among the strongholds of the economy of Eurasia and therefore comparing how their legal frameworks fight cybercrime is very significant (Pratt and Reisig, 2010). References Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), McArthur Foundation on Digital Learning – Youth, identity, and digital media volume (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Choi K,An empirical assessment of an integrated theory of cyber-crime victimization. American Society of Criminology. (2006) Clore, G. L., & Jeffrey, K. M. (2008). ‘Emotional role playing, attitude change and attraction toward a disabled person’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 105–111. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral Cognition Neuroscience Review, 3, 71–100. (2004). Fienberg S, and Kadane J, The presentation of Baysian Statistical Analyses in Legal Proceedings. The Statician, 32: 88-98. (2009). Flewitt R,’Conducting research with young children: some ethical considerations’. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), pp. 553–565. (2005) Heath N, Europe to get cybercrime alert system. Available from Read More