Cyber Victimization in the UK and the UAE - Research Proposal Example

Introduction The research proposal critically assesses cyber victimization in the United Kingdom and United Arabs Emirates. To conceptualize the nature of the thesis statement, the proposal succinctly reviewed background information of the study. Under the background information, it was realized that loopholes in cyber victimisation laws make it hard to tackle various aspects of cyber victimization. Nevertheless, the research proposal looks at the tenets of law in the United Kingdom and those in the United Arab Emirates and their effectiveness in dealing with cyber victimization. In addition, to the Cyber Crime Law 2012 (UAE) does not address cyber victimization issues that make UAE meet its obligations in relation to international treaties. In the introduction section the proposal further noticed that despite United Arab Emirates not having clear-cut strategies on dealing with cyber victimization and its emerging issues, they have set high penalties for cyber victimization. Higher than the United Kingdom’s penalties and even those in the 2006 laws. A comparison between a cyber-victimization case in the United Arabs Emirates and the United Kingdom displays the disparities of how the law tackles cyber-victimization. In reference to the Shezanne Casim case for instance, the Cyber Crime Law 2012 (UAE) lacked clauses on Information Technology security. Christopher Pile case in the United Kingdom whose cyber victimization aspect was “Accessing an IT system,” the penalty dictated depended on whether the data accessed by the accused was personal. In the UAE the other hand, accessing an IT system is considered a cyber-victimization aspect, when the information being accessed contains government data. Today’s world is fast changing with the need to be techie savvy being mandatory. However, the proposal noticed that an increase in technology comes with its fair share of challenges, cyber victimization being on the top list. Communication is evolving, with each day coming with different modes of communication that is powered by the internet, and involves the use of a computer or a smart phone. The use of communication technology can lead to a vast range of offences. The proposal under introduction has noted that in both the United Arabs Emirates and the United Kingdom, cyber victimization included the use of malware to infect users’ computers without their knowledge. The changes in the mode of communication for instance, which drives people to depending more on social media for communication makes people more vulnerable to cyber victimization. This aspect used research by Heath 2008 to concretize the fact that cyber victimization is twofold; where cyber victimization can be committed by using technology to alter computer systems. Secondly, where there is input of data or by committing offences using new technology. Cyber victimization is a real threat to society, which if not early tackled can lead to viral effects to the entire community. The Council of Europe for instance was forced to formulate international treaties, to curb cyber victimization. Cyber victimization comes in various forms, which the proposal has elaborated as being either interfering directly with the networking of a computer or manipulating a computer user to make changes to their computer without their consent. It has been noted that countries that have been affected by rampant cyber victimization has been because of technological abused or lack of criminal laws put in place to punish offenders. The catch with the criminal laws is that they vary from country to country, with some countries having clearly cut provisions for most aspects of cyber victimization, yet others are left with a lot of loophole making it hard to hold offenders fully accountable. Cyber victimization laws should however be formulated to match international standards, which will help in forming some similarities in the laws. Scholars argue that criminal laws in United Arabs Emirates and the United Kingdom are traditional, without aspects on cyber victimization, making it easier for criminals to get away with the heinous acts. In the introduction section proposal sought to analyze legal effectiveness in combating cyber victimization in the United Arabs Emirates and the United Kingdom. The section further introduced readers in the analysis of the already concluded court cases and case control studies to compare the disparities in the cyber victimization laws between the two countries. Literature Review This section critically reviewed different literal materials and court cases with an aim of understanding the nature of cyber victimization in UAE and UK. The section compared criminal laws dealing with cyber victimization in both UAE and UK, which provides useful information on the available problems and possible interventions. For instance, a research by Morris and Higgins (2009) conducted in the UK and UAE help the study to understand offenders of cyber –victimization and how they attack their victims with the intention of causing minimal damage. A further review in this section has indicated that the group of criminal interests’ is usually in spreading computer viruses and hacking computer systems. The target for this group of criminals according to researchers conducted in the UK and UAE are business and financial institutions. An assessment on Transnational Organized Crime found out that cyber victimization was always money motivated; a reason why the criminals targeted financial organizations like banks and e-commerce sites. Supporting McCusker’s research, in January 2008, criminals launched a cyber-victimization on the United Arabs Bank in Sharjah. The online banking site was invaded and hundreds of personal identification numbers (PIN) linked to customers ATMs were stolen. It is from these reviews that the proposal noted that he stolen PIN’s were encoded to the ATM and $1.6 Million was withdrawn from unsuspecting accounts. United Arabs Emirates is greatly affected by cyber victimization, which is still growing with the anticipated annual cost over its cyber victimization going up to $ 10 million, slightly lower than United Kingdom’s $14 Million. According to the Microsoft Security Intelligence Report 29 million people in the UK are reported annually to be victims of cyber victimization, with the UAE following closely at 23 million people. While this has been found to be a figure that continues to grow, a review of these variables help the proposal conclude that the disparities in these figures can however be attested to the fact that computer usage in the UK is not restricted whereas the UAE has cultural restrictions that limit women’s usage of computers. Malwares, worms, trojans and viruses are the highest cyber attackers in the UK standing at 60%, compared to the UAE which comes at 49%. Social engineering attacks on the other hand happen at the same rate in both countries, with the percentage in both the UK and UAE standing at 16%. According to Nelson Ratings (2014), malwares, worms, Trojans and viruses dominate the major attackers list because of their ease in dominating the user’s computer, without their consent in form of spam messages. Also captured in the literature review section are the methodologies scholars used to gather research data. It is on this basis that the research proposal used quantitative study to make comparisons on laws dealing with cyber victimization. According to UAE, the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (TRA) watches and censors all the internet usage in a bid to combat cyber victimization. From this review it has been noted that UAE problems of cyber victimization actually begin with the TRA established in 2003 to oversee all communications, and IT details in UAE. It is found that TRA has failed to report data on cyber victimization to the cabinet. In 2008, for instance, the education sector in UAE recorded a 20% cyber victimization rate, with the banking sector at 22% all because the TRA failed to censor some responsible sites that led to the escalation of the cyber victimization. Ipsos MORI 2013 accords the failure of UAE and the UK to fight cyber victimisation to the failed Department of Anti-Electronic Crimes. This research proposal review sought to find whether new ratified laws could be able to curb the modern threats of cyber victimisation. Soumyo, 2012 identified a third group of cyber victimisation that jeopardized the security of the UAE and the UK. This group consists of organized crime mafias and hostile government targeting physical and economic destruction. According to a report published in the UK, organized crime mafias were on the rise, in their activities conducted online yet their actions went unpunished. This study helped the proposal to understand status of UAE and UK laws on cyber victimization thus providing answers to different research questions as identified. According to Action Fraud, 45% of cyber victimization cases go unpunished by law annually because of lack of ratified laws with clear provisions on different aspects of cyber victimization, making it hard to deal with cyber victimisation in the UK. As such, these statistics, makes this research proposal to focus on tenets of the law on cyber victimization. Additionally, data from the Ministry of Justice showed that most people have been sentenced under the Fraud Act for committing cyber victimisation activities. In 2008, according to a report by Kirwan and Powel (2012), 2,732 cases were sentenced under the Fraud Act instead of cyber victimization. The proposal finds that in as much as the UAE and UK have bodies responsible for tackling cyber victimisation, laws in the UAE may not be as effective as those in the UK. In UAE for instance, only 11% of cyber were reported from April to December 2012. The UK on the other hand, reported 17% of cyber victimisation annually. The low numbers of reporting the crimes have been based on citizens finding loopholes in the laws, hence shying to report. An increase of cyber victimisation has had an effect on the economy of UAE and UK, the UK lost 191.7 Million Euros and the UAE lost 125.1 Million Euros. In an attempt to concretise hypothesis of the study, this section noted that in January 2014, a federal judge in Abu Dhabi saw the need to compare cyber victimisation related laws to amend statutes relating to technology in UAE). Dr. Mohammed al Kaabi, a federal court judge was concerned about cyber victimisation laws which were interpreted in other jurisdictions and called for uniformity in the interpretation of the criminal laws. This section attempted to review gaps in the existing legal framework. A recognized problem with the UAE law is that the courts base their judgments on past court cases and case studies, contrary to what the UK law does. A comparison between the two laws is made using the review of the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA) and the Emirates law of 2006, which conclude that the two countries do not have clear legislations on cyber victimization. Findings further show that both the UAE and UK cyber laws provide some limitations on disclosing some data, especially medical data. The limitations make it hard to fight cyber victimisation in cases where information is needed in the limited areas. The UK and UAE laws differ because of UAE’s federalism nature that makes it have the civil law and sharia law. It is evident that there are loopholes in the laws in both the UAE and UK. The application of the 2006 UAE laws dealing with cyber victimization requires amendments to match it to the digital era. A comparison of the UAE 2012 to the UK laws will clearly depict how the current laws fail to combat the modern age cyber victimisation. The gaps in dealing with cyber victimization can be argued in terms of criminal and civil law. Criminal law is deemed as the best because it punishes the offender and discouraged the crime simultaneously. Methodology This section was designed to assess the modalities of carrying out the research. To conceptualize the background information, the introduction and literatures reviewed thus far, methodology section captured the following aspects: Research question Research aim Research objectives Design and methods Starting with research question, the research proposa identified three questions. Generally, these questions helped in testing the hypothesis, collection of data, and evaluation of the sources to be used. These questions are; 1. How do United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom laws compare when dealing with cyber victimisation? 2. What has been the response of national and international law enforcement agencies to this new tide of cyber victimisation activity when compared to strategies employed by United Arabs Emirates and United Kingdom? 3. What are the effectiveness of United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates laws in dealing with cyber victimisation in the wake of hi-tech? The proposal identified these questions these to serve specific role as far as the problem to be researched is concerned. That is, they are narrow thus addressing the specific area that fits within the research design and methodology. On the research aim, based on incidences of cyber victimization in UAE and UK research aim section is to help gain an understanding of the strategies that have been undertaken by UAE and UK to deal with cyber victimization and to find the effectiveness of these strategies so that each country can adopt the most effective strategy. On that note, the proposal aims at comparing legal approaches used in United Arabs Emirates and United Kingdom dealing with cyber victimisation. Based on researches such as Hawke et al. (2013) as reviewed, the aim introduces what is missing from the literatures reviewed thus identifying the gap in knowledge. Actually it is the gap in knowledge that the proposal finds to be holding back the field and is what the entire research will attempt to address thus providing the linkage or concordance between the identified aim and parts of central hypothesis earlier identified in the literature reviews and research questions. The research aim has also been linked with research objectives. The objectives as put serve a purpose of comparing quantitative and qualitative data from respondents from United Arabs Emirates and United Kingdom. Generally, these objectives set out how to accomplish the above aim. That is, while the aim stated above seems to be broad in its approach, the objectives are focussed and practical. Put simply, the first two objectives interrelate with the aim stated above. Actually, the first three objectives describe how the aim is going to be met. Objectives have been tailored to be realistic with respect to the scope and resources available. The last objective on the other hand has been designed to augur well with plans the research intends to take in order to deal with practical problem or ethical issues that may be encountered. On the other hand, the objectives have been identified to conceptualise the process of looking for actionable information and knowledge from qualitative research. Research objective such as “to carryout investigation on the extend the criminal laws from UAE and UK are committed to dealing with cyber victimisation owing to the increasing number of cases as reported during Cyber Security Forensics Workshop, Information Communications Technology (ITU) Regional Workshop for Cyber security and Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIIP) forums” helps in planning research plan, choosing interview theme and shaping the questions that I will ask during data collection. Secondly this objective is specific and thus linking the secondary research problem. The research methodology has also reflected on the design and methods. This section suggested methodologies that were used to collect data and how research will interact with participants. The research adopted the framework of reviewing the secondary literature obtained online and from libraries. On the other hand, this section detailed other methods of data collection that would be in relation to the research methodology. The proposal explained how it intended to obtain data from official government websites regarding the United Arabs Emirates as well as United Kingdom especially the information on efforts the governments are making cyber victimization. Potential Result and Contribution to Knowledge Beginning with potential results, the proposal noticed paucity and unreliability of information available regarding total expenditures made on the process of ratifying laws in United Arabs Emirates and United Kingdom so that such can conform to modern trends in cyber victimization. Additionally, the law has failed to recognize the fact that cyber victimization can be done or undertaken on a large basis or scale thus leading to a relationship between offenders and victims who are uniquely different to offline victimization. Based on these attributes, the research intends to provide comprehensive legal processes with regard to what laws in United Kingdom and United Kingdom which are require before prosecuting or even charging offenders. Secondly, there have been low turnout when it comes to number of cases reported and from that angle, there is need to consider why people may fail to report cyber related victimisations and the main reasons for such decisions, especially after the realization that majority of victims have different reasons not to report such cases. The proposal reviewed gaps existing in the laws that combat cases of cyber victimization. As a matter of fact, literatures on the currently existing matrix of laws; both criminal and civil, that basically could be put in place to the types of conduct described in proposal to constitute cyber victimization seemed to be weak in their applications. Based on this this aspect, the study will seek to identify major concerns and limitations with these laws, more so those existing to tackle different types of victimization as already identified. On contribution to new knowledge, contemporary studies reviewed showed that UAE and UK use internet to support virtual social networks. Additionally, there is no clear comparisons on how laws in United Arabs Emirates and United Kingdom deal with cyber victimization, all gains made through the use of information and communication technology will soon fade away---main reason why both countries should have clear legal frameworks that fight cyber victimization. Based on the above importance, this research is therefore worth doing since it will be providing an insight in the strategies and legal frameworks adopted and establish how aspects of the strategies and laws compare in both countries. Furthermore, as these laws are undertaken by UAE and UK, there seems to be discrepancies therefore there is a need to find effectiveness of these laws so that each country can adopt the most effective ones. Lastly, the research explains Space Transition Theory which shows that individual prone to commit psychical space crimes have a higher propensity of committing cyberspace crimes. Conclusion This proposal suggests strategies of combating cyber victimization in the two countries as identified. The research has adopted a mixed-method approach by also applying qualitative and quantitative elements. The rationale for this the proposal is to conceptualise and enhance the reliability of previous studies on cyber victimisation. Additionally, the proposal examined in detail, aspects concerning sampling method, selection and sampling process. Interviews and interview process is discussed in detail in the proposal. Finally, the proposal has discussed the method of data analysis, with detail explanation of how themes are developed, data storage, thematic analysis and data coding. Read More