Putting an End to Cyber Crime

In his 1995 term paper, Gene Stephens suggested what one might call a conventionally
libertarian way to battle cyber misdeed that aligns well with the open ethos of
cyberspace: “the only genuine assist conscience and individual standards, the
conviction that robbery, fraud, and attack of privacy are easily unacceptable” (quoted in
Stephens, 2008, p. 2).

Given the huge expansion of cyber misdeed even in the years since 1995, Stephens
now sees things differently. Today he contends that halting cyber misdeed will count
mostly on two factors: a more protected Internet infrastructure, redesigned with security
foremost in mind; and coordinated, international policing of cyberspace to back up other
security procedures for example biometrics.

One proposition Stephens makes is for a more protected, second lifetime Internet:

The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) set up the Internet and
fostered its early development, but DARPA will probable overhaul its creation in the
2010s. Not only will the conclusion be much quicker and bigger capability usage, but
furthermore, by effectively beginning over with the security facets in brain, the future
Internet will be safer and tougher to strike and disable (Stephens, 2008, p. 3).

Stephens furthermore contends that battling cyber misdeed engages undertaking a

bigger and more basic issue: How can one policeman a locality, for example
cyberspace, that very conspicuously no one individual owns and has jurisdiction over?
The response, he contends, is voluntary, multinational policing, with the cost of
malfunction being too large to ignore:

The exponentially advancing capabilities of appearing Web technologies spotlights the

long-ignored matters of who owns the World Wide Web, who organizes it, and who has
jurisdiction over it. The response now is: Nobody! Can the world’s most mighty socio-
politico-economic mesh extend to function nearly at random, open to all, and therefore
be excessively susceptible to cyber criminals and terrorists alike? Yet any try to
constraint or policeman internet can be anticipated to be contacted by farthest opposition
from a plethora of users for a kind of causes, numerous contradictories. Biometrics and
more-advanced schemes of ID will require to be finalized to defend users and the
network. In supplement, multinational cybercrime flats will be needed to apprehend
those preying on users worldwide, as Web board riders in Arlington, Virginia, and
Victoria, British Columbia, may be victims of cyber scams perpetrated in Cairo or
Budapest. Coordination and collaboration will be keys to producing the Internet a safer
location to journey and perform enterprise (Stephens, 2008, p. 3).

There still appears to be work left to do. For demonstration, Interpol, which battles
misdeed over nationwide boundaries, only has $102 million allowed for each year to
battle cybercrime (Swartz, 2008).

Can one be hopeful about the containment of cybercrime? If annals are any referee, the
identical Internet expertise that empowers lawless individuals to flout the regulation can
endow regulation enforcement to fight back the law. In the case of the telegraph,
instanced previous, it was utilized to good result shortly after it was invented: “After
killing his mistress [in 1845] and escaping to London by train, [John] Tawell’s recount
 was telegraphed ahead by the policeman and he was apprehended upon his
appearance (Standage, 1998: 51)” (Wall, 2007, p. 2).

CONCLUSION
Cybercrime is emerging as a serious threat. Worldwide governments, police departments and
intelligence units have started to react. Initiatives to curb cross border cyber threats are taking
shape. Indian police have initiated special cyber cells across the country and have started
educating the personnel. This project was an attempt to provide a glimpse on cybercrime in
India. This article is based on various reports from news media and news portal Cybercrime
is a term used to broadly describe criminal activity in which computers or computer networks
are a tool, a target, or a place of criminal activity and include everything from electronic
cracking to denial of service attacks. It is also used to include traditional crimes in which
computers or networks are used to enable the illicit activity.

Some points that should be taken care of are:

1.      Reliance on terrestrial laws is an untested approach.

 Despite the progress being made in many countries, most countries still rely on standard
terrestrial law to prosecute cybercrimes. The majority of countries are relying on archaic
statutes that predate the birth of cyberspace and have not yet been tested in court.
       2.  Weak penalties limit deterrence. The weak penalties in most updated criminal
statutes provide limited deterrence for crimes that can have large-scale economic and social
effects.
        3. Self-protection remains the first line of defence.
The general weakness of statutes increases the importance of private sector efforts to develop
and adopt strong and efficient technical solutions and management practices for information
security.
      4. A global patchwork of laws creates little certainty.
 Little consensus exists among countries regarding exactly which crimes need to be legislated
against. The kinds of gaps that remain, even in the 19 countries that have already taken steps
to address cybercrimes. In the networked world, no island is an island. Unless crimes are
defined in a similar manner across jurisdictions, coordinated efforts by law enforcement
officials to combat cybercrime will be complicated.
     5. A model approach is needed.
Most countries, particularly those in the developing world, are seeking a model to follow.
These countries recognize the importance of outlawing malicious computer-related acts in a
timely manner in order to promote a secure environment for e-commerce. But few have the
legal and technical resources necessary to address the complexities of adapting terrestrial
criminal statutes to cyberspace. A coordinated, public-private partnership to produce a model
approach can help eliminate the potential danger from the inadvertent creation of cybercrime
havens.
 Further, we would like to give our point of views that is what we gained from this project
and what all one can get out of this project. First, the cybercrimes is a new phenomenon in
India as it wasn’t well known as a information and technology market till the enactment of
the Information and Technology Act ,2000 that brought what is called the IT revolution in
India. The government was made to enact this law because there were no laws that used to
curb the growing rate of Cybercrimes that were happening in the late 90s. the passing of this
Act lead to a proper governance over the internet and other services under the World Wide
Web.
Moreover, would like to say though the Act of 2000 may have brought a revolution but the
actual revolution was brought about by the Amendment Act of 2005 and 2008. These
amendments have now made the Act stronger and the government in a stronger position in
controlling the mishaps that happen on the web. As the number of virus attacks towards India
increased the government had to come up with new laws to curb these issues as well as the
increasing hacking, phishing and spamming on the web.
From our project we have learnt that controlling the internet as in the ways of checking on
viruses, spams and worms is really a hard task to perform. Due to the increased use in the
social networking sites many accounts of the respective users are under the scanner as
advancement in technology has led to innovative ways by which hacking is done.
The online banking has also led to the increased cybercrimes because accounts could be
hacked and money could be transferred into another account all together. Hence, lead to
many ways by which one in present time commits Cybercrime.