Cybersecurity and cybercrime

This week topic is extension issues concerning internet governance. In a broad definition, cybercrime is referring to act of crime that committed through the internet and cyber security referring to some form of mechanisms in place that impede the act of cybercrime. While it is not easy to deal with both, some existence of public policies dealing with those issues are highly needed at country and global level. There is no standard definition (and, varies too) on cyber security and cybercrime and its framework highly depending on country’s social, political and cultural understanding on what ICT is.

For example, the agency that overview issues concerning cyber security and cybercrime in Malaysia, the Cyber Security Malaysia recognized three (3) possible categories of cyber security and cybercrime[1]: a) when ICT systems and intellectual property become targets of exploitation, intrusion, identity and information theft; b) when ICT devices are used as means to commit crimes i.e.: computer devices at home are used to run malicious programs to intrude other computer devices to steal money, identity and passwords; and c) where the ICT devices are used as mediums of committing crimes. For example, sedition, disharmony or unrest, slandering and instigating at higher scale come under this category as defined by Malaysian Sedition Act.

Global multi stakeholders’ platforms like Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), World Summit of Information Society (WSIS) that engaged governments, private sectors and civil society members are helpful in setting global agenda concerning cyber security and cybercrime. This is because, cyber security and cybercrime issues often goes beyond traditional geographical boundaries. We have witnessed some of critical cases that highlighted threads to cyber security at national and domestic level, for example, Wikileaks and Julian Assange case, Edward Snowden and NSA case, and the banning of famous social media site, Facebook by China government. This proven that cyber security and cybercrime can simply become threads (opportunities) to local politics and global consequences[2].

Looking at robust ICT development among developed nations and the emerging of information society among developing countries, I am in the opinionated that institutional arrangements dealing with issues pertaining cyber security and cybercrime should be multi stakeholders, democratic, open and transparent in nature, and not solely focus on technical aspects. However, the model again rely on how key social, economic and political characteristic of a country.


[2] Kshetri, Nir. (2013). Cybercrime and cyber-security issues associated with China: some economic and institutional considerations , Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 13, Issue 1 , pg. 41-69. Retrieved from http://download.springer.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/static/pdf/453/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10660-013-9105-4.pdf?auth66=1380722094_37aa49dac17fc93fb7cc562b73291e6b&ext=.pdf

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cybersecurity and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s