Internet governance, borders and jurisdiction in the context of crime investigation
https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2021.78.2.155-161
Abstract
The article focuses on the technical features of Internet operation, causing legal and forensic consequences when investigating cybercrimes. Decentralized nature and the specificity of Internet governance resulting from its technical architecture lead to difficulties in identifying the jurisdiction during cybercrime investigations. In the article, the author also analyses IT crimes’ particular features, which make them difficult to investigate, as well as some contemporary ideas on the possibility of delineating borders on the Net, the consequences of such measures, and the ways to identify jurisdiction when looking into cybercrimes. Apart from that, the article examines the Internet governance system, managing organizations as well as their hierarchy, and accountability. The technical mechanism of Internet operation is analyzed. Some factors threatening the operation are reviewed. Following the research results, the author proposes some methods to enhance international cooperation regarding cybercrime investigations and resolving jurisdictional issues. The need to increase informational and technical knowledge at all levels and to support interdepartmental cooperation is noted.
Keywords
cybercrime,
computer crime,
IT crime,
IT,
cyberattack,
IT,
data localization,
jurisdiction,
borders,
international cooperation
About the Author
D. V. Zavialova
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
postgraduate student of the Criminalistics Department,
125993, Moscow, ul. Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya, 9
References
1. Першин А. Н., Сидорова К. С. Криминалистические основы установления пользователя информационно-телекоммуникационной сети Интернет // Вестник Университета имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА). — 2019. — № 3 (55). — С. 82—94.
2. Уголовно-юрисдикционная деятельность в условиях цифровизации : монография / Н. А. Голованова , А. А. Гравина , О. А. Зайцев [и др.]. — М. : Институт законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве РФ ; Контракт, 2019. — 212 с.
3. Balkin J. M. Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment. Information Society Project (Yale Law School). — New York : NYU Press, 2007. — 268 p.
4. Broadhead S. The contemporary cybercrime ecosystem: A multi-disciplinary overview of the state of affairs and developments // Computer Law & Security Abstract. — 2018. — Vol. 34. — P. 1180—1196.
5. Clough J. Principles of Cybercrime. — Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 2010. — 449 p.
6. Dr. De Nardis L. Five Destabilizing Trends in Internet Governance // A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society. — 2015. —Vol. 12. — P. 113—133.
7. Ghappour A. Searching Places Unknown: Law Enforcement Jurisdiction on the Dark Web // Stanford Law Abstract. — April 2017. — Vol. 69. — P. 1075—1136.
8. Ribaux O., Souvignet T. R. “Hello are you available?” Dealing with online frauds and the role of forensic science // Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation. — 2020. — Vol. 33. — P. 1—11.
9. Singer P. W., Friedman A. Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know. — New York : Oxford University Press, 2014. — 312 p.
10. Taylor R. D. “Data Localization”: The internet in the balance // Telecommunications Policy. — Elsevier, 2020. —Vol. 44. Is. 8. — P. 1—15.
11. Žolnerčíková V. ICANN: Transformation of Approach towards Internet Governance // Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology. — 2017. — Vol. 11. — P. 155—172.
Review
For citations:
Zavialova D.V. Internet governance, borders and jurisdiction in the context of crime investigation. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)). 2021;(2):155-161. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2021.78.2.155-161
Views:
404
Email this article 
