As technology has become more sophisticated, so have the criminals. The Internet is being used as an instrument of crime and has been highly effective. The reasons are obvious. The Internet is international, vast numbers of contacts (and victims) can be located or communicated with on-line. It can be anonymous. The hackers who regularly infiltrate the Pentagon are extremely adept at hiding their tracks, making them difficult if not impossible to catch. Furthermore, and perhaps most controversially, it is secure. The encryption codes being used by criminals are incredibly sophisticated and, so the FBI claim, impossible to crack. As a result, world Governments are fighting for such codes to be made illegal.

So, what kind of crimes go on over the Web? They range from petty to horrific, amusing to abominable. In no particular order, here is a list:

1. Terrorism
2. Fraud
3. Pornography
4. Hacking
5. Viruses
6. Organised Crime
7. Cyber-stalking

A number of policy issues come into play:

• right to privacy v state security
• freedom of speech v state security

Added to this is the difficulty of enforcement. The Internet is global and so for any enforcement to be effective it needs to be global. Unfortunately, different Governments have different agendas and diametrically opposing political views. One man's terrorist is another's political hero.

Computer viruses are being used for extortion. With e-commerce becoming more and more important to business, these viruses will become more of a threat. Also, when a virus manages to bring down a system, security walls disappear which means confidential information can be stolen.

Cyber-terrorism means the ability of terrorists to communicate and plan on-line at frightening speed and in encrypted code. It also means the use of computers and the Internet to commit terrorist acts, unlawful acts of abuse against governments and the civilian population.

Of course, much of this sounds far-fetched and is unlikely to affect the majority of people directly. However, it is important to note that the emergence of the Internet and the reliance of society on computers is likely to lead to a growth of cybercrime. It may be worth considering now what security measures your company has in place.

Cyberlibel and ISP Liability

The legal issues surrounding cyberlibel have been considered by the English courts. Where Internet Service Providers (ISPs) decide to interconnect to allow their subscribers access to the other's material, newsgroups in one country can be accessed and down-loaded by users elsewhere. Such messages and discussions are now causing legal difficulties for the ISPs as the Demon case illustrates.

Lawrence Godfrey v Demon Internet

Demon Internet is one of the better known UK ISPs and provides a bulletin board facility (newsgroup) covering a range of topics including religion, sports and politics.

On 13 January 1997, a message was posted on one of these newsgroups. The message appeared to have been posted by a Mr Godfrey and his email address was also included in the message. The contents of the message were described by the Judge as "squalid, obscene and defamatory".

On 17 January, Mr Godfrey became aware of the message and informed Demon that the contents of the message were forged and that it should be removed from Demon's server immediately. However, Demon did not take any action until 27 January, when the offending message was routinely deleted from its server.

Mr Godfrey sued Demon for libel as a publisher under the Defamation Act 1996 as it had control of the server upon which the newsgroup was based. Demon argued that it had played a passive role and was merely the owner of an electronic device through which postings were transmitted

Under Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 1996, a person has a defence in defamation proceedings if he can show that (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of; (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication; and (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.

The Court did not agree with Demon's argument. The Judge held that as from the date that Demon became aware of the defamatory content of the message, i.e upon receipt of Mr Godfrey's fax, Demon "knew of the posting but chose not to remove it from their Usenet news servers". The Judge said that at common law, Demon, whenever it transmitted and whenever there was transmitted from the storage of their news server a defamatory posting, that posting was published to any subscriber to their service who accessed the newsgroup and saw it. As a result, Demon was unable to rely on the protection provided by sub-sections 1(1)(b) and (c).

The current situation

The general view on "Demon" is that the decision appears to unduly prejudice ISPs in their provision of newsgroup and chatroom services. The decision potentially makes ISPs susceptible to demands from any and every quarter for material to be withdrawn when ISPs may or may not be in a position to adjudicate whether these demands are reasonable

If Demon is to be followed, ISPs will have to closely monitor the contents of websites, chatrooms and bulletin boards. This is surely against the general liberal view which is adopted when dealing with Internet matters.

The Government, in its proposals for the regulation and facilitation of e-commerce (link to Recent Initiatives Page), asked for views on whether or not legislation was required to allow ISPs to prosper in the e-market place. It was argued by those who responded that legislation could lead to restrictive trade practices. ISPs argued that they should not be held liable for the actions of their customers and that intermediaries should be given some elements of common courier status.

Practical steps for ISPs

Until the Demon problem is resolved, or further assistance received from the Government, what should ISPs be doing? Ideally, they should:-

1.Review and update their disclaimers (and any service term conditions) in relation to all Internet services provided;

2.Consider monitoring messages (although, beware of the rights of individuals under the European Convention of Human Rights and the forthcoming Human Rights Act);

3.If put on notice of about a particular message, react. As a result of Demon, if there appear to be any grounds at all for the objection, it is probably best to delete the message sooner rather than later.