ABSTRACT
The broad topic of ‘crime and cyberliberties’ encompasses two major subtopics: firstly, the extent to which online expression may be punished under new criminal laws, even if it would be lawful in the traditional print media; and secondly, the extent to which online privacy may be restricted to facilitate enforcement of existing criminal laws. In both contexts, many law enforcement officials argue that we have to make trade-offs between, on the one hand, individual rights and, on the other hand, public safety. In fact, though, the alleged dichotomy is oversimplified and misleading. Claims about the alleged unique dangers of online expression are exaggerated, and the types of criminal laws and law enforcement strategies that have worked effectively in other media are also effective in cyberspace. For example, children should be protected from exploitation in the production of child pornography through the same measures, regardless of whether the material is distributed through postal mail or e-mail. Indeed, individuals and organizations who are devoted to protecting children from exploitation and abuse—whether for the production of child pornography or any other purpose—have expressed frustration that resources that should be used to enforce existing laws are being diverted toward efforts to create new cyberspeech crimes, such as the two US laws criminalizing online material that is ‘indecent’, ‘patently offensive’, or ‘harmful to minors’. The many judges who have ruled on these laws—including the entire US Supreme Court—have agreed that they violate free expression rights and are not necessary for their stated purpose of protecting children. The battle to preserve online privacy has not been as successful in the US, where the government restricts strong encryption despite the vigorous objections of not only cyberlibertarians, but also the business community. Moreover, even some law enforcement and other government officials have concluded that, on balance, security concerns are aided, not undermined, by strong encryption, since it protects innocent individuals and legitimate businesses from cybercriminals, and it also protects governments and vital infrastructures from cyberterrorism. Most governments apparently recognize these facts since they have not joined the US in restricting encryption technology.
