Internet crimes, often referred to as cybercrimes, are offenses committed using the internet or other forms of digital communication. These crimes are particularly challenging because they often cross national and state borders, complicating enforcement and prosecution. The anonymity of the internet provides fertile ground for criminals to engage in a variety of illicit activities, ranging from hacking and data theft to more sinister acts like child exploitation and cyberstalking. In order to fully understand how these crimes are prosecuted, it is important to first discuss how the general principles of criminal law—namely, actus reus (the criminal act) and mens rea (the criminal intent)—apply to internet-based offenses.
Actus reus, the physical element of the crime, can take many forms in the realm of internet crime. Examples include unauthorized access to computer systems, fraudulent use of personal information, or the transmission of illegal materials across digital platforms. In some cases, even merely posting certain types of content may fulfill the actus reus requirement for certain offenses, particularly when it comes to content that is illegal by nature, such as child pornography. On the other hand, mens rea—the mental state or intent—varies significantly depending on the nature of the crime. Intent in cybercrimes can range from knowingly deceiving others to willfully causing harm or financial loss. In some cases, such as fraud, the prosecution must demonstrate that the offender intended to deceive for personal gain. Other crimes, like hacking, may be prosecuted under statutes that do not always require a clear malicious intent, as some hacking laws operate under strict liability, meaning intent is not always a necessary component.
To effectively combat internet crimes, a robust legal framework has developed at both the state and federal levels. Federal statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Wire Fraud Statute, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) provide the foundation for prosecuting many types of internet crimes. The CFAA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is perhaps the most commonly invoked federal law in cases involving hacking or unauthorized access to computer systems. It criminalizes a wide range of activities, including unauthorized access, data theft, and the transmission of malicious code. Similarly, the Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343) is often used to prosecute schemes that involve the use of the internet or other electronic communications to defraud victims of money or property. These federal laws are often complemented by state-level statutes that criminalize similar behaviors within their jurisdictions.
Hacking
Hacking, broadly defined, is the unauthorized access to or manipulation of computer systems. It is one of the most well-known types of internet crime and is often prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Under the CFAA, hacking is illegal when someone intentionally accesses a computer without authorization, or exceeds their authorized access, to obtain information, damage systems, or commit further crimes. This statute was significantly expanded after its enactment in 1986, reflecting the growing threat posed by computer crime. For example, one of the major provisions of the CFAA, found in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), prohibits causing damage to a computer by knowingly transmitting malicious code, such as a virus or worm.
A well-known example of hacking prosecuted under the CFAA is U.S. v. Morris, a 1991 case in which Robert T. Morris was convicted for launching one of the first large-scale internet worms. Morris, a graduate student at the time, released a worm that caused widespread disruption to thousands of computer systems. His conviction under the CFAA set a precedent for how the law could be applied to unauthorized access cases, even when the harm was not intentional but resulted from reckless conduct.
State laws also address hacking. California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Penal Code Section 502), for instance, criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems, much like the CFAA, but focuses on intrusions within the state. These state statutes often serve to complement federal laws when the crime does not cross state borders or involve national security interests.
Phishing and Online Fraud
Another common internet crime is phishing, a form of fraud where criminals impersonate legitimate organizations to deceive individuals into providing sensitive personal information, such as passwords, credit card numbers, or social security numbers. Phishing typically involves sending emails or creating fraudulent websites that closely resemble those of trusted institutions. Once a victim provides their information, the perpetrator uses it to commit further crimes, often involving identity theft or financial fraud.
Phishing schemes are frequently prosecuted under the Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343), which makes it illegal to devise a scheme to defraud or obtain money or property through false pretenses using wire, radio, or television communications. In the digital age, this statute applies broadly to internet-based schemes, including phishing. In U.S. v. Eddings (2010), for example, the defendant was convicted of wire fraud after orchestrating a phishing operation that targeted banking customers. Eddings sent emails designed to look like they came from legitimate financial institutions, tricking victims into providing their login credentials, which he then used to siphon funds from their accounts. This case illustrates how the wire fraud statute can be effectively used to prosecute internet-based deception.
In phishing and fraud cases, proving mens rea is critical. The prosecution must show that the defendant acted with the intent to deceive victims in order to benefit financially or otherwise. This requirement of intent distinguishes phishing from other internet activities that may not be intended to defraud or harm others, such as sending spam emails.
Cyberstalking and Online Harassment
Cyberstalking refers to the use of electronic communications to harass, threaten, or intimidate someone. This behavior can manifest through emails, social media, or messaging platforms, and often involves repeated unwanted contact that causes the victim to feel fear or emotional distress. Unlike traditional stalking, which typically involves physical presence or direct confrontation, cyberstalking can occur over long distances and across state or national borders, further complicating enforcement efforts.
The federal Interstate Stalking Act (18 U.S.C. § 2261A) addresses cyberstalking, making it a federal crime to use any form of electronic communication to place someone in fear of death or serious injury, or to cause substantial emotional distress. Because cyberstalking often involves communication that crosses state lines, federal jurisdiction is frequently invoked. A notable example is U.S. v. Sayer (2013), in which the defendant created fake online profiles of his ex-girlfriend, posting her personal information and encouraging others to harass her. This case demonstrates how courts apply the law to cyberstalking cases, where intent to harass and cause distress (the mens rea) is a critical component of the crime.
State laws also address cyberstalking. For instance, New York’s Penal Law Section 120.45 criminalizes stalking through electronic means. This statute makes it a crime to intentionally and repeatedly engage in conduct that places another person in reasonable fear of injury or harm. As with many internet crimes, proving the defendant’s intent is crucial for a conviction under cyberstalking laws.
Online Child Exploitation
One of the most heinous types of internet crime is the exploitation of children online. This can include the distribution of child pornography, the grooming of minors for sexual purposes, or the use of chat rooms and social media to solicit sexual contact with children. The anonymity of the internet has made it easier for predators to engage with minors under false pretenses, posing significant dangers to children who use social media and gaming platforms.
Federal law has responded to this threat with statutes like the PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. § 2252A), which criminalizes the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 2422 prohibits using the internet to entice or coerce a minor into illegal sexual activity. In cases like U.S. v. Hatch (2010), where the defendant used social media to contact minors and solicit explicit images, federal prosecutors applied these laws to hold offenders accountable for their actions.
At the state level, many jurisdictions have enacted laws to complement federal statutes. For example, Texas’s Penal Code § 33.021 prohibits the online solicitation of minors, making it a felony to engage in sexually explicit communications with children. As with other crimes, proving intent to harm or exploit the child is crucial in these cases.
Conclusion
Internet crimes represent a complex and evolving challenge in the criminal justice system. Both state and federal laws provide a framework for prosecuting a wide range of illegal activities conducted online, from hacking and phishing to cyberstalking and child exploitation. In each case, the prosecution must navigate the general elements of crime, establishing both the criminal act (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea) necessary for a conviction. As technology continues to evolve, so too will the methods criminals use to exploit it, requiring ongoing adaptations in both legal responses and enforcement strategies.
Key Terms
References and Further Reading
Modification History File Created: 07/17/2018 Last Modified: 10/21/2024
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
