crime vs. cybercrime

Pakistan's new cyber crime bill went into effect on 31 December 2007. Over the past few weeks, individuals and organizations have condemned the toughness of the bill, which limits online expression and communication that uses the Internet. This opens an interesting question about what it makes sense to put into a cyber crime bill, and what might be better treated elsewhere.

For example, blogger Teeth Maestro wrote:

The law provides for the death penalty for anyone causing the death of another person by means of email messages. A Federal Investigation Agency representative in Islamabad tried to justify the law by referring to Daniel Pearl’s murder and describing the exchange of emails between the kidnappers as a “cyber-crime.”
In this case, it seems that such communications could be better covered in a general criminal law that addresses communications that lead to a crime. Placing one type of communication in a separate layer of the law seems to introduce unnecessary complexity and a greater potential for unforeseen consequences.

Reporters Without Borders takes issue with the bill's treatment of user-generated content:

Article 13 on “Cyber stalking” makes it a crime to “take or distribute pictures or photographs of any person without his consent or knowledge.” Citizen journalism of the kind practised by bloggers is based on precisely this sort of activity.

With restrictions that limit citizen journalism, this distinction seems to be more difficult to place. On the one hand, standard press laws are often too narrow to accommodate the common practices of citizen journalism. On the other hand, if such practices end up lumped under a cyber crime provision, it can end up overbroad.

As we see more countries implement legislation that attempts to rein in what's happening on the Internet, these questions will continue.

[also...]

Also worrying, is a report of blogs being blocked again in Pakistan, contemporaneously with the new bill.