Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES IN
CYBER CRIME Raian Ali, John McAlaney, Shamal Faily, Keith Phalp, Vasilios Katos.
Bournemouth University
The 3rd International Workshop on Cybercrimes and Emerging Web Environments (CEWE’15). Co-located with DASC-2015. 26-28 October 2015, Liverpool, UK.
BACKGROUND
Mitigating circumstances in criminal law are
conditions which lessen the degree of
responsibility of an offender
Intention to cause less harm than actually
caused; lack of premeditation; mental disorder; disability; provocation; self-defence; misbelief of
doing a merciful job
Very little current consideration in relation to
cyber crime or online deviancy
BACKGROUND
The design of cyber system is often explicitly intended to produce an immersive experience
that engages the user completely
Possibly creating a flow state and impaired
decision making ability
Coupled with the disinhibition effect, perceived
anonymity and the ability to post messages/
information quickly and easily
CYBER DESIGN
The lack of precautionary and preventative
measures within the design of online platforms
could form the basis for a claim of mitigation
Arguably similar to the case of McDonalds being
sued after a person scalded themselves with hot coffee
Raises issues of if individuals could use the
possibility of mitigation to retrospectively claim
digital addiction or impaired decision making
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
WARNING LABELS
PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
Lack of understanding of the technology involved and reliance on informational influence
Possible manipulation by others (e.g. Anonymous
vs Scientology)
Group decision making biases and increased risk
Debate around digital addiction and diminished
responsibility
DIGITAL ADDICTION
Also known as internet addiction, compulsive
internet use, iDisorder and many other names
Not in the main text of the DSM-5, although
included in the appendix of something in need
of further research
Raises questions of corporate social responsibility
by digital technology companies
Unique opportunities within digital technology for
real time prevention and intervention
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
If the online environment is designed in such a way that it encourages people to act in a deviant manner should users be held completely responsible?
For example if a pedestrian crosses the road without looking and is hit by a car the driver may not be held entirely responsible, due to the negligence of the pedestrian
Given the aforementioned ability of software to monitor and actively intervene in the case of risky behaviour could software companies be argued to be especially negligent for failing to protect users?
CHALLENGES
Establishing blame and responsibility
Criminal or deviant acts taking part across
several countries
And several legal frameworks
Generating supporting evidence when a claim
for mitigating factors is made
Come and visit us in sunny Bournemouth!
Contact:
Dr Raian Ali – [email protected]
Dr John McAlaney – [email protected]
