OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(2000) 890 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Creating a Safer Information Society by
Improving the Security of Information Infrastructures and
Combating Computer-related Crime
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Opportunities and Threats in the Information Society
National and international responses
Security of Information Infrastructures
5. Procedural law
Interception of communications
of traffic data
access and use
Practical co-operation at international level
Procedural law powers and jurisdiction
Evidential validity of computer data
Specialised units at the national level
Improved information and common rules for record
Co-operation between the various actors: the EU Forum
Action in other international fora
Europes transition to an information society is
being marked by profound developments in all aspects of human life: in
work, education and leisure, in government, industry and trade. The new
information and communication technologies are having a revolutionary
and fundamental impact on our economies and societies. The success of
the information society is important for Europes growth, competitiveness
and employment opportunities, and has far-reaching economic, social and
The Commission launched the eEurope initiative
in December 1999 in order to ensure that Europe can reap the benefits
of the digital technologies and that the emerging information society
is socially inclusive. In June 2000, The Feira European Council adopted
a comprehensive eEurope Action Plan and called for its implementation
before the end of 2002. The Action Plan highlights the importance of network
security and the fight against cybercrime.
Information and communication infrastructures have become
a critical part of our economies. Unfortunately, these infrastructures
have their own vulnerabilities and offer new opportunities for criminal
conduct. These criminal activities may take a large variety of forms and
may cross many borders. Although, for a number of reasons, there are no
reliable statistics, there is little doubt that these offences constitute
a threat to industry investment and assets, and to safety and confidence
in the information society. Some recent examples of denial of service
and virus attacks have been reported to have caused extensive financial
There is scope for action both in terms of preventing
criminal activity by enhancing the security of information infrastructures
and by ensuring that the law enforcement authorities have the appropriate
means to act, whilst fully respecting the fundamental rights of individuals.
The European Union has already taken a number of steps
to fight harmful and illegal content on the Internet, to protect intellectual
property and personal data, to promote electronic commerce and the use
of electronic signatures and to enhance the security of transactions.
In April 1998, the Commission presented to the Council the results of
a study on computer-related crime (the so-called COMCRIME
study). In October 1999, the Tampere Summit of the European Council concluded
that high-tech crime should be included in the efforts to agree on common
definitions and sanctions. The European Parliament has also called for
commonly acceptable definitions of computer-related offences and for effective
approximation of legislation, in particular in substantive criminal law.
The Council of the European Union has adopted a Common Position on the
Council of Europe cybercrime convention negotiations and has adopted a
number of initial elements as part of the Unions strategy against
high-tech crime. Some EU Member States have also been at the forefront
of relevant G8 activities.
This Communication discusses the need for and possible
forms of a comprehensive policy initiative in the context of the broader
Information Society and Freedom, Security and Justice objectives
for improving the security of information infrastructures and combating
cybercrime, in accordance with the commitment of the European Union to
respect fundamental human rights.
In the short-term, the Commission believes that there
is a clear need for an EU instrument to ensure that Members States have
effective sanctions in place to combat child pornography on the Internet.
The Commission will introduce later this year a proposal for a Framework
Decision which, within the wider context of a package covering issues
associated with the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in
human beings, will include provisions for the approximation of laws and
In the longer-term, the Commission will bring forward
legislative proposals to further approximate substantive criminal law
in the area of high-tech crime. In accordance with the conclusions of
the European Council in Tampere in October 1999, the Commission will also
consider the options for mutual recognition of pre-trial orders associated
with cybercrime investigations.
In parallel, the Commission intends to promote the creation
of specialised computer-crime police units at the national level, where
they do not already exist, support appropriate technical training for
law enforcement and encourage European information security actions.
At the technical level and in line with the legal framework,
the Commission will promote R&D to understand and reduce vulnerabilities
and will stimulate the dissemination of know-how.
The Commission intends also to set up an EU Forum in
which law enforcement agencies, Internet Service Providers, telecommunications
operators, civil liberties organisations, consumer representatives, data
protection authorities and other interested parties will be brought together
with the aim of enhancing mutual understanding and co-operation at EU
level. The Forum will seek to raise public awareness of the risks posed
by criminals on the Internet, to promote best practice for security, to
identify effective counter-crime tools and procedures to combat computer-related
crime and to encourage further development of early warning and crisis
INVITATION TO COMMENT ON THIS COMMUNICATION
The European Commission would like to invite comments
from all interested parties on the issues addressed in this Communication.
Comments may be sent up to 23.03.2001 via e-mail to the following address:
Comments will in principle be published on the web, unless
the sender explicitly requests the comment not to be published. Anonymous
comments will not be published. The Commission reserves the right not
to publish comments it receives (e.g., because the comments contain offensive
language). Comments will be available via a link at the following website:
Suggestions as to the technical format and details of
the publications policy will be available at this web-site. It is advised
to check this site before sending in your comments.
The European Commission will also organise a public hearing
of interested parties on the issues addressed in the Communication. This
hearing will take place on 7.03.2001. Requests for an invitation to submit
a statement at this hearing may be sent up to 20.02.2001 via e-mail to
the following address:
or by post to the following address:
200 Wetstraat/Rue de la Loi
The European Commission reserves the right to make a
selection of parties to be heard. Any selection will be based on the number
of requests and the wish to have a wide coverage of interests.
Opportunities and Threats in the Information Society
The increasing affordability and use of the Information
Society Technologies (ISTs) and the globalisation of the economy are characteristics
of our era. Further technological development and growth in use of open
networks, such as the Internet, over the coming years will provide major
new opportunities and will pose new challenges.
At the Lisbon Summit of March 2000, the European Council
stressed the importance of the transition to a competitive, dynamic and
knowledge-based economy, and invited the Council and the Commission to
draw up an eEurope Action plan to make most of this opportunity.
This Action Plan, prepared by the Commission and the Council, adopted
by the Feira Summit of the European Council in June 2000, includes actions
to enhance network security and the establishment of a co-ordinated and
coherent approach to cybercrime by the end of 2002.
The information infrastructure has become a critical
part of the backbone of our economies. Users should be able to rely on
the availability of information services and have the confidence that
their communications and data are safe from unauthorised access or modification.
The take up of electronic commerce and the full realisation of Information
Society depend on this.
The new digital and wireless technologies are already
all pervasive. They give us the freedom to be mobile and yet always be
connected, connected to a myriad of services built upon networks of networks.
They give us the possibility to participate; to teach and to learn, to
play together and to work together, to get involved in the political process.
As societies though become increasingly reliant on these technologies,
effective practical and legal means will have to be employed to help manage
the associated risks.
Information Society Technologies (ISTs) can be and are
being used for perpetrating and facilitating various criminal activities.
In the hands of persons acting with bad faith, malice, or grave negligence,
these technologies may become tools for activities that endanger or injure,
the life, property or dignity of individuals or damage the public interest.
The classical security approach called for strict organisational,
geographic and structural compartmentalisation of information according
to sensitivity and category. This is no longer really feasible in this
digital world since information processing is distributed, services follow
mobile users and interoperability of systems is a prerequisite. Innovative
solutions relying on emerging technologies are replacing traditional security
approaches. These solutions involve the use of encryption and digital
signatures, new access control and authentication tools and software filters
of all kinds. Ensuring secure and reliable information infrastructures
not only requires a range of technologies but also their correct deployment
and effective use. Some of these technologies already exist but often
users are either not aware of their existence, of the ways to use them,
or of the reasons why they may even be necessary.
National and international responses
Computer-related crimes are committed across cyber space
and do not stop at the conventional state-borders. They can, in principle,
be perpetrated from anywhere and against any computer user in the world.
It has been generally recognised that effective action to combat computer-related
crime is necessary at both national and international level.
On the national level, comprehensive and internationally
oriented answers to the new challenges of network security and computer
crime are often still missing. In most countries, reactions to computer
crime focus on national law (especially criminal law), neglecting alternative
Despite the efforts of international and supranational
organisations, the various national laws world-wide show remarkable differences,
especially with respect to the criminal law provisions on hacking, trade
secret protection and illegal content. Considerable differences also exist
with respect to the coercive powers of investigative agencies (especially
with respect to encrypted data and investigations in international networks),
the range of jurisdiction in criminal matters, and with respect to the
liability of intermediary service providers on the one hand and content
providers on the other hand. Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce
amends this as regards the liability of intermediary service providers
on certain intermediary activities. The Directive also prohibits Member
States from imposing such intermediary service providers a general obligation
to monitor the information which they transmit or store.
On the international and supranational levels, the need
to effectively combat computer-related crime has been broadly recognised
and various organisations have been co-ordinating or attempting to harmonise
relevant activities. The G8 Justice and Home Affairs Ministers adopted
a set of principles and a 10-point action plan in December 1997, which
was endorsed by the G8 Birmingham summit in May 1998 and is currently
being implemented. The Council of Europe (C.o.E.) started preparing an
international convention on cyber-crime in February 1997 and is expected
to complete this task in 2001. Combating cybercrime is also on the agenda
in bilateral discussions the European Commission has with some governments
(apart from the EU). A Joint EC/US Task Force on Critical Infrastructure
Protection has been established.
The UN and OECD have also been active in this area, and
it is being discussed in international fora such as the Global Business
Dialogue and the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue.
At the European Union level, until recently, legislative
action has mainly taken the form of measures in the fields of copyright,
the protection of the fundamental right to privacy and data protection,
conditional access services, electronic commerce, electronic signatures
and in particular the liberalisation of trade in encryption products,
which are indirectly related to computer crime.
A number of important non-legislative measures have also
been taken in the last 3-4 years. These include the Action Plan against
illegal and harmful content on the Internet which co-finances awareness
actions, experiments in rating and filtering of content and hot-lines,
and initiatives concerning the protection of minors and human dignity
in the information society, child pornography and interception of communications
for law-enforcement purposes. The EU has for a long time been supporting
R&D Projects which aim at promoting security and trust in information
infrastructures and electronic transactions and has recently increased
the associated IST Programme budget allocations. Research and operational
projects aimed at promoting specialised training of law enforcement personnel
as well as co-operation between law enforcement and industry have also
been supported in the framework of the Third Pillar Programmes such as
STOP, FALCONE, OISIN and GROTIUS.
The Action Plan to combat organised crime, adopted by
the JHA Council in May 1997 and endorsed by the European Council of Amsterdam,
included a request for a study on computer related crime to be prepared
by the Commission by the end of year 1998. This study, the so-called COMCRIME
study, was presented by the Commission to the Council Multi-Disciplinary
Working Group against organised crime in April 1998. This Communication
is partly a follow-up to the JHA Council request.
Before drafting this Communication, the Commission considered
it appropriate to undertake informal consultations with representatives
from Member States law enforcement and data protection supervisory authorities
and from the European industry (mostly ISPs and telecommunications operators).
On the basis of the analysis and the recommendations
made by the study, the conclusions drawn from the consultation process,
the new possibilities provided for by the Treaty of Amsterdam and the
work already accomplished in the EU, the G8 and the C.o.E., this Communication
will examine various options for further action by the EU against computer-related
crime. On the European Union level the chosen solutions should not lead
to any impediment for and fragmentation of the Internal Market, nor to
measures which undermine the protection of fundamental rights.
Security of Information Infrastructures
In the information society, user-controlled global networks
are gradually replacing the older generation of national communication
networks. One of the reasons for the success of the Internet is that it
has given users access to the very newest technologies. Moores Law
predicts that computing power doubles every 18 months. Communications
technology however is developing at an even faster pace. One result of
this is that the volume of data carried over the Internet has been doubling
in periods of less than a year.
The classical telephone networks were constructed and
operated by national organisations. Its users had little choice of services
and no control over the environment. The first data networks that were
developed were built on the same philosophy of a centrally controlled
environment. Security within these environments reflected this.
The Internet and other new networks are very different,
and security needs to be handled accordingly. Intelligence and control
in these networks is mostly at the periphery, where the users and services
are. The core of the network is simple and efficient, and essentially
dedicated to the task of transmitting data. There is limited checking
or control of content. It is only at the final destination where the bits
become the sound of a voice, the image of an x-ray or the confirmation
of a bank transaction. Security is therefore to an important extent a
responsibility of the users, as only they can appreciate the value of
the bits being sent or received, and can determine the level of protection
The user environment is therefore a key part of the information
infrastructure. Security techniques have to be implemented there with
the permission and participation of the user and according to his/her
needs. This is particularly important when one considers the increasing
range of activities that people are carrying out from the same terminal.
They work and play, they watch television and authorise bank transfers,
all from the same device.
Several security technologies are available and new technologies
are being developed. The advantages of open source development in terms
of security are becoming clearer. Much work has been done on formal methods
and on security evaluation criteria. The use of encryption technologies
and electronic signatures are becoming indispensable, particularly with
the growth in wireless access. An increasing variety of authentication
mechanisms is required to meet our different needs in the environments
in which we interact. In some environments, we may need or wish to remain
anonymous. In others, we may need to be able to prove a certain characteristic
while not revealing our identity, such as being an adult or being an employee
or a client of a particular company. In yet other situations, it may be
necessary to give proof or our identity. Also software filters are becoming
ever more sophisticated, and enable us to protect ourselves or those in
our care from data we do not want, such as undesirable content, spam mail,
malicious software and other forms of attack. The implementation and management
of such security requirements within the Internet and new networks also
involve considerable expense to industry and users. Therefore it is important
to encourage innovation and commercial use of security technology and
Naturally, also the shared infrastructure of communication
links and name-servers has its security aspects. Data transmission depends
on the physical links whereby data is routed from one computer to another.
These links have to be put in place and protected in such a way that transmission
remains possible in spite of accidents, attacks and an ever increasing
volume of traffic. Communication also depends on critical services such
as those provided by the name servers, and in particular on the small
number of root name servers, that provide the needed addresses. Each of
these components will also need appropriate protection, which will vary
according to the part of the name space and the user base that is being
Driven by the objective of bringing more flexibility
and responsiveness to peoples needs, information infrastructure
technologies have become increasingly complex with often insufficient
design effort devoted to security. In addition, this complexity involves
more and more sophisticated and interconnected software programmes, which
sometimes include weaknesses, security holes, that may easily be exploited
for attacks. As cyberspace gets more and more complex and its components
more and more sophisticated, new and unforeseen vulnerabilities may emerge.
Several technological mechanisms already exist and new
ones are being developed to improve security in cyber-space. The response
- To secure critical elements of the infrastructure through the deployment
of public-key infrastructures (PKI), the development of secure protocols,
- To secure private and public environments through the development
of quality software, firewalls, anti-virus programs, electronic rights
management systems, encryption, etc.
- To secure authentication of authorised users, use of smart cards,
biometric identification, electronic signatures, role-based technologies,
This calls for an increased effort to develop security
technologies, involving co-operation in order to achieve a necessary interoperability
between solutions through agreements on international standards.
It is important also that any future conceptual framework
for security be an integral part of the overall architecture, addressing
threats and vulnerabilities from the outset of the design process. This
contrasts with traditional add-on approaches, which have necessarily attempted
to plug the holes exploited by an increasingly sophisticated criminal
The EU Information Society Technologies (IST) Programme,
in particular work relating to information-, and network security, and
other confidence-building technologies, provides a framework to develop
capability and technologies to understand and tackle emerging challenges
related to computer crime. These technologies include technical tools
to protect against infringement of the fundamental rights to privacy and
personal data and other personal rights and to fight computer crime. In
addition, in the context of the IST Programme, a dependability initiative
has been launched. This initiative will contribute towards trust and confidence
in highly inter-linked information infrastructures and in tightly networked
embedded systems by promoting dependability awareness and dependability
enabling technologies. An integral part of this initiative is international
co-operation. The IST Programme has developed working relationships with
DARPA and NSF and has established, in collaboration with the US Department
of State, a Joint EC/US Task Force on Critical Infrastructure Protection.
Finally, the implementation of security obligations following
in particular from the EU Data Protection Directives contributes to enhancing
security of the networks and of data processing.
Modern information and communications systems make it
possible to perform illegal activities from anywhere to anywhere in the
world at any time. There are no reliable statistics available on the full
scale of the computer-related crime phenomenon. The number of intrusions
detected and reported up to now, probably under-represent the scope of
the problem. Because of limited awareness and experience of system administrators
and users, many intrusions are not detected. In addition, many companies
are not willing to report cases of computer abuse, to avoid bad publicity
and exposure to future attacks. Many police forces do not yet keep statistics
on the use of computers and communication systems involved in these and
other crimes. However, the number of illegal activities can be expected
to grow as computer and network use increases. There is a clear need to
gather reliable evidence on the significance of computer-related crime.
In this Communication, computer-related crime is addressed
in the broadest sense, as any crime that in some way or other involves
the use of information technology. However, different views exist on what
constitutes "computer-related crime." The terms "computer
crime," "computer-related crime," "high-tech crime"
and "cybercrime" are often used interchangeably. A difference
can be made between computer specific crimes and traditional crimes performed
with the aid of computer technology. A topical example of this can be
found in the realm of Customs where the Internet proves to be an instrument
for committing typical crimes against Customs Law, such as smuggling,
counterfeit, etc. Whereas the computer-specific crimes require updates
of the definitions of crimes in national criminal codes, the traditional
crimes performed with the aid of computers call for improved co-operation
and procedural measures.
Yet all of them benefit from the availability of information
and communication networks which are borderless and from the circulation
of data which is intangible and extremely volatile. These characteristics
call for a review of existing measures to address illegal activities performed
on or using these networks and systems.
Many countries have passed legislation to address computer-related
crime. In European Union Member States, a number of legal instruments
have been issued. Other than a Council Decision on child pornography on
the Internet, there are no EU legal instruments so far directly addressing
computer-related crime, but there are a number of indirectly relevant
The main issues addressed by legislation in relation
to computer specific crimes at EU or Member State level are:
Privacy Offences: Various countries have introduced
criminal law addressing illegal collection, storage, modification, disclosure
or dissemination of personal data. In the European Union, two Directives
have been adopted that approximate the national laws on the protection
of privacy with regard to the processing of personal data. Article 24
of the Directive 95/46/EC clearly obliges Member States to adopt all suitable
measures to ensure the full implementation of the provisions of the Directive,
including sanctions to be imposed in case of infringements of the provisions
of national laws. The fundamental rights to privacy and data protection
are furthermore included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Content-related offences: The dissemination,
especially via the Internet, of pornography, in particular child pornography,
racist statements and information inciting violence raises the question
as to what extent these acts could be confronted with the help of criminal
law. The Commission has supported the view that what is illegal off-line
should also be illegal on-line. The author or the content provider may
be liable under criminal law. A Council Decision has been adopted to combat
child pornography on the Internet.
The liability of the intermediary service providers,
whose networks or servers are used for the transmission or storage of
third-party information, has been addressed by the Directive on electronic
Economic crimes, unauthorised access and sabotage:
Many countries have passed laws that address computer-specific economic
crime and define new offences related to unauthorised access to computer
systems (e.g., hacking, computer sabotage and distribution of viruses,
computer espionage, computer forgery, and computer fraud) and new forms
of committing offences (e.g., computer manipulations instead of deceiving
a human). The object of the crime is often intangible, e.g., money in
bank deposits or computer programmes. At present, there are no EU instruments
regarding such types of illegal activity. Concerning prevention, the recently
adopted revised dual-use goods regulation contributed significantly to
liberalise the availability of encryption products.
Intellectual Property Offences: Two Directives
have been adopted, on the legal protection of computer programs and of
databases, relating directly to the Information Society and providing
for sanctions. A Common Position on a proposal for a Directive on copyright
and related rights in the Information Society has been adopted by the
Council . This is expected to be adopted early 2001. The violation of
copyright and related rights as well as the circumvention of technological
measures designed to protect these rights are to be sanctioned. As regards
counterfeiting and piracy, the Commission will present, before the end
of 2000, a Communication taking stock of the consultation process initiated
with its 1998 Green Paper and announcing a relevant action plan. As the
Internet becomes more and more important commercially, we are beginning
to see new disputes around domain names related to cybersquatting, warehousing
and reverse hijacking, and, naturally, there are also calls for rules
and procedures to help deal with these problems.
Enforcement of taxation obligations also needs to be
addressed. In the case of commercial transactions where the recipient
of on-line supply of an electronic service is located in the EU, this
will in most cases give rise to tax obligations in the jurisdiction where
consumption of such a service is deemed to take place. Failure to comply
with tax obligations exposes an operator to civil (and in some cases criminal)
sanctions which may include seizure of bank accounts or other assets.
Although voluntary compliance is always the preferred option, such obligations
must ultimately be enforceable.
Co-operation between tax administrations is a key element
in achieving this objective. Giving the possibility to some people to
protect their lawful transactions will also give the same means to criminals
to protect their unlawful transactions. The tools that give us secure
e-commerce can also be used to support drug trafficking. Priorities will
need to be identified and choices will need to be made.
Protecting the victims of computer-related crime also
needs to cover issues of liability, redress and compensation which arise
when computer-related crimes do occur. Confidence depends not only on
appropriate technology being used, but also on the accompanying legal
and economic guarantees. These questions will need to be examined across
the range of computer-related crimes.
There is a need for effective substantive and procedural
law instruments approximated at global, or at least at European level,
to protect the victims of computer-related crime and to bring the perpetrators
to justice. At the same time, personal communications, privacy and data
protection, access to and dissemination of information, are fundamental
rights in modern democracies. This is why the availability and use of
effective prevention measures are desirable so to reduce the need to apply
enforcement measures. Any legislative measures that might be necessary
to tackle computer-related crime need to strike the right balance between
these important interests.
Approximation of substantive law in the area of high
tech crime will ensure a minimum level of protection for victims of cybercrime
(for example, victims of child pornography), will help to meet the requirement
that an activity must be an offence in both countries before mutual legal
assistance can be provided to assist a criminal investigation (the dual
criminality requirement), and will provide greater clarity for industry
(for example, on what constitutes illegal content).
In fact, an EU legislative instrument approximating substantive
criminal law in the field of computer-related crime has been on the EU
agenda following the Tampere Summit of the European Council in October
1999. The Summit included high-tech crime in a limited list of areas where
efforts should be made to agree on common definitions, incriminations
and sanctions. This is included in Recommendation 7 of the European Union
strategy for the new Millennium on the prevention and control of organised
crime adopted by the JHA Council in March 2000. It is also part of the
Commission Work Programme for the Year 2000 and the Scoreboard for the
establishment of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice, produced by
the Commission and adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on
27 March 2000.
The Commission has followed the work of the Council of
Europe on the Cybercrime Convention. Four categories of criminal offences
are listed in the current draft C.o.E. Cybercrime Convention: 1) Offences
against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data
and systems; 2) Computer-related offences; 3) Content-related offences;
4) Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights.
EU approximation could go further than the C.o.E. Convention,
which will represent a minimum of international approximation. It could
be operational within a shorter period of time than the entry into force
of the C.o.E. Convention. It would bring computer crime within the realms
of EU law and introduce EU enforcement mechanisms.
The Commission attaches great importance to ensuring
that the European Union is able to take effective action in particular
against child pornography on the Internet. The Commission welcomes the
Council Decision on combating child pornography on the Internet, but shares
the view of the European Parliament that further action is required to
approximate national laws. The Commission intends to introduce later this
year a proposal for a Council Framework Decision that will include provisions
for the approximation of laws and sanctions on child pornography on the
In accordance with the Tampere conclusions, the Commission
will bring forward a legislative proposal under Title VI of the TEU to
approximate high tech crime offences. This will build on the progress
made at the Council of Europe, and will address in particular the need
to approximate legislation relating to hacking and denial of service attacks.
The proposal will include standard definitions for the European Union
in this area. This could also go further than the draft Council of Europe
Convention by ensuring that serious cases of hacking and denial of service
attacks are punishable by a minimum penalty in all Member States.
Furthermore, the Commission will examine the scope for
action against racism and xenophobia on the Internet with a view to bringing
forward a proposal for a Council Framework Decision under Title VI of
the TEU covering both off-line and on-line racist and xenophobic activity.
This will take account of the forthcoming evaluation of the implementation
by Member States of the Joint Action of 15 July 1996 concerning action
to combat racism and xenophobia. The Joint Action was a first step towards
approximation of criminal offences relating to racism and xenophobia,
but there is a need for further approximation within the European Union.
The importance and sensitivity of this issue has been highlighted by the
decision of a French court on 20 November 2000 requiring Yahoo to block
French users from accessing sites selling Nazi memorabilia.
Finally, the Commission will consider how to improve
the effectiveness of efforts against the illicit drugs trade on the Internet,
the importance of which is recognised in the European Union Drugs Strategy
2000-2004 endorsed at the European Council in Helsinki.
5. Procedural law
The very nature of computer-related criminal offences
brings procedural issues to the forefront of national and international
attention as different sovereignties, jurisdictions and laws come into
play. More than in any other transnational crime, the speed, mobility
and flexibility of computer crime challenge the existing rules of criminal
Approximation of procedural law powers will improve the
protection of victims by ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the
powers they need to investigate offences on their own territory, and will
ensure that they are able to respond quickly and effectively to requests
from other countries for co-operation.
It is also important to ensure that measures taken on
the basis of criminal law, which generally falls with the competence of
Member States and Title VI of the TEU, are in accordance with Community
law requirements. In particular, the Court of Justice has consistently
held that such legislative provisions may not discriminate against persons
to whom Community law gives the right to equal treatment or restrict the
fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law.Any new powers for law
enforcement need to be assessed against Community law and their impact
In the European Union, there is a general principle of
confidentiality of communications (and related traffic data). Interceptions
are illegal unless they are authorised by law when necessary in specific
cases for limited purposes. This follows from Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights, referred to in Article 6 of the TEU and more
particularly from Directives 95/46/EC and 97/66/EC.
All Member States have a legal framework in place to
allow law enforcement to obtain judicial orders (or, in the case of two
Member States, a warrant personally authorised by a senior Minister) for
the interception of communications on the public telecommunications network.
This legislation, which has to be in line with Community law to the extent
that it applies, contains safeguards protecting individuals fundamental
right to privacy, such as limiting the use of interception to investigations
of serious crimes, requiring that interception in individual investigations
should be necessary and proportionate, or ensuring that the individual
is informed about the interception as soon as it will no longer hamper
the investigation. In many Member States, interception legislation contains
obligations for (public service) telecommunications operators to provide
for interception capabilities. A 1995 Council Resolution was aimed at
co-ordinating interception requirements.
Traditional network operators, in particular those offering
voice services, have in the past established working relations with law
enforcement to facilitate lawful interception of communications. Telecommunications
liberalisation and the explosion of Internet use have attracted many entrants
to the marketplace, who have been confronted afresh with interception
requirements. Questions on regulations, technical feasibility, allocation
of costs and commercial impact will need to be discussed in government-industry
dialogues together with all other parties concerned including data protection
New technologies make it essential that Member States
work together if they are to maintain their capabilities for lawful interception
of communications. Where Member States introduce new technical interception
requirements on telecommunications operators and Internet service providers,
the Commission believes these standards should be co-ordinated internationally
to prevent distortion of the Single Market, to minimise the costs for
industry and to respect privacy and data protection requirements. The
standards should be public and open where possible and should not introduce
weaknesses into the communications infrastructure.
In the context of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance
in Criminal Matters, an approach has been agreed to facilitate co-operation
on legal interception. The Convention contains provisions on the interception
of satellite telephone communication, and on interception of communications
of a person on the territory of another Member State. The Commission believes
that the interception rules in the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention
constitute the maximum possible at the current stage. The text of the
Convention is technology neutral; it will have to be tested how it will
work in practice before any improvements can be considered. The Commission
will review its implementation with Member States, industry, users and
data protection supervisory authorities to ensure that relevant initiatives
are effective, transparent and well balanced.
Abusive, indiscriminate use of interception capabilities,
particularly internationally, will raise human rights questions and will
undermine citizens trust in the Information Society. The Commission
has seen with grave concern reports on alleged abuses of interception
of traffic data
To investigate and prosecute crimes involving the use
of the communications networks, including the Internet, law enforcement
authorities frequently use traffic data when they are stored by service
providers for billing purposes. As the price charged for a communication
is becoming less and less dependent on distance and destination, and service
providers move towards flat rate billing, there will no longer be any
need to store traffic data for billing purposes. Law enforcement authorities
fear that this will reduce potential material for criminal investigations
and therefore advocate that service providers keep certain traffic data
for at least a minimum period of time so that these data may be used for
law enforcement purposes.
In accordance with the EU personal Data Protection Directives,
both the general purpose-limitation principles of Directive 95/46/EC and
the more specific provisions of Directive 97/66/EC, traffic data must
be erased or made anonymous immediately after the telecommunications service
is provided, unless they are necessary for billing purposes. For flat
rate or free-of-charge access to telecommunications services, service
providers are in principle not allowed to preserve traffic data.
Under the EU Data Protection Directives, Member States
may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the obligation
to erase traffic data when this constitutes a necessary measure for, amongst
others, the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal
offences or of unauthorised use of the telecommunications system.
However, any legislative measure at national level that
may provide for the retention of traffic data for law enforcement purposes
would need to fulfil certain conditions: the proposed measures need to
be appropriate, necessary and proportionate, as required by Community
law and international law, including Directive 97/66/EC and 95/46/EC,
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights of 4 November
1950 and the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals
with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 28 January 1981.
This is particularly relevant for measures that would involve the routine
retention of data on a large part of the population.
Some Member States are taking legal initiatives requiring
or allowing service providers to store certain categories of traffic data,
not needed for billing purposes, after the provision of the service but
which are considered useful for criminal investigations.
The scope and form of these initiatives varies considerably,
but they are all based on the idea that more data should be available
for law enforcement authorities than would be the case if service providers
only process data which are strictly needed for the provision of the service.
The Commission is examining these measures in the light of existing Community
The European Parliament is sensitive to privacy issues
and generally has taken a stance in favour of strong protection of personal
data. However, in discussions on combating child pornography on the Internet,
the European Parliament has expressed an opinion favouring a general obligation
to preserve traffic data for a period of three months.
This illustrates the importance of the context in which
a sensitive topic such as traffic data retention is discussed and the
challenge facing policy makers seeking to strike appropriate balances.
The Commission considers that any solution on the complex
issue of retention of traffic data should be well founded, proportionate
and achieve a fair balance between the different interests at stake. Only
an approach that brings together the expertise and capacities of government,
industry, data protection supervisory authorities and users will succeed
in meeting such goals. A consistent approach in all Member States on this
complex issue would be highly desirable, to meet the objectives of both
effectiveness and proportionality and to avoid the situation where both
law enforcement and the Internet community would have to deal with a patchwork
of diverse technical and legal environments.
There are quite different important concerns to be taken
into account. On one hand, data protection supervisory authorities have
considered that the most effective means to reduce unacceptable risks
to privacy while recognising the needs for effective law enforcement is
that traffic data should in principle not be kept only for law enforcement
purposes. On the other hand, law enforcement authorities have stated that
they consider the retention of a minimum amount of traffic data for a
minimum period of time necessary to facilitate criminal investigations.
Industry has an interest to co-operate in the fight against
crimes like hacking and computer-fraud, but should not be confronted with
measures that are unreasonably costly. The economic impact of any measures
should be carefully analysed and compared with the effectiveness of such
a measure in the fight against cybercrime in order to avoid making the
Internet more costly and less affordable for users. Adequate security
of any retained traffic data would have to be ensured.
In any case, industry will have a key role to play in
contributing, to the process of creating a safer Information Society.
Users should have confidence in the safety of the Information Society
and feel protected from crime and from infringements of their privacy.
The Commission fully supports and encourages a constructive
dialogue between law enforcement, industry, data protection authorities
and consumer organisations as well as other parties that might be concerned.
Within the framework of the proposed EU Forum (see point 6.4 of this
Communication), the Commission will urge all the parties concerned to
discuss in-depth, as a matter of priority, the complex issue of retention
of traffic data with a view to jointly finding appropriate, balanced and
proportionate solutions fully respecting the fundamental rights to privacy
and data protection. On the basis of the outcome of this work, the Commission
will be able to assess the need for any legislative or non-legislative
actions at EU level.
access and use
Law enforcement experts have expressed concern that anonymity
may result in non-accountability and could seriously impede the possibility
to catch certain criminals. Anonymous use of mobile telephony is possible
in some countries through pre-pay cards (not in others). Anonymous access
to and use of the Internet is offered by some service and access providers,
including re-mailers and Internet cafés. A degree of anonymity is also
facilitated by the system of dynamic Internet addressing, in which addresses
are not allocated to users on a permanent basis but only for the duration
of a given session.
In their discussions with the Commission, some representatives
from industry have not been in favour of full anonymity, partly for their
own security, anti-fraud and network integrity purposes. The London Internet
Exchange has pointed to best practice guidelines they had issued which
had proved useful in the UK. However, other industry representatives and
privacy experts have stated that without anonymity it is not possible
to guarantee fundamental rights.
The Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party has issued
a Recommendation on the subject of anonymous use of the Internet. It considers
the issue of anonymity on the Internet as being at the centre of a dilemma
for governments and international organisations. On the one hand the possibility
of remaining anonymous is essential if the fundamental rights to privacy
and freedom of expression are to be maintained in cyberspace. On the other
hand the ability to participate and communicate on-line without revealing
ones identity runs against the grain of initiatives being developed
to support other key areas of public policy, such as the fight against
illegal and harmful content, financial fraud or copyright infringements.
Of course such apparent conflict between different public policy objectives
is not new. In the context of the more traditional off-line modes of communication,
such as letter and parcel post, the telephone, newspapers, or broadcasting
via radio and television, a balance between these objectives has been
achieved. The challenge facing policy-makers today is to ensure that this
balanced approach, which guarantees basic rights while permitting proportionate
restrictions to these rights in limited and specified circumstances, is
maintained in the new context of cyberspace. Central to this balance will
be the extent of, and limits to, a persons ability to participate
on-line in an anonymous fashion.
In the concluding Declaration of the Ministerial Conference
in Bonn on Global Information Networks, 6-8 July 1997, it was stated that
the principle should be that where the user can choose to remain anonymous
off-line, that choice should also be available on-line. There is a clear
consensus therefore that activity on networks should be viewed using the
basic legal principles that apply elsewhere. The Internet is not an anarchic
ghetto where societys rules do not apply. Equally, though, the ability
of governments and public authorities to restrict the rights of individuals
and monitor potentially unlawful behaviour should be no greater on public
networks than it is in the outside, off-line world. The requirement that
restrictions to fundamental rights and freedoms be properly justified,
necessary and proportional in view of other public policy objectives,
must also apply in cyberspace.
In the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party recommendation
it is indicated in detail how this may be achieved in specific cases (for
example concerning e-mail, newsgroups, etc). The Commission shares the
views expressed by the Working Party.
Practical co-operation at international level
In the recent past, world-wide combined law enforcement
operations, such as Operations Starburst and Cathedral against paedophile
rings, have shown the value of co-ordinated international action by law
enforcement and judiciary, both in exchanging information at the preliminary
stage and in preventing the tipping off of other ring members when arrests
and seizures are made. The Internet has also proved to be a valuable and
efficient tool for police and customs investigations where it is used
as an instrument for committing traditional crimes, such as counterfeiting
and smuggling.On the other hand, these operations have also revealed the
major legal and operational difficulties with which law enforcement and
judiciary were confronted while managing this action, such as preparation
of cross border evidence or commission rogatoire, victim identification,
and the role of intergovernmental organisations dealing with police issues
(Interpol and Europol in particular).
In the field of practical international co-operation
measures international networks for the exchange of information are becoming
increasingly important for police and customs authorities.
Within the G8, a 24 hour/7 day information network of
law-enforcement points of contact has been established and is already
operational. Its main purpose is to receive and respond to urgent requests
for co-operation in cases involving electronic evidence. The network has
been used successfully in a number of cases. The EU JHA Council on 19
March 1998 endorsed the 10 Principles to combat high-tech crime adopted
by the G8 and invited the non-G8 Countries of the Member States of the
EU to join the network. These contact points should co-operate directly,
supplementing existing structures of mutual assistance and channels for
Creation of such a network is also foreseen by the draft
C.o.E. Convention. Reference to a 24h/7d network of points of contact
exists also in the Council Decision on combating Child Pornography on
the Internet and in the EU Common Position on the draft C.o.E. Convention
on cyber-crime and in the Council decision endorsing the G8 action plan,
but no concrete EU-specific initiatives have yet been taken.
The Commission considers that given the need for appropriate
expertise and expedited action in this field, the Councils intentions
should be implemented without delay. To be successful, however,
such a network would require both legally and technically literate staff,
which implies appropriate training.
There is a similar need to intensify co-operation and
information exchange between customs authorities. Existing forms of co-operation
should be enhanced, and new means of managing joint operations and exchanging
information should be developed. With due regard to data protection requirements,
there is a growing consensus among customs authorities that international
information networks should be formed to further facilitate the exchange
of information. There is also a need for greater resources to be invested
in this area, both regarding the upgrade of computer systems but also
in educating personnel, in order for customs authorities to perform their
duties more effectively.
Procedural law powers and jurisdiction
At the domestic level, and once the necessary conditions
enshrined in law are fulfilled, law-enforcement authorities need to be
able to search and seize data stored in computers speedily enough to prevent
the destruction of criminal evidence. Law-enforcement authorities consider
that they should have sufficient coercive powers to be able, within their
jurisdiction, to search computer systems and seize data, order persons
to submit specified computer data, order or obtain the expeditious preservation
of specific data in accordance with normal legal safeguards and procedures.
At present, however, the safeguards and procedures are not approximated.
Questions may arise if, when accessing a computer, law-enforcement
authorities find that a number of computers and networks are involved
which are located all over the country. Issues become much more complicated
if, while searching a computer or simply pursuing an investigation, a
law-enforcement authority finds itself accessing or needing to access
data located in one or more different countries. Important sovereignty,
human rights and law-enforcement interests are at stake and need to be
Existing legal tools for international co-operation in
criminal law matters, i.e., mutual legal assistance, may not be appropriate
or sufficient, since their implementation normally takes several days,
weeks or months. There is a need for a mechanism by which countries can
investigate offences and obtain evidence quickly and efficiently, or at
least not lose important evidence in cross-border law-enforcement procedures,
in a manner consistent with principles of national sovereignty and constitutional
and human rights, including privacy and data protection.
New proposals under consideration in the Council of Europe
draft Convention on Cybercrime to address these problems include orders
for the preservation of data to assist specific investigations. However,
other issues, such as transborder search and seizure, present difficult
and as yet unresolved policy questions. More discussion among all parties
concerned is clearly required before any concrete initiatives may be envisaged.
The G8 high-tech crime subgroup has discussed the issue
of transborder search and seizure and, in anticipation of a subsequent
more permanent agreement, has reached consensus on provisional principles.
Important questions, however, related in particular to when expedited
search and seizure in particular situations is possible prior to informing
the searched state, and appropriate safeguards to respect fundamental
rights will need to be established. In the EU Common Position relating
to the C.o.E. Draft Convention on Cybercrime, the Ministers have adopted
an open-ended position.
In transborder computer-related crime cases, it is also
important that there are clear rules on which country has jurisdiction
for prosecution. In particular it should be avoided that no country has
jurisdiction. The main rules proposed by the draft Council of Europe Convention
are that jurisdiction be established by a state when the offence is committed
in its territory or by one of its nationals. When more than one state
claims jurisdiction, the states concerned should consult with a view to
determining the most appropriate jurisdiction. However, a lot will depend
on effective bilateral or multilateral consultation. The Commission will
keep this issue under review to see whether any further action may be
required at EU level.
The Commission, having participated in both the C.o.E.
and the G8 discussions, recognises the complexity and difficulties associated
with procedural law issues. But effective co-operation within the EU to
combat cybercrime is an essential element of a safer Information Society
and the establishment of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
The Commission intends to continue its consultations
with all parties concerned over the coming months with a view to building
on this work. This issue will also be considered in the wider context
of its work on implementing the conclusions of the European Council in
Tampere in October 1999. In particular, the Tampere Summit asked the Council
and the Commission to adopt, by December 2000, a programme of measures
to implement the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions.
The Commission has already published a Communication on Mutual Recognition
of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters. As part of its contribution to
implementing the part of the programme of measures dealing with enforcement
of pre-trial orders, the Commission will consider the options for mutual
recognition of pre-trial orders associated with cybercrime investigations
with a view to bringing forward a legislative proposal under Title VI
of the TEU.
Evidential validity of computer data
Even in cases in which law-enforcement authorities have
accessed computer data which seem to be criminal evidence, they need to
be able to retrieve and authenticate them for use in criminal investigations
and prosecutions. This is not a very easy task given the volatile nature
and ease of manipulation, falsification, technological protection or deletion
of electronic data. It is addressed by computer forensics, which
encompasses the development and use of scientific protocols and procedures
for searching computers and analysing and maintaining the authenticity
of data that has been retrieved.
At the request of the G8 experts, the International Organisation
of Computer Evidence (IOCE) has agreed to develop recommendations for
standards, including the definition of common terms, identification methods
and techniques to be used and establishment of a common format for forensic
requests. The EU should be associated with this work, both at the level
of Member States specialised computer-crime investigation bodies
and through the R&D supported by the 5th Framework Programme
Appropriate legislation at both national and international
level is necessary but not in itself sufficient for effectively combating
computer-related crime and network misuse. A number of supplementary,
non-legislative conditions are also required to complement the legislative
measures. Most have been included in the recommendations of the COMCRIME
study, the G8 has proposed such in its 10-point action plan and they have
received broad support in the informal consultation process that preceded
the drafting of this Communication. They include:
- the creation of special computer-crime police units at the national
level, where they do not already exist ;
- improved co-operation between law enforcement, industry, consumer
organisations and data protection authorities;
- encouraging appropriate industry and community-led initiatives, including
on security products.
The issue of encryption is likely to remain important
in this context. Encryption is an essential tool to facilitate the implementation
and adoption of new services, including electronic commerce, and can make
a substantial contribution to the prevention of crime on the Internet.
The Commissions policy on encryption has been laid down in its Communication
on trust and confidence in electronic communication of 1997, in which
the Commission indicated that it would try to abolish all restrictions
on the free circulation of all encryption products at the level of the
European Community. The Communication further stated that domestic restrictions
on the free circulation of encryption products have to be compatible with
Community law and that it will examine whether such national restrictions
are justified and proportionate, notably with respect to the free circulation
provisions of the Treaty, the case law of the Court of Justice and the
requirements of the Data Protection Directives. Nevertheless, the Commission
recognises that encryption also presents new and difficult challenges
for law enforcement agencies.
The Commission therefore welcomes the recently adopted
revised dual-use goods regulation that significantly contributed to liberalise
the availability of encryption products, while recognising that this needs
to be accompanied by a better dialogue between users, industry and law
enforcement. For its part, the Commission intends to promote this dialogue
at EU level through the proposed EU Forum. The EU wide availability of
security products, including strong encryption products, where appropriate
certified to agreed evaluation criteria, would improve both crime prevention
possibilities and users trust in information society processes.
Specialised units at the national level
Given the technical and legal complexity of some of the
computer-related criminal acts, the setting up of specialised units at
national level is essential. Such specialised units, consisting of knowledgeable,
multidisciplinary (law enforcement and judiciary) personnel should be
equipped with adequate technical facilities and operate as rapid contact
points for the purposes of:
- responding quickly to requests for information on suspected offences.
Common formats for the exchange of such information will need to be
defined, although discussions at G8 experts level have shown that this
may not be an easy task, given differences in national legal cultures;
- acting as the law enforcement-interface nationally and internationally
for hotlines receiving complaints about illegal content from Internet
- improving and/or developing specialised computer investigation techniques
for the purpose of detecting, investigating and prosecuting computer-related
- acting as a centre of excellence on cyber-crime issues for the purpose
of sharing best practices and experience.
Within the EU some Member States have already set up
these specialised units dealing specifically with computer-related crimes.
The Commission considers that the setting up of such specialised units
is a Members State prerogative and strongly encourages Member States to
take steps in that direction. Purchasing the latest hardware and software
for these units and training their personnel involves substantial cost
and presupposes priorities and political decisions at appropriate government
levels. The experience of already existing Member States units may be
particularly valuable. The Commission will encourage the exchange of such
The Commission also believes that Europol can provide
further added value at EU level through co-ordination, analysis and other
assistance to the national specialised units. The Commission will therefore
support the extension of Europol's remit to cover cybercrime.
A considerable effort is required in the area of continuous,
specialised training of both police and judicial staff. Computer-related
criminal techniques and capabilities change more rapidly than those in
more traditional areas of criminal activity.
Some Member States have been implementing initiatives
for the high-tech training of law enforcement staff. They could provide
advice and guidance to Member States that have not yet taken similar steps.
Individual projects aiming to achieve this taking
the form of exchanges of experiences, seminars on common challenges faced
by the relevant professional categories have been launched with
the support of programmes administered by the Commission (in particular
STOP, FALCONE and GROTIUS Programmes). The Commission will propose more
activities in this area, including computer and on-line training.
Europol has taken the initiative to host a one-week training
session for law-enforcement personnel from the Member States in November
2000, with particular reference to child pornography issues. The scope
of such a session could be extended to include computer-related crime
in general. Interpol has also been active in this field since a number
of years. Its relevant initiatives could be extended to include a larger
number of trainees.
The G8 has organised initiatives allowing the exchange
of experience amongst law enforcement authorities and the establishment
of common investigation techniques on the basis of concrete cases. A further
initiative in the field of training is expected to be taken in the second
half of year 2001. EU Member States participating in the G8 could share
these experiences with the other Member States.
In the specific field of combating child pornography
on the Internet, the creation and maintenance of a digital Central Library
of child pornography images at an international level (to be made
available on the Internet for specialised law enforcement units at national
level, with the necessary conditions and limitations as regards access
and protection of privacy) would aid the search for victims and perpetrators,
help determine the nature of offences and train specialised police officers.
Improved information and common rules for record keeping
The creation of a harmonised set of rules for police
and judicial record-keeping and of the appropriate tools for statistical
analysis of computer crime would help law enforcement and judicial authorities
to better store, analyse, evaluate the formal information gathered in
this still changing area.
Also, from the point of view of the private sector, such
statistics are required for a proper assessment of the risks involved,
and a cost-benefit analysis of their management. This is important not
only for operational reasons (such as deciding on what security measures
to take) but also for insurance purposes.
A database on computer crime statutes that was provided
as part of the COMCRIME study, is being updated and made accessible to
the Commission. The Commission will consider improving the content (include
laws, court cases and literature) and usability of the database.
Co-operation between the various actors: the EU Forum
Effective co-operation between government and industry
within the legal framework has been considered as an essential element
of any public policy to tackle computer-related crimes.Law-enforcement
representatives have admitted that they have not always been sufficiently
clear and precise on what they need from service providers. Industry representatives
have expressed a generally positive attitude towards better co-operation
with law enforcement whilst underlining the need for an appropriate balance
between the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens,
in particular their right to privacy, the need of combating crime and
the economic burdens placed on providers.
Together, industry and law enforcement can raise public
awareness on the risks posed by criminals on the Internet, promote best
practices for security, and develop effective counter-crime tools and
procedures. There have already been relevant initiatives in a number of
Member States of which the UK Internet Crime Forum is probably the oldest
and most far-reaching.
The Commission welcomes these initiatives and considers
they need to be encouraged in all Member States. The Commission intends
to establish an EU Forum in which law enforcement agencies, Internet Service
Providers, telecommunications operators, civil liberties organisations,
consumer representatives, data protection authorities and other interested
parties will be brought together with the aim of fully enhancing co-operation
at EU level. At a first stage, this will include public officials to be
named by Member States, technology experts, privacy experts to be appointed
by the Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party and industry and consumer
representatives to be identified in close consultation with industry and
consumers associations. At a later stage, this Forum will include representatives
from relevant national initiatives.
The EU Forum will be operated in an open and transparent
manner, and relevant documents will be published on a website, and comments
will be invited from all interested parties.
The EU Forum will be invited to consider in particular
the following areas:
- Developing, where appropriate, 24-hours points of contact between
government and industry;
- Developing an appropriate standard format for law enforcement requests
for information from industry, increasing law enforcements use
of the Internet when communicating with service providers;
- Encouraging the development and/or implementation of codes of conduct
and best practices and the sharing of such codes among industries and
- Encouraging the exchange of information on trends in high-tech crime
between the various parties, particularly industry and law enforcement
- Exploring law enforcement concerns in the development of new technologies;
- Encouraging further development of early warning and crisis management
mechanisms to prevent, identify and handle threats or disrupting events
on information infrastructures;
- Providing, where required, an enhanced expert contribution to work
underway within the Council and in other international fora, for example
the Council of Europe and G8;
- Encouraging co-operation between interested parties including principles
shared by law enforcement, industry and users (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), Codes of Practice in line with the legal framework).
6.5. Direct industry
To a large extent, combating computer-related crime is
in the wider communitys own interest. If consumers are to have confidence
in electronic commerce, measures to prevent computer-related crime need
to be an accepted element of good business practice. Many industries,
e.g. in the banking, electronic communications, credit card and copyright
sectors, and their customers are potential victims of computer-related
crime. Companies naturally protect their own names and trademarks, and
consequently have a role in fraud prevention. Organisations representing
the software and audio industries (e.g., British Phonographic Industry
- BPI) have teams investigating piracy (including Internet-related piracy).
Internet service providers in a number of Member States have set up hot-lines
for the reporting of illegal and harmful content.
The Commission has been supporting some of these initiatives
by encouraging their participation in the EU R&D Framework Programme,
the Internet Action Plan and Title VI Programmes such as STOP and DAPHNE.
Best practice in these areas will be exchanged in the
context of the EU Forum.
In the Information Society Technologies (IST) RTD Programme,
which is part of the 5th Framework Programme, 1998 to 2002,
emphasis is put on the development and deployment of confidence-building
technologies. As such, confidence-building technologies embrace both information
and network security technologies as well as technical tools and methods
to protect from abuses of the fundamental right to privacy and data protection
and other personal rights and to fight computer crime.
The IST Programme, in particular work related to Information
and network security and other confidence-building technologies in
Key Action 2 - New Methods of Work and Electronic Commerce, provides
the framework to develop capability and technologies to understand and
tackle the emerging technology challenges related to preventing and combating
computer crime and assure that security and privacy requirements can be
met at EU level, at the level of virtual communities and at the level
of the individual.
In addition, in order to properly deal with the challenges
related to trust and confidence, including preventing and investigating
computer crime, a dependability initiative has also been launched in the
context of the IST Programme. The role of this initiative is to contribute
towards raising and assuring trust and confidence in highly inter-linked
information infrastructures and in tightly networked, embedded systems
by promoting dependability awareness and dependability-enabling technologies.
An integral part of this initiative is international co-operation. The
IST Programme has developed working relationships with DARPA and NSF and
established, in collaboration with the Department of State, the Joint
Task Force on the Critical Infrastructure Protection under the auspices
of the EC/US Joint Consultative Group of the S&T Co-operation Agreement.
The Commissions Joint Research Centre (JRC), which
has been supporting the dependability initiative in the IST Programme,
will focus its efforts on developing appropriate and harmonised measures,
indicators and statistics in consultation with other interested parties,
including Europol. This will have the aim of developing a proper classification
and understanding of illegal activities, their geographical distribution,
their rate of increase and the effectiveness of measures taken to counteract
them. Where appropriate, the JRC will involve other research groups and
integrate their efforts and results. It will maintain an Internet web-site
on the issue and report its progress to the EU Forum.
Preventing and effectively combating computer-related
crime presupposes the existence of a number of necessary conditions:
- the availability of preventive technologies. This requires an appropriate
regulatory environment which gives room and incentives for innovation
and research. Public financing can be justified to support the development
and deployment of appropriate security technologies.
- the awareness of potential security risks and ways to combat them;
- adequate substantive and procedural legislative provisions, as regards
both domestic and transnational criminal activities. National substantive
criminal laws should be sufficiently comprehensive and effective in
criminalising serious computer-related abuses and provide for dissuasive
sanctions, helping to overcome dual criminality problems and facilitating
international co-operation. Where there is a well-founded need for action
by law enforcement to expeditedly search, seize and securely copy computer
data within their national territory in order to be able to investigate
a computer related crime, this should be made possible by procedural
laws, in conformity with the principles and exceptions provided for
by Community law and in accordance with the European Convention on Human
Rights.The Commission believes that the agreement reached on the interception
provisions in the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
is the maximum possible that is achievable at present. The Commission
will keep reviewing its implementation with Member States, industry
and users to ensure that relevant initiatives are effective, transparent
and well balanced;
- the availability of a sufficient number of well trained and equipped
law-enforcement personnel. Close collaboration with Internet service
providers and telecommunications operators in the field of training
will be further encouraged;
- improved co-operation between all the actors concerned; users and
consumers, industry, law enforcement and data protection authorities.
This is critical to investigating computer crime and protecting public
safety. Industry needs to operate within clear rules and obligations.
Governments should recognise that the needs of law enforcement may place
burdens on industry and thus take reasonable steps to minimise such
burdens. At the same time, industry ought to include public safety considerations
in its business practices. Increasingly this will need the active co-operation
and support of the individual user and consumer;
- continuous industry and community-led initiatives. Hotlines, already
in place for reporting illegal and harmful content cases, may be extended
to other types of abuse. Industry self-regulation and a multidisciplinary
memorandum of understanding could involve the broadest possible number
of interested parties and play a multiple role in helping prevent and
combat computer crime and increasing awareness and trust;
- the achievements and potential of R&D should be exploited
to the maximum extent possible. The strategic focus will be on bringing
together affordable and effective security and other confidence building
technology developments and EU policy initiatives.
Any measures to be agreed by the EU, however, should
take into account the need to gradually bring the candidate countries
into the realms of EU and international co-operation in this field and
avoid that they are used as computer crime havens. Involvement of representatives
of these countries in some or all of the relevant EU meetings should be
The Commission proposals can be divided into the following
The Commission will bring forward legislative proposals
under the Title VI of the TEU:
- to approximate Member States laws in the area of child pornography
offences. This initiative will be part of a package of proposals which
will also cover wider issues associated with the sexual exploitation
of children and trafficking in human beings, as announced in the Commissions
Communication on trafficking in human beings of December 1998. Such
a proposal will be fully in line with the European Parliaments
attempt to turn the Austrian initiative for a Council Decision on child
pornography into a Framework Decision requiring approximation of laws.
This is also consistent with the Tampere conclusions and the EU strategy
for the new Millennium to combat organised crime. This is already part
of the Scoreboard for the establishment of an area of Freedom, Security
- to further approximate substantive criminal law in the area of high-tech
crime. This will include offences related to hacking and denial of service
attacks. The Commission will also examine the scope for action against
racism and xenophobia on the Internet with a view to bringing forward
a Framework Decision under Title VI of the TEU covering both off-line
and on-line racist and xenophobic activity. Finally, the problem of
illicit drugs on the Internet will also be examined.
- to apply the principle of mutual recognition to pre-trial orders associated
with cybercrime investigations and to facilitate computer-related criminal
investigations involving more than one Member State with appropriate
safeguards concerning fundamental rights. This proposal is consistent
with the outline programme of measures for mutual recognition, which
refers to the need to consider proposals on the production and freezing
The need to take any measures, in particular of a legislative
nature on the question of retention of traffic data will be assessed by
the Commission amongst other consultations, on the basis of the outcome
of the work that will be done by the proposed EU Forum in this area.
Action is proposed in a number of areas:
- the Commission will establish and chair an EU Forum in which law enforcement
agencies, service providers, network operators, consumer groups and
data protection authorities will be brought together with the aim of
enhancing co-operation at EU level by raising public awareness on the
risks posed by criminals on the Internet, promoting best practices for
IT security, developing effective counter-crime tools and procedures
to combat computer-related crime as well as encouraging further development
of early warning and crisis management mechanisms. This would be an
EU version of similar successful fora which exist in certain Member
States. Where such fora do not exist the Commission would encourage
Member States to set them up. Co-operation between these various fora
would be encouraged and facilitated through the EU Forum.
- the Commission will continue to promote security and trust in the
context of the eEurope initiative, the Internet Action Plan,
the IST programme and the next framework programme for RTD. These will
include promoting the availability of products and services with an
appropriate level of security and encouragement of a more liberalised
use of strong encryption through a dialogue amongst all interested parties.
- the Commission will promote further projects under existing programmes
to support the training of law enforcement staff on high-tech crime
issues and to support research in forensic computing.
- the Commission will consider providing funding for improving the content
and usability of the database of Member States national laws provided
by the COMCRIME study, and will launch a study to obtain a better picture
of the nature and extent of computer-related crime in the Member States.
Action in other international fora
The Commission will continue to play a full role in ensuring
co-ordination between Member States in other international fora in which
cybercrime is being discussed such as the Council of Europe and G8. The
Commissions initiatives at EU level will take full account of progress
in other international fora, while seeking to achieve approximation within
* * * * *
Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon
European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, available at
Information flows are filtered and
controlled at all levels; from the firewall that looks at data
packets, through the filter that looks for malicious software,
the e-mail filter that discretely eliminates spam, to the browser
filter that prevents access to harmful material.
See, e.g., the e-Europe Action
and statements of European Commissioner Antõnio Vitorino at
and French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin at
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain aspects
of Information Society services, in particular electronic commerce,
in the Internal Market ("Directive on electronic commerce").
The EU JHA Council on 19 March 1998
endorsed the 10 Principles to combat high-tech crime adopted by
the G8 and invited the non-G8 Countries Member States of the EU
to arrange for to join the network. Available on European Judicial
Network website http://ue.eu.int/ejn/index.htm.
- The Draft text is available on the web, in two
languages, in French : http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/fr/projets/cybercrime.htm.
and in English: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/projets/cybercrime.htm.
Under the auspices of the Joint Consultative
Group of the EC/US Science and Technology Co-operation Agreement.
The United Nations produced a comprehensive
"Manual on the prevention and control of computer-related
crime," which has recently been updated. In 1983, the OECD
undertook a study of the possibility of an international application
and harmonisation of criminal laws to address the problem of computer
crime or abuse. In 1986, it published "Computer-Related Crime:
Analysis of Legal Policy," a report that surveyed the existing
laws and proposals for reform in a number of Member States and
recommended a minimum list of abuses that countries should consider
prohibiting and penalising by criminal laws. Finally, in 1992,
the OECD developed a set of guidelines for the security of information
systems, which is intended to provide a foundation on which States
and the private sector could construct a framework for the security
of information systems.
- Council Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September
1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual
and information services industry by promoting national frameworks
aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection
of minors and human dignity;
Green Paper on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity in Audiovisual
and Information Services; COM(96) 483, October 1996, http://europa.eu.int/en/record/green/gp9610/protec.htm;
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament,
the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
Illegal and harmful content on the Internet (COM(96) 487 final);
Resolution on the Commission communication on illegal and harmful
content on the Internet (COM(96)487 - C4-0592/96);
Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception
of telecommunications (OJ C 329, 04.11.1996, pp. 1 6).
"Legal Aspects of Computer-related
Crime in the Information Society COMCRIME." The study
was prepared by Prof. U. Sieber of the University of Würzburg
under contract with the European Commission. The final report
is available at: http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/legal/en/crime/crime.html.
At EU level, the data protection supervisory
authorities constitute the Article 29 Data Protection Working
Party, which is the independent EU advisory body on privacy and
data protection, see art. 29 and 30 of Directive 95/46/EC.
Two meetings with law enforcement
took place on 10.12.1999 and 1.3.2000. A meeting with Internet
industry representatives took place on 13.3.2000. A meeting with
a small number of personal data protection experts took place
on 31.3.2000. A final meeting with all the above took place on
17.4.2000. Minutes of the meetings can be obtained by writing
to: European Commission, Unit INFSO/A4, or to: European Commission,
Unit JAI/B2, Wetstraat/Rue de la Loi 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium.
EU Charter on Fundamental Rights (http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/charte_en.htm),
Article 6 of the TEU and jurisprudence of the European Court
The observation made in 1965 by Gordon
Moore, co-founder of Intel, about the speed at which the density
of transistors in integrated circuits was increasing. This density
is now approximately doubling every 18 months and this has a direct
impact on the price and performance of computer chips. Many experts
expect this to hold for at least another decade.
The latest technology makes it possible
for a single optical fibre cable to simultaneously carry the equivalent
of 100 million voice calls.
The IST Programme is managed by the
European Commission. It is part of the 5th Framework Programme,
which runs from 1998 to 2002. More information is available at
In Key Action 2 - New Methods of Work
and Electronic Commerce.
Under the auspices of the Joint Consultative
Group of the EC/US Science and Technology Co-operation Agreement.
See Article 4 of Directive 97/66/EC
(including also an obligation to inform about remaining security
risks) and Article 17 of Directive 95/46/EC.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection
of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data
and on the free movement of such data and Directive 97/66/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection
of privacy in the telecommunications sector. Art. 24 of Directive
95/46/EC obliges Member States to lay down sanctions to be imposed
in case of infringement of data protection provisions.
The content provider should not be
confused with the service provider.
Council Decision of 29 May 2000 to
combat child pornography on the Internet (OJ L 138, 9.6.2000,
The media has given much attention
to the recent "distributed Denial of Service" attacks
on large web-sites and the distribution of the so-called LoveBug
virus. This however should be kept in perspective. Denial of service
attacks, either deliberate or accidental, and e-mail related viruses
have been around for many years. The Morris worm and the IBM Xmas-tree
email were earlier examples. There exist products and procedures
to help deal with these. There is also a great deal of good co-operation
within the Internet community to limit the damage from such incidents
as they happen. There is similar co-operation to limit spamming
- Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on
the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 122 , 17.5.1991,
pp. 42 46).
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases ( OJ L 77
, 27.3.1996, pp. 20 28).
Common Position adopted by the Council
with a view to the adoption of a Directive of theEuropean Parliament
and of the Council on harmonization of certain aspects of copyright
and related rights in the Information Society (CS/2000/9512).
Communication from the Commission
to the Council and the European Parliament, The Organisation and
Management of the Internet; International and European Policy
Issues 1998 2000, April 2000, COM(2000) 202.
The Commission has proposed a series
of amendments to the EU VAT system aimed at clarifying the jurisdiction
of tax liability (COM (2000) 349 - Proposal for a Council Directive
amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the Value Added tax Arrangements
applicable to certain services supplied by electronic means) which
is currently under consideration in the Council and the Parliament.
In some circumstances, however, the liability to pay tax may fall
on the supplier, even when the supplier has no physical presence
in the taxing jurisdiction.
The Prevention and control of organised
crime: A European Union strategy for the beginning of the new
Millennium (OJ 2000 C124, 3.5.2000).
Entry into force of the C.o.E. Convention
will only take place after ratification.
This initiative is part of a package
of proposals which also covers wider issues associated with the
sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings,
as announced in the Commissions Communication on trafficking
in human beings of December 1998. The text of the proposal for
a Council Framework decision is annexed to the Communication from
the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on combating
trafficking in human beings an the sexual exploitation of children:
two proposals for Framework Decisions which is being published
in parallel with this Communication.
- OJ, L185, 24.7.1996, p. 5-7. Also available on
the European Judicial Network website http://ue.eu.int/ejn/index.htm.
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris,
Ordonnance de Référé rendue le 20 November 2000, No. RG 00/05308.
- EU Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000 2004).
COM(1999) 239 final, http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/drogue_en.htm.
Case C-274/96 Bickel & Franz (1998)
ECR I-7637 para 17, Case C-186/87 Cowan (1989) ECR 195 para 19.
In particular, the administrative measures or penalties must not
go beyond what is strictly necessary, the control procedures must
not be conceived in such a way as to restrict the freedom required
by the Treaty and they must not be accompanies by a penalty which
is so disproportionate to the gravity of infringement that it
becomes an obstacle to the exercise of that freedom (Case C-203/80
Casati (1981) ECR 2595 para 27).
Two Member States do not allow intercepted
communications as evidence in criminal proceedings.
Council Resolution of 17 January 1995
on the lawful interception of telecommunications (OJ C 329, 4.11.1996,
pp. 1 6). The Annex contains a list of law-enforcement interception
requirements that Member States were requested to take into account
in the definition and implementation of relevant national policies
and measures. In 1998, the Austrian Presidency proposed an EU
Council Resolution to extend the scope of the 1995 Resolution
to cover new technologies, including Internet and satellite communications.
This has been the subject of debate in two European Parliament
Committees, the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs
and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens Rights,
which reached different conclusions. The former considered this
resolution to be a clarification and update of the old one and
thought it was acceptable. The latter was strongly critical, both
on potential human rights infringements and on the costs to operators,
rejecting the EU Council proposal and calling on the Commission
to draw up a new proposal once the Treaty of Amsterdam had entered
into force. The draft Council Resolution has not been actively
considered by the Council or its working parties in recent months.
O J C 197 of 12.7.2000, p.1. The Convention
was adopted 29 May 2000. The interception provisions in the Convention
apply only to the Member States of the European Union and not
to third countries.
The Convention provides for minimum
safeguards concerning the protection of privacy and personal data.
The initial purpose of the negotiations
was to provide an interception capability concerning persons using
satellite telephones on the territory of the intercepting Member
State. Technically, the critical point to intercept these communications
is at the satellite ground station. It was therefore necessary
to seek technical assistance from the Member State where the ground
station was located. The Convention contains two options that
address this issue: an expedited mutual legal assistance procedure
which requires individual requests for assistance to the Member
State with the satellite ground station, and a technical solution
based on remote access to the satellite ground station from the
intercepting Member State which does not require individual requests.
The Convention also provides for a
legal framework for requests for interception of the communications
of a person on the territory of another Member State (the requested
Member State). In this case, the intercepting Member State and
the requested Member State both need to obtain interception warrants
under their domestic laws. Finally, the Convention establishes
rules to cover situations where the intercepting Member State
may have the possibility to intercept the communications of a
person on the territory of another Member State without the need
to seek technical assistance from that Member State.
A long, extensively documented report
by Mr Campbell (http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/stoa_cover.htm)
on an intelligence interception network called ECHELON was the
subject of a European Parliament public hearing. The report argues
that ECHELON was conceived for national security purposes but
has also been used for industrial espionage. The European Parliament
has set up a temporary Committee that will study the subject and
will submit a report to the plenary within a year.
These would include criminal investigations
in cases that are not related to computers or communications networks,
but where the data may help to resolve the crime.
Art. 14 of Directive 97/66/EC and
art 13 of Directive 95/46/EC.
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's
opinion on the draft Joint Action, adopted by the Council on the
basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to combat
child pornography on the Internet, Amendment 17 (OJ C 219,30.7.1999,
pp. 68 ff., on p. 71).
"Large-scale exploratory or general
surveillance must be forbidden
the most effective means to
reduce unacceptable risks to privacy while recognising the needs
for effective law enforcement is that traffic data should in principle
not be kept only for law enforcement purposes and that national
laws should not oblige telecommunications operators, telecommunications
service and Internet Service providers to keep traffic data for
a period of time longer than necessary for billing purposes,"
Recommendation 3/99 of the Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party
of 7 September 1999,
As incorporated in the European Convention
on Human Rights (Article 8, right to privacy), the EU Charter
on Fundamental Rights, the EU Treaty and EC Data Protection Directives.
Working Party on the Protection of
Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal data. Recommendation
3/97 Anonymity on the Internet. Adopted by the Working Party on
3 December 1997. http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/media/dataprot/wpdocs/index.htm.
Apart from the G8 Members, five EU
Member States have so far joined the G8 24/7 network.
At the World Conference against Commercial
Sexual Exploitation of Children in Stockholm on 28 August
1996 proposals were made to include INTERPOL in the mentioned
networks. The Decision of the EU Council on combating child pornography
on the Internet foresees also the involvement of Europol in this
Article 1.4 of the Common Position:
"Member States should support the establishment of provisions,
which will facilitate international co-operation including provisions
concerning mutual legal assistance to the widest extent possible.
The Convention should facilitate the swift co-operation regarding
computer-related and computer-aided offences. This form of co-operation
may include the setting of 24-hour law enforcement points
of contact, which supplement existing structures of mutual assistance."
- Available on the European Judicial Network website
Communiqué of the Ministerial Conference
of the G8 Countries on Combating Transnational Organised Crime-Moscow,
19-20 October 1999 (see http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/action.htm
and also http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/principles.htm).
OJ L 142/2: "Subject to constitutional
principles and specific safeguards in order to respect appropriately
the sovereignty, security, public policy or other essential interests
of other States, a transborder computer search for the purpose
of the investigation of a serious criminal offence, to be further
defined in the Convention, may be considered in exceptional cases,
and in particular where there is an emergency, for example, as
far as necessary to prevent the commission of an offence that
is likely to result in the death of or serious injury to a person."
COM (2000) 495, Brussels 26.7.2000.
So far, hotlines exist only in a limited
number of countries. Examples are Cybertipline in the US and Internet
Watch Foundation (IWF) in the UK, which, since Dec. 1996, has
operated a telephone and e-mail hotline for members of the public
to report material encountered on the Internet, which they consider
illegal. The IWF judges whether the material is illegal, informs
the ISPs and the police. Other monitoring bodies exist also in
Norway (Redd Barna), the NL (Meldpunt), Germany (Newswatch, FSM
and Jugendschutz), Austria (ISPAA) and Ireland (ISPAI). In the
framework of the EU Daphne Programme, Childnet International is
currently undertaken a project directly related to this issue
("International Hotline Providers in Europe Forum").
The UNESCO Expert Meeting in Paris in January 1999 supports and
encourages also national hotlines and the creation of networks
of hotlines or an international "electronic watchtower."
On the U.S. experience on this issue,
see Michael A. Sussmann "The Critical Challenges from International
High-Tech and Computer-Related Crime at the Millennium,"
Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 9 Spring
1999, p. 464.
In this context, the project "Excalibur"
developed by the Swedish National Crime Intelligence Division
and co-sponsored by the European Commission under the STOP Programme
has been a very successful initiative. This project has been set
up with the co-operation of police forces from Germany, UK, the
Netherlands and Belgium, together with Europol and Interpol. Other
projects undertaken by the German BKA (the so-called "Perkeo")
and the French Ministry of Interior ("Surfimage" project
also co-sponsored under the STOP Programme) have also to be taken
into right account.
In the Communiqué adopted in Washington
on 9/10 December 1997 on Principles and 10 Points Action Plan
to combat high-tech crime, G8 Ministers of Justice and of the
Interior declared that: "it is the industrial sector that
is designing, deploying and maintaining these global networks
and is primarily responsible for the development of technical
standards. Thus, it is incumbent on the industrial sector to play
its part in developing and distributing secure systems designed
to help detect computer abuse, preserve electronic evidence and
assist in ascertaining the location and identity of criminals."
The Decision of the EU Council to combat child pornography
on the Internet underlines the need that Member States have a
constructive dialogue with industry, and in contact with it, shall
co-operate by sharing their experiences.
As set out in the EU Data Protection
Directives, the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and
the Council of Europe Convention no 108 for the Protection of
Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal
Data and relevant national law.
Established in 1997, the Internet
Crime Forum includes police officers, Home Office and data protection
officials and Internet industry representatives; it has plenary
meetings 3-4 times a year and a number of permanent working groups.
As far as codes of conduct in the
sense of Article 27 of Directive 95/46/EC are concerned (they
could cover for example issues falling under Directive 97/66/EC
such as interceptions), the Article 29 Data Protection Working
Party and national data protection supervisory authorities are
More information about the Internet
Action Plan: Action Plan on Promoting Safer Use of the Internet
is available at http://220.127.116.11:10080/iap/.
More information about the IST Programme is available
Where criminal investigations necessitate
the assistance of authorities in other countries, many legal systems
require that the crime is punishable in both countries as a prerequisite
for certain types of mutual legal assistance and for extradition.