Cyber Crime

Cyber crime is a global problem today that affects computer users and others in all developed and developing countries that rely heavily on computing and communications technologies. The need to respond effectively has, therefore, been a common theme throughout the networked world, although the level of concern and the impetus for reform have been closely correlated with the degree of usage and hence the risk of victimisation. Those countries with the highest usage levels tend to have taken greater steps with respect to regulation and law reform. ‘Cyber crime’ has, however, taken on a life of its own to some extent, and entered popular discourse today. Although cyber crime overlaps with a number of other areas of economic crime and white-collar crime, there are some aspects that are unique. Some forms of illegality simply could not have been committed prior to the introduction of computers and so, in this sense, cyber crimes (or at least elements of them) are dissimilar from conventional crimes. In addition, with cyber crime the level of apprehension of victimisation felt by many businesses is far greater than what appears to be the actual incidence of offences. The presence of computers in the commission of crime has enhanced the seriousness with which these crimes are viewed, at least in the minds of those at risk of victimization and those who have actually suffered from these crimes. It remains to be seen whether the courts deal with persons convicted of cyber crimes in ways similar to, or dissimilar from, the ways in which they treat those convicted of conventional crimes.

Cyber crime is a term used broadly to describe activity in which computers or computer networks are the tool, target, or theme of criminal activity. These categories are not exclusive and many activities can be characterized as falling in one or more categories. Many types of cyber crime are simply extensions of existing criminal activities, with the computer and internet severing them from the perpetrator’s geographical location, providing anonymity and protection from law enforcement. While computers and the internet are valuable technological advances that benefit contemporary society in numerous ways, like all tools they can be used for evil as well as good. For those who put their self-centered desires above the good of others, and of society as a whole, they offer seemingly unlimited possibilities for criminal activity. 

Defining and Measuring Cyber Crime


Before proceeding with our substantive discussion it is important to examine the definition, nature and scope of cyber crime. Clearly, digital technologies lie at the heart of cyber crime and these include computers, communication technologies and networked services. References to computers and digital technologies are used interchangeably.
There is, at present, a wide range of adjectives used to describe computer crime virtual, online, cyber, digital, high-tech, computer-related, Internet-related, telecommunications related, computer assisted, electronic, and ‘e- crime’. In the same way that the term ‘white-collar crime’ sparked crucial discussion and controversy, these terms coined to delimit the scope of computer related misconduct are likely to be similarly problematic. ‘Cyber crime’ is used generically to describe a range of criminal offences, only some of which specifically relate to computers and the telecommunications infrastructure that supports their use. In this sense, it is similar to terms such as ‘fraud’, (such as ‘obtaining financial advantage by deception’), all of which contain an element of dishonesty. Similarly, ‘cyber crime’, spelt as a single word in the titles of some recent pieces of legislation such as the Australian Cyber crime Act 2001 and the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cyber crime, is a way of describing conduct that could entail a range of offences, many of which have nothing to do with computers in their legislative descriptions. Defining the term ‘cyber crime’ raises conceptual complexities. The term ‘cyberspace’ was first coined by William Gibson in his novel Neuromancer (1984) to describe a high-tech society in which people inhabit a virtual world divorced from terrestrial life. It has been used since then in a wide range of contexts to describe almost anything to do with computers, communications systems, the Internet, or, indeed, life in the twenty-first century. Chatterjee (2001, p. 81) reviews the many ways in which the term ‘cyberspace’ has been used, as well as the disparate other terms used to describe computer-related activities including those that infringe criminal laws.
Some have argued that virtual crime should be characterised as separate from and less serious than terrestrial crime, although Williams (2001, pp. 152–3) believes that ‘the “real” and the “virtual” are not separate experiences and as such the nature of online communication enables a perpetrator to inflict recognisable levels of harm upon a victim via textual slurs and abuse’. The term ‘cyber crime’ encompasses any proscribed conduct perpetrated through the use of, or against, digital technologies, the pursuit or harassment of a victim by means of computers. This does not normally entail any new type of crime; the only new element is the means by which it is committed. Similarly, the theft of funds electronically is no different in terms of financial loss from the theft of currency from a bank, and the display of obscene images online (whether involving real human actors or images of people created electronically) involves the same affront to those who view the images as when they see them in a magazine. There may be differences in the extent and scale of the impact, but the effects of the acts themselves remain the same. Recently enacted laws targeting offences specifically related to computers, such as unauthorised access or modification of data, but the majority involves conventional crimes such as theft and other regulatory offences. The future will undoubtedly see new criminal laws enacted that have particular relevance to computers and new technologies.

Individual and Society

When we survey our lives and endeavours, we soon observe that almost the whole of our actions and desires is bound up with the existence of other human beings. We notice that our whole nature resembles that of the social animals. We eat food that others have produced, wear clothes that others have made, live in houses that others have built. The greater part of our knowledge and belief has been communicated to us by other people through the medium of a language which others have created. Without language our mental capacity would be poor indeed, comparable to those of the higher animals; we have therefore, to admit that we owe our principal advantage over the beasts to the fact of living in human society. The individual, if left alone from birth, would remain primitive and beastlike in his thoughts and feelings to a degree that we can hardly conceive. The individual is what he is, and has the significance that he has, not so much by virtue of his individuality but rather as a member of great human community, which directs his material and spiritual existence from the cradle to the grave.

A man’s value, to the community depends primarily on how far his reelings, thoughts and actions are directed towards promoting the good of his fellows. We call him good or bad according to his attitude in this respect. It looks at first sight as if our estimate of a man depends entirely on his social qualities. And yet such an attitude would be wrong. It can be easily seen that all the valuable achievements, material, spiritual and moral which we receive from society have been brought about in the course of countless generations by creative individuals. Someone once discovered the use of fire, someone the cultivation of edible plants, and someone the steam engine. Only the individual who can think, and thereby create new values for society, may even set up new moral standards to which the life of the community conforms. Without creative personalities able to think and judge independently, the upward development of society is as unthinkable as the development of the individual personality without the nourishing soil of the Community. The health of society thus depends quite as much on the independence of the individuals composing it as on their close social cohesion.

Harmful effects of Income

Research has shown that the burning of the incense commonly available– sticks of wood impregnated with spices and resins–gives of irritants,suspected carcinogens and proven careinogens. Environmentalists believe that inhaling incense is similar to passive cigarette smoking. According to a report published int he Journal 'Mutution Research' (1980) in Japan, the burning of a single stick of incense for an hour is comparable to the burning of two cigarettes.

There are studies which support the theory that incense smoke is capable of causing cancer; but definite proof will only come from epidemological studieslinking the suspected careinogen to the incidence of disease in humans.

Are there any 'better' or worse incenses? Are there any incenses that are actually good for a person? No data exists on the levels of toxicity in the different brands of incense. There are thousands of different types, each with its own special recipe. Most incense, however, contain three ingredients : a wood base, usually sandalwood, though other woods are being substituted now; binder or glue to hold the ingredients together, usually made from a resin (tree sap) such as gum benzon or jigit, and a fragrance. To help them burn, some incenses contain potassium nitrate and sulphur, ingredients of gunpowder. The cheaper incenses contain chemically synthesised perfumes, that often leavee a person with a headache. Real perfume, for instance, 'jasmine' incense in never the real thing. Real jasmine costs over Rs.40,000 a pound. The kind of incense that's 'all natural' would cost more than 30 rupees a box. Even though it may give off a finer, gentler smoke that burns the eyes less, because it contains wood, it is likely that toxic substances are emitted in some amounts. Basically anything associated with incomplete combustion is unsafe.

As with all potentially harmful substances, the extent to which incense is burned and smoke inhaled is wht matters. Used in moderation, incense is a soothing experience; a boon to the spirit. While there is no scientific proof of its healing powers, the physiological mechanism that enables odour to ccalm the nerves does exist. The hypothalamus, seat of our emotions, is connected with our olfactory system (nose). A pleasant aroma is found to be capable of lowering blood pressure and heart rates. But, doctors warn against inhaling smoke to get a healing effect.

While more studies are needed on incense and is health effect, those who burn incense on a daily basis should be warned : Where there is smoke, there is danger.

Complete Summary of the above

• Studies have proved that income has many harmful side-effects. Inhaling of incense smoke is like passive cigarette smoking. Incense smoke may cause cancer. It is diffiicult to distinguish between good and bad incenses. Most incenses contain three ingredients : a wood base, a binder to hold the ingredients, and a fragnance. The binder is made up of a resin (trree sap) such as gum benzoin or jigit which, when burnt, gives off irritant. Real perfumes are very expensive. The cheaper incenses contain artificial perfumes which cause headache. Incense smoke, if mildly inhaled, soothes the nervous system. A pleasant fragnance can lower blood pressure and heart rates. Neverthless, there is no scientific proof of its healing powers and doctors forbid inhaling incense smoke for healing purposes. Although more study is needed on incense, that is smoke has a deadly aroma, is indisputable.