Hacking involves detecting computer networks or systems that are weak to access and mine private information. Hacking entails cracking a vulnerable computer or network password to access stored data without authorization. This predisposes them to hacking, making it a prevalent issue of concern in developed countries such as the US, China, and Russia. With the increasing rate of hacking, these countries have enforced laws to reduce or prevent hacking incidences. The Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China bars anyone from threatening network and computer system security. The US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Of 1986 makes it a federal crime to gain unauthorized access to protected computers with intent to damage or defraud. Russian Laws denote that the creation, use, and distribution of malicious computer software are punishable by up to seven years in prison. In addition, these countries have established international cooperation to prevent computer systems and network hacking. This paper seeks to compare and contrast hacking laws in Russia, China, and the US.
Legal Frameworks
An increase in the prevalence of hacking of computer systems and networks requires detecting the culprits, including the states, and enforcing strict laws prohibiting these malicious acts domestically. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is the leading federal anti-hacking legislation prohibiting unauthorized access to computer systems and networks (Khan et al., 2022). This Law was enforced in 1986; it has undergone several reforms to incorporate the evolving technology and emerging cyber risks. This Law prevents hacking by criminalizing several activities associated with unauthorized access to computer systems, including accessing a computer to mine data or exceeding the permitted access to navigate data from protected computer systems. This Law aligns with Chinese laws addressing hacking (Sacharoff, 2020). For instance, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China and Russia solve crimes linked with computer systems and networks’ unpermitted access, tampering with personal data, and other hacking activities (Dremliuga et al., 2020).In addition, Russia has enforced laws criminalizing hacking and related cybercrime, this Law punishes cybercrime types while designing complex systems of regulating cyber threats. US Law on cyber threats prohibits accessing computer systems without authorization, including using someone’s login data to access computer systems and networks without authority. This aligns with Russian and Chinese criminal Laws. However, this US Law differs in scope, Russia federal Law prohibiting cyber threats extends to countering terrorism and extremism.
Besides, the US and People’s Republic of China’s internal Laws outlined in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act extend beyond the scope of authorized access to prohibit access to computer systems and networks to alter or misuse. The Russian Law on Information Technologies, Information Protection, and Information establishes the legal structure for using information technology, including provisions linked to protecting data, computer systems, and networks from hacking (Hinck & Maurer, 2019). The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act applies to protected computers used by US government agencies, financial institutions, and foreign commerce. This Law aligns with Cybersecurity Law in China and Russia that entails provisions associated with protecting government and institution critical information from hacking (EICHENSEHR, 2021). US CFAA defines penalties for cybercrimes to differ with the severity of the crime, ranging from imprisonment to fines. In Russia, federal Law on cyber threats prohibits the processing of personal data by unauthorized parties, People’s Republic of China entails provisions associated with protecting personal data and unauthorized access to personal information. Therefore, the legal actions provided in cyber laws of the three countries are similar, though differing in scope.
Enforcement Mechanisms
Although the legal framework in the three countries serves a similar purpose of prohibiting cybercrimes such as hacking, they differ in enforcement mechanisms. This is because China, the US, and Russia exhibit distinct law enforcement agencies, processes, and judicial systems for addressing cybercrimes. In the US, enforcing Laws on Computer Fraud and Abuse is mandated by The Federal Bureau of Investigation in collaboration with the Department of Justice (Brunner, 2019).In China, the Ministry of Public Security enforces cybercrime laws, while in Russia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Security Service are core agencies involved in investigating and enforcing cybercrimes in partnership with the Investigative Committee (Peters & Jordan, 2019). Persons suspected of hacking are prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in addition to other federal Laws in the US, while in Russia, prosecution is done under multiple Laws such as the Federal Law of Counteracting Terrorism and Cybersecurity. Cybercrime prosecution procedures in Russia and the Republic People of China are similar, and the three countries enforce cooperation between private and private sectors to enforce these Laws.
Penalties
Penalties for engaging in cybercrimes are outlined in Russia, China, and the US respective Legal structures. United States Computer Fraud and Abuse Act indicates imprisonment or fines for cybercrimes, the penalty is based on the severity of the crime. Such a penalty is supported by other federal laws regarding identity theft and electronic communication fraud Acts (Brunner, 2019). The penalties outlined are similar to what Russia’s Federal Law on Counteracting Terrorism outlines. However, in China, penalties for cybercrimes include fines, warnings, confiscation of illegal proceeds, and suspension of business operations. Unlike Russia and the US, severe cybercrimes in China may lead to the revocation of business licenses as outlined in data security Law. The three countries exhibit similarities in imposing fines or imprisonments for cybercrimes under their respective Laws, but the penalties differ based on the nature and severity of the crime.
Notable Case Studies
Addressing the prevalent cybercrime issues in the People’s Republic of China, the US, and Russia is supported by notable case studies. Notable Case Studies in the US include the indictment of persons and State-funded hacking groups, such as Chinese hackers, for economic intelligence and Russian intrusion in the US 2016 elections (Hinck & Maurer, 2019).In Russia, a notable case study is on the accusation of state-funded hacking, such as identified in the US 2016 elections and significant cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructures. Similarly, the People’s Republic of China has been suspected of State-sponsored hacking for financial intelligence (Goel, 2020). Enforcement of cybercrime Laws in collaboration with the international community significantly impacts global strategies for addressing cybercrime, such as hacking activities.
Conclusion
The rapid adoption of advanced technologies by the government and business institutions has increased the prevalence of cyber-crimes, including hacking activities. Hacking activities are directed to computer systems and networks facilitating communication and data storage. The high prevalence of hacking in the People’s Republic of China, the US, and Russia has triggered the enforcement of Laws to address the issue. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibit cybercrimes; in China, Cybersecurity Law is anchored in Article 27. Thus, Cybersecurity Law in the three countries aligns to prevent hacking, and penalty that entails imprisonment or fines. However, they differ in scope and enforcement mechanism. In the US, the Law is enforced by the FBI in collaboration with the Department of Justice; in Russia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs is mandated to enforce the Law, while in China, the Ministry of Public Security enforces the Law. Penalties for violating cybercrime Laws in the US and Russia attract penalties in the form of fines or Imprisonment. However, in the People’s Republic of China, violating cybersecurity Law goes beyond imprisonment and fines to business license revocation and detainment of proceeds earned through cybercrime. The three countries have strict cyber that are similar but differ in enforcement mechanism, scope, and penalties.
References
Brunner, M. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in state and local cybercrime enforcement. J. Nat’l Sec. L. & Pol’y, 10, 563. https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Challenges-and-Opportunities-in-State-and-Local-Cybercrime-Enforcement.pdf
Dremliuga, R., Dremliuga, O., & Kuznetsov, P. (2020). Combating the Threats of Cybercrimes in Russia: Evolution of the Cybercrime Laws and Social Concern. Communist and post-communist studies, 53(3), 123-136. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roman-Dremliuga/publication/344580533_Combating_the_Threats_of_Cybercrimes_in_Russia_Evolution_of_the_Cybercrime_Laws_and_Social_Concern/links/625e43fa709c5c2adb867ed7/Combating-the-Threats-of-Cybercrimes-in-Russia-Evolution-of-the-Cybercrime-Laws-and-Social-Concern.pdf
EICHENSEHR, E. B. K. E. (2021). Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law. American Journal of International Law, 115(1), 115-115. http://uvalaw-scholarship.s3.amazonaws.com/iss%203%20CPUS%20pt%205.pdf
Goel, S. (2020). National cyber security strategy and the emergence of strong digital borders. Connections, 19(1), 73–86. https://procon.bg/ru/system/files/19.1.07_cybersecurity_digital_borders.pdf
Hinck, G., & Maurer, T. (2019). Persistent enforcement: criminal charges as a response to nation-state malicious cyber activity. J. Nat’l Sec. L. & Pol’y, 10, 525. https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Criminal-Charges-as-a-Response-to-Nation-State-Malicious-Cyber-Activity.pdf
Khan, S., Saleh, T., Dorasamy, M., Khan, N., Tan Swee Leng, O., & Gale Vergara, R. (2022). A systematic literature review on cybercrime legislation. F1000Research, 11, 971. https://f1000research.com/articles/11-971/pdf
Peters, A., & Jordan, A. (2019). Countering the cyber enforcement gap: Strengthening global capacity on cybercrime. J. Nat’l Sec. L. & Pol’y, pp. 10, 487. https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Countering-the-Cyber-Enforcement-Gap.pdf
Sacharoff, L. (2020). Criminal Trespass and Computer Crime. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., pp. 62, 571. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3879&context=wmlr
write