Global cooperation in fighting cross-border cybercrime is not optional but a necessity

According to the recently concluded Conference on “Interpol 2020: Policing Global Threats in a Dynamic Environment” organised by Rwanda National Police (RNP), the delegates discussed and resolved to cooperate globally in order to effectively curb cross-border crime such as terrorism, the organised criminal groups behind drug and human trafficking, and the different facets of cyber crime. First off, the participants recognised the existential challenge posed by transborder crime and absence of cooperation. The participants underlined the sophistication and complexity in which the said crimes are committed and challenges law enforcers, especially national police institutions, face. As such, the participants most importantly resolved to cooperate at regional and international level in order to control transborder crime. In line with that resolve, I will dwell particularly on cybercrime as to why global cooperation is no longer optional but a necessity. Cybercrime is a worldwide problem and no country is beyond vulnerability. However, when it comes to Africa, it is imperative to articulate, a few inherent shortcomings such as poor security awareness, lack of training for law enforcements, lack of regulations and weak cross-border collaboration, hence making it more vulnerable than other areas in the world. Generally, cybercrimes have an international dimension in two obvious respects. Firstly, cybercrimes generated from with a particular state often has serious impact upon states. The prime example would be online child porn images; whenever they are posted on internet the internet users beyond initial generating place get affected. Secondly, it is now apparent that cybercrime cannot be resolved by states acting individually. Like pollution, one of the worst vices to environment, which has no borders, cybercrime is not limited by so-called geographical boundaries. Hence, cooperation between should be a golden rule. However, the issue becomes more complicated when cybercrimes are committed anonymously and it is quite impossible to determine from which country, or cybercriminals, a particular form of cybercrime is committed. Given that no single country is immune to such cyber-threats, international collaboration is a necessity. Obviously, offenders and targets are located in different countries and thus cybercrime investigations need the cooperation of law enforcement agencies in all countries, especially those affected. National sovereignty, however, does not permit investigations within its territory without the authorization of local authorities. Cybercrime investigations need the support and involvement of authorities in all countries involved. It is, however, difficult to base cooperation in cybercrime on principle of traditional mutual legal assistance. The formal requirements and time needed to collaborate with foreign law enforcement institutions often hinder investigations. Another uneasy challenge is the principle of dual criminality which requires the recognition of the particular cybercrime in question under national law. In fact, it poses difficulties, if the offence is not criminalized in one of the countries involved in the investigations. Owing to that possible legal loophole, cybercriminals may take that advantage to choose targets outside their own country and act from countries with inadequate cybercrime legislation. Although, at this critical time, we urge for the cooperation between national law-enforcement agencies, harmonisation of cybercrime-related laws is equally worthwhile. In addition to cooperation necessitated by law-enforcers, the following are equally worth considering: First, African states should start collaborative efforts with the Council of Europe with a view to promote intervention to meet the needs of all African legislative jurisdictions in the matter of cybercrime legislation. Second, African states should be encouraged to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on cybercrime as well as AU Convention on Cyber-security and Personal Data Protection as both are relevant to enhance harmonization of global technical standards of dealing with cybercrime. Third, law enforcement should focus with priority on dismantling criminal infrastructure, disrupting the key services that support or enable cybercrime and prosecuting those responsible for malware development, as the numbers of highly skilled cybercrimes are limited and their skills are hard to replace. Besides, law enforcement needs to invest more in capacity building, as it happened a few days prior to the Conference, with a view of acquiring the necessary skills, expertise, knowledge and tools to perform cybercrime investigations, big data analysis and internet of everything related to digital forensics. Lastly, law enforcers should cooperate with third parties, including internet intermediaries, in running awareness campaigns about cyber-threats. This should involve measures highlighting the importance of digital hygiene and endpoint security, the importance of security by design, and providing more online resources for victims to report crime and seek help and support. However, it must be done in a manner that does not compromise with the right to privacy. If the above key recommendations, including the resolve of the recent Conference, are genuinely and proactively implemented, I have no hint of doubt that cybercrime may be significantly controlled than ever. At a personal level, let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the organizers, of both the conference and the training on cybercrime-related, which preceded the conference, for sending a clear message to their respective states and the global community at large that more needs to be done; otherwise there is more cloud on the horizon. Fred K. NKUSI is a lecturer and international law expert frednkusi88@gmail.com

Opinions

Global cooperation in fighting cross-border cybercrime is not optional but a necessity