~/ learn/ comp-400/ cards/ Cybercrime, intellectual property, and professional ethics
1 of 3

Which Convention on Cybercrime offence carries a severity threshold that its neighbour does not?

Which Convention on Cybercrime offence carries a severity threshold that its neighbour does not?

Answer

Article 5, system interference, which requires SERIOUSLY impeding the system

Options - A. Article 5, system interference, which requires SERIOUSLY impeding the system - B. Article 4, data interference, which requires the data to be irrecoverable - C. Article 2, illegal access, which requires the access to be sustained - D. Article 3, illegal interception, which requires the transmission to be encrypted Why - A. Correct — deleting one file is data interference under Article 4; seriously impeding the system’s functioning is Article 5, and only the second carries the threshold. - B. Article 4 has no such requirement — damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing data is enough. - C. Article 2 covers access to the whole or any part of a system without right; duration is irrelevant. - D. Article 3 concerns NON-PUBLIC transmissions by technical means, including electromagnetic emissions. Encryption is not part of the definition.

Stallings & Brown 5e ch19 §19.1–19.2, §19.4; Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (ETS 185, 2001)

space flip · ← → navigate · esc to exit
NORMAL ~/memra/library/636906fb-c043-4209-80f0-e03d58306692/flashcard utf-8 LF