Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Criminal Law in Regulating Cybercrime and IT Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law and Technology in a Global Digital Society

  • 1308 Accesses

Abstract

It is all too common to call for an intervention by means of criminal law whenever a severe wrong occurs—such as when private personal data of politicians are leaked, when malicious websites use a special JavaScript applet to mine Bitcoin on visitors’ computers (cryptojacking), or when a social bot spreads “fake news”. In this article, I provide an overview over core concepts, models, and limitations of a regulation of IT security through criminal law. On the basis of the German and European Union legal orders, I discuss generic regulatory aspects of substantive criminal law (1) and provide an overview on the criminal law provisions on cybercrime (2). On this basis, I analyse the role criminal law already has in regulating IT security in the EU and in Germany, and how this role may expand in the future (3).

A Spanish version of this contribution, translated by Maria Belén Linares, is published in Brodowski (2021), pp. 85 ff.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Except otherwise noted (see, in particular, infra Sect. 3.2), I will focus on criminal law in a formal sense in this article, and exclude administrative or other alternative, quasi-criminal sanctioning mechanisms.

  2. 2.

    See, among others, Landau (2015a), pp. 525 ff.; Ignor (2016), pp. 380 ff.; Schlepper (2014), pp. 11 ff.

  3. 3.

    See German Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of 21.09.2016 – 2 BvL 1/15 = ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2016:ls20160921.2bvl000115 = BVerfGE 143, 38.

  4. 4.

    See Brodowski (2018), pp. 373 ff.

  5. 5.

    Binding (1922), pp. 35 ff., 45.

  6. 6.

    On this distinction, see, among others, Kudlich (2003), p. 129; Renzikowski (2002), pp. 12 f.; Lagodny (1996), pp. 80 f.; Vogel (1993), pp. 49 ff. and critically Goeckenjan (2015), pp. 192 ff.

  7. 7.

    See generally Hörnle (2011) and, on the communicative function, Feinberg (1965), p. 400 ff.; von Hirsch (2005), pp. 48 ff.; Duff (2001), p. 89.

  8. 8.

    Brodowski (2018), p. 393.

  9. 9.

    On the emergence of corporate criminal liability see, inter alia, Brodowski et al. (2014); Engelhart (2012); Laufer (2006); Pieth and Ivory (2011); Schmitt-Leonardy (2013).

  10. 10.

    See, in further detail, Brodowski (2018), pp. 383 ff.

  11. 11.

    See critically Hassemer (1989).

  12. 12.

    Cf. Jahn and Brodowski (2016), p. 972.

  13. 13.

    See, inter alia, Eisele and Vogel (2018), mn. 98 f.; Satzger (2018), mn. 43 ff.; Suhr (2016), mn. 31 ff.; Summers et al. (2014), pp. 49 ff., 281.

  14. 14.

    German Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of 30.6.2009 – 2 BvE 2/08 = ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2009:es20090630.2bve000208 mn. 358 ff., 365.

  15. 15.

    Just see Frisch (2016); Gärditz (2016), p. 642; Jahn and Brodowski (2016), p. 970.

  16. 16.

    See Jahn and Brodowski (2016), p. 970 ff.; Jahn and Brodowski (2017), p. 366 ff.

  17. 17.

    On different perspectives on ultima ratio see Jahn and Brodowski (2016), p. 974 ff.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Asp et al. (2009); see furthermore the analysis by Meyer (2015), mn. 31.

  19. 19.

    Council Document 16542/09 of 23.11.2009.

  20. 20.

    COM [2011] 573 final of 20.09.2011.

  21. 21.

    “An EU approach to criminal law. European Parliament resolution of 22 May 2012 on an EU approach to criminal law,” 2010/2310[INI], OJ C 264E of 13.09.2013, p. 7.

  22. 22.

    See also the comparison in Council Document 10137/15 of 24.06.2015, Annex 1.

  23. 23.

    ECJ, decision of 12.07.2018 – C-707/17 (Pinzaru and Cirstinoiu) = ECLI:EU:C:2018:574, mn. 26 ff., 33, 35; see beforehand ECJ, judgment of 16.07.2015 – C-255/14 (Chmielewski) = ECLI:EU:C:2015:475, mn. 31, 35.

  24. 24.

    See generally Wohlers (2018).

  25. 25.

    See, for instance, Hassemer (1994), pp. 307 f.; Hamm (2016), pp. 1541 f.; Frisch (2016), p. 24.

  26. 26.

    See critically Jahn and Brodowski (2016) on Landau (2015a), p. 533; Landau (2015b), p. 668.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Mattes (1977), p. 41.

  28. 28.

    Cf. Gärditz (2016), p. 641 ff.

  29. 29.

    On time discounting, intertemporal choice and temporal myopia in criminals, see Mamayek et al. (2017); Nagin and Pogarsky (2004) (showing a high relevance for property offending); and already Wilson and Herrnstein (1985), p. 50. For these features of human-decision making from the perspective of general psychology and economic decision-making theory, see, inter alia, Ahlbrecht and Weber (1997); Kahneman and Tversky (1979) Loewenstein and Elster (1992); Öncüler (2010); Tversky and Kahneman (1992); Williams (2014).

  30. 30.

    Cf. Kshetri (2010); Wall (2010).

  31. 31.

    A different aspect, not to be addressed in this contribution, relates to special prevention, that is the aspect that a criminal cannot commit further crimes outside of prison while he or she is imprisoned, and that the sanction may teach him or her a lesson to not commit (further) crimes in future.

  32. 32.

    See generally Bernasco et al. (2017) and Lüderssen (1979), pp. 70 f.; Bock (2013), pp. 310 f.; Meier (2016), pp. 281 ff.

  33. 33.

    As an example, see the view on criminal law taken by Cárdenas et al. (2009).

  34. 34.

    Just see Greco (2013), p. 23; Jahn and Brodowski (2016), p. 976; Jakobs (1991), 2/27 f.; Kühl (2008), p. 41; Swoboda (2010), p. 49 f.; Rengier (2018), § 3 at mn. 5; Roxin and Greco (2020), § 2 at mn. 97; Kaspar (2014), pp. 243 ff., 865.

  35. 35.

    On the history and definition, just see Brodowski (2019a), p. 98; Chawki et al. (2015), p. 3; Gillespie (2016), pp. 1 ff.; Kshetri (2010), p. 3; Sieber (2008), p. 131; Schjolberg (2014); Vogel (2008); Wall (2007), p. 10.

  36. 36.

    Just see Kshetri (2010), p. 3; Vogel (2008), p. 1 f. as well as UNODC (2013), pp. 11 f.

  37. 37.

    Just see Brodowski (2013).

  38. 38.

    Cf. Art. 3 (1) Directive 95/46/EC. The scope of that Directive was limited to the “the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automatic means” or by filing systems. The GDPR (see infra), which replaced this Directive, does not contain a similar limitation.

  39. 39.

    See Council Document 12711/17 of 02.10.2017, p. 8, 16 ff.

  40. 40.

    See Council Document 10007/16 of 09.06.2016.

  41. 41.

    For further details, see the Explanatory Report as well as Brodowski (2016), pp. 341 ff.; Schjolberg (2014), pp. 38 ff.

  42. 42.

    See generally Haase (2017); Summers et al. (2014), pp. 231 ff.; Brodowski (2010).

  43. 43.

    Cf. Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA, OJ 2005 L 69 of 15.03.2005, p. 67.

  44. 44.

    Cf. Directive 2013/40/EU, OJ 2013 L 218 of 13.08.2013, p. 8.

  45. 45.

    For further details, see Brodowski (2016), pp. 347 f.

  46. 46.

    Cf. Brodowski (2016), p. 348.

  47. 47.

    See, in particular, Art. 5 Directive 2011/93/EU, OJ 2011 L 335 of 16.12.2011, p. 1.

  48. 48.

    See the Directive [EU] 2019/713, OJ 2019 L 123 of 10.05.2019, p. 18.

  49. 49.

    Directive [EU] 2017/541, OJ 2017 L 88 of 31.03.2017, p. 6.

  50. 50.

    Directive [EU] 2018/1673, OJ 2018 L 284 of 12.11.2018, p. 22.

  51. 51.

    Art. 3 [1] [I] Directive (EU) 2017/541, Art.2 [1] [v] Directive [EU] 2018/1673.

  52. 52.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA, OJ 2008 L 300 of 10.11.2008, p. 42.

  53. 53.

    Regulation [EU] 2016/679 [GDPR], OJ 2016 L 119 of 04.05.2016, p. 1. However, the GDPR leaves the option open to member states to sanction grave breaches by means of criminal sanctions, cf. Art. 84 GDPR.

  54. 54.

    Just see Brodowski and Nowak (2020), mn. 4.

  55. 55.

    See also § 270 StGB.

  56. 56.

    Zweites Gesetz zur Bekämpfung der Wirtschaftskriminalität, BGBl I 1986, p. 721.

  57. 57.

    41. StrÄndG, BGBl I 2007, p. 1786.

  58. 58.

    Most recently in Siebenundfünfzigstes Gesetz zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuches – Versuchsstrafbarkeit des Cybergroomings, BGBl I 2020, p. 431.

  59. 59.

    See BR-Drs. 47/18.

  60. 60.

    Just see Vogelgesang and Möllers (2016).

  61. 61.

    Just see German Federal Court of Justice, decision of 11.01.2017 – 5 StR 164/16 = ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:110117B5STR164.16.0.

  62. 62.

    See, though more critically, Popp (2006); Graf (2007).

  63. 63.

    Just see Kammergericht Berlin, decision of 22.07.2009 – (4) 1 Ss 181/09 (130/09) = ECLI:DE:KG:2009:0722.4.1SS181.09.130.0.0A.

  64. 64.

    Just see Brodowski (2019b).

  65. 65.

    On this question, see Brodowski (2019b), p. 55 f. with further references.

  66. 66.

    On this question, see Brodowski (2019b), p. 55 with further references.

  67. 67.

    However, service providers are increasingly tasked with asserting the legality of the actions their users take on their platforms. Exemplary for this trend is the German Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken (NetzDG).

  68. 68.

    Cf. Kshetri (2010), Wall (2010).

  69. 69.

    See Sieber and Brodowski (2018), mn. 7 ff. with further references.

  70. 70.

    Sieber and Brodowski (2018), mn. 152.

  71. 71.

    Sieber and Brodowski (2018), mn. 174. Legal requirements to report crimes exist, however, in the context of critical infrastructure and the GDPR (Art. 33, Art. 34 [1] GDPR).

  72. 72.

    Just see Sieber and Brodowski (2018), mn. 108 ff. with further references.

  73. 73.

    Just see Brodowski (2016), p. 353 f. with further references.

  74. 74.

    Just see UNODC (2013).

  75. 75.

    Just see Schjolberg (2014), pp. 43 ff.

  76. 76.

    Just see the CCC [supra Sect. 2.2] and recent discussions on a second additional protocol to this convention, T-CY(2017)3 (available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/t-cy-drafting-group. Accessed 27 Aug 2021).

  77. 77.

    See, among others, Directive 2014/41/EU, OJ 2014 L 130 of 30.04.2014, p. 1, and a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters, COM [2018] 225 final of 17.04.2018 as well as the [Commission] Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations in view of an agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, COM [2019] 70 final of 05.02.2019.

  78. 78.

    While, for example, Art. 8 (1) Directive 2013/40/EU requires that incitement, or aiding and abetting in relation to one of the cybercrimes referenced in the Directive are punishable as a criminal offence, such incitement, aiding and abetting requires at least some knowledge of the specific crime, and/or some intent with regard to the commission of the crime.

  79. 79.

    At least not on their own. It requires further research whether such obligations may become requirements in the interplay with contractual obligations, tort law, and (criminal or civil) compliance requirements.

  80. 80.

    Brodowski (2019b), p. 55.

  81. 81.

    Brodowski (2019b), p. 55 f.

  82. 82.

    Just see Brodowski and Freiling (2011), pp. 187 f.

  83. 83.

    Just see Brodowski and Freiling (2011), pp. 100, 189.

  84. 84.

    Gesetz zur Erhöhung der Sicherheit informationstechnischer Systeme [IT-Sicherheitsgesetz], BGBl I 2015, 1324.

  85. 85.

    In addition, it created a similar requirement for providers of critical infrastructure in § 14 (1) Nr. 1 i.V.m. § 8a (1) 1 BSI-G (Gesetz über das Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik); see further Mansdörfer (2018), p. 166.

  86. 86.

    Just see Sieber (2018), pp. 301 ff.; Wohlers (2018), pp. 238 f., 252 ff.

  87. 87.

    BT-Drs. 18/4096, p. 34.

  88. 88.

    Reimer (2018), mn. 48 f.

  89. 89.

    See, among others, Bock (2011); Engelhart (2012); Fiorella (2012); Jahn et al. (2018); Laufer (2018); Rotsch (2014); Sieber and Engelhart (2014).

  90. 90.

    Cf. McBarnett (2003), pp. 229 ff.

  91. 91.

    See also Council Document 16542/09 of 23.11.2009 on the policy question.

  92. 92.

    On this term, just see Alur (2015), p. 1; Mansdörfer (2018), pp. 155 f.

  93. 93.

    See, among others, Hilgendorf (2017); Wörner (2019).

  94. 94.

    Keenlab (2016).

  95. 95.

    Cf. von Leitner (2020).

  96. 96.

    Just see Vogel and Bülte (2020), mn. 164 ff. with further references.

  97. 97.

    See, in further detail, Brodowski (2020), mn. 85; Mansdörfer (2018), pp. 160 f.

  98. 98.

    See, in particular, German Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 06.07.1990 – 2 StR 549/89; on this judgment, see Timpe (2017).

  99. 99.

    See, in further detail, Brodowski (2020), mn. 87.

  100. 100.

    In this direction, see Eisele (2019), mn. 101j.

  101. 101.

    Cf. German Federal Court of Justice, decision of 22.03.2012 – 1 StR 359/11, mn. 35.

  102. 102.

    See, in extensive detail, Frisch (1988), pp. 230 ff.

  103. 103.

    Brodowski (2020), mn. 87.

  104. 104.

    See Brodowski (2018), pp. 373 ff.

  105. 105.

    Tiedemann (1969), pp. 144 f. in note 22; Tiedemann (1975), p. 266 f.; Gärditz (2016), p. 646; Jahn and Brodowski (2016), p. 977; Wohlers (2018), pp. 258 f.

References

  • Ahlbrecht, M., & Weber, M. (1997). An empirical study on intertemporal decision making under risk. Management Science, 43(6), 813–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alur, R. (2015). Principles of cyber-physical systems. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp, P., Bitzilekis, N., Bogdan, S., Elholm, T., Foffani, L., Frände, D., et al. (2009). Manifest zur Europäischen Kriminalpolitik. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 4(12), 697–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W., van Gelder, J.-L., & Elffers, H. (2017). The Oxford handbook of offender decision making. OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Binding, K. (1922). Die Normen und ihre Übertretung I (4th ed.). Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, D. (2011). Criminal compliance. Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, M. (2013). Kriminologie (4th ed.). Vahlen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2010). EU actions on cybercrime and cybercrime investigations. In M. Bellini, P. Brunst, & J. Jähnke (Eds.), Current issues in IT security. Proceedings of the interdisciplinary conference in Freiburg i. Br./Germany, May 12–14, 2009 (pp. 145–161). Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht/Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2013). Preparatory colloquium for the XIXth international congress of penal law (Moscow, 24–27 April 2013). Russian Law Journal, 1(1), 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2016). Transnational organised crime and cybercrime. In P. Hauck & S. Peterke (Eds.), International law and transnational organised crime (pp. 334–360). OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2018). Alternative enforcement mechanisms in Germany. In M. Dyson & B. Vogel (Eds.), The limits of criminal law (pp. 365–396). Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2019a). Cybercrime, human rights and digital politics. In B. Wagner, K. Vieth, & M. C. Kettemann (Eds.), Research handbook on human rights and digital technology. Global politics, law and international relations (pp. 98–112). Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2019b). Hacking 4.0: Seitenkanalangriffe auf informationstechnische Systeme; Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Dogmatik des IT-Strafrechts. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 14(1), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2020). Gefahrenabwehr und Sanktionierung. In D.-K. Kipker (Ed.), Cybersecurity: Rechtshandbuch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D. (2021). Cibercrimen y protección de la seguridad informática. AdHoc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D., Espinoza de los Monterros de la Parra, M., Tiedemann, K., & Vogel, J. (2014). Regulating corporate criminal liability. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D., & Freiling, F. C. (2011). Cyberkriminalität, Computerstrafrecht und die digitale Schattenwirtschaft. Forschungsforum Öffentliche Sicherheit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski, D., & Nowak, D. (2020). § 41 BDSG. In H. A. Wolff & S. Brink (Eds.), Beck’scher Onlinekommentar Datenschutzrecht (32th ed.). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas, A. A., Amin, S., Sinopoli, B., Giani, A., Perrig, A., & Sastry, S. (2009). Challenges for securing cyber physical systems. Workshop on Future Directions in Cyber-physical Systems Security, 5(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chawki, M., Darwish, A., Khan, M. A., & Tyagi, S. (2015). Cybercrime, digital forensics and jurisdiction. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duff, A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisele, J. (2019). Vor §§ 13ff. In: A. Schönke & H. Schröder (founders), Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar (30th edn). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisele, J., & Vogel, J. (2018). Art. 83 AEUV. In E. Grabitz, M. Hilf, & M. Nettesheim (Eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union (65th ed. suppl). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhart, M. (2012). Sanktionierung von Unternehmen und compliance (2nd ed.). Duncker & Humblot.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1965). The expressive function of punishment. The Monist, 49(3), 397–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, A. (2012). Corporate criminal liability and compliance programs: Toward a common model in the European Union. Jovene.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, W. (1988). Tatbestandsmäßiges Verhalten und Zurechnung des Erfolgs. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, W. (2016). Voraussetzungen und grenzen staatlichen Strafens. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 36(1), 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärditz, K. F. (2016). Demokratizität des Strafrechts und Ultima Ratio-Grundsatz. Juristenzeitung, 71(13), 641–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, A. A. (2016). Cybercrime: Key issues and debates. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeckenjan, I. (2015). Überprüfung von Straftatbeständen anhand des Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatzes: überfällige Inventur oder Irrweg? In M. Jestaedt & O. Lepsius (Eds.), Verhältnismäßigkeit (pp. 184–209). Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf, J.-P. (2007). “Phishing” derzeit nicht generell strafbar! Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 27(3), 129–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, L. (2013). Verfassungskonformes oder legitimes Strafrecht? Zu den Grenzen einer verfassungsrechtlichen Orientierung der Strafrechtswissenschaft. In B. Brunhöber, K. Höffler, J. Kaspar, T. Reinbacher, & M. Vormbaum (Eds.), Strafrecht und Verfassung (pp. 13–36). Nomos.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haase, A. (2017). Computerkriminalität im Europäischen Strafrecht. Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamm, R. (2016). Richten mit und über Strafrecht. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 69(22), 1537–1542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassemer, W. (1989). Symbolisches Strafrecht und Rechtsgüterschutz. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 9(12), 553–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassemer, W. (1994). Strafrechtswissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In D. Simon (Ed.), Rechtswissenschaft in der Bonner Republik (pp. 259–310). Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgendorf, E. (Ed.). (2017). Autonome Systeme und neue Mobilität. Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle, T. (2011). Straftheorien. Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husak, D. N. (2008). Overcriminalization. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignor, A. (2016). Gedanken zur Krise des Strafrechts. In V. Bouffier, H.-D. Horn, R. Poseck, H. Radtke, & C. Safferling (Eds.), Grundgesetz und Europa. Liber Amicorum für Herbert Landau zum Ausscheiden aus dem Bundesverfassungsgericht (pp. 375–392). Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, M., & Brodowski, D. (2016). Krise und Neuaufbau eines strafverfassungsrechtlichen Ultima Ratio-Prinzips. Juristenzeitung, 71(20), 969–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, M., & Brodowski, D. (2017). Das Ultima Ratio-Prinzip als strafverfassungsrechtliche Vorgabe zur Frage der Entbehrlichkeit von Straftatbeständen. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 129(2), 363–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, M., Schmitt-Leonardy, C., & Schnoop, C. (2018). Unternehmensverantwortung für Unternehmenskriminalität – “Frankfurter Thesen”. Wistra, 37(1), 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs, G. (1991). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (2nd ed.). de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaspar, J. (2014). Verhältnismäßigkeit und Grundrechtsschutz im Präventionsstrafrecht. Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keenlab (2016). Car Hacking Research: Remote Attack Tesla Motors. Retrieved August 27, 2021, from https://keenlab.tencent.com/en/2016/09/19/Keen-Security-Lab-of-Tencent-Car-Hacking-Research-Remote-Attack-to-Tesla-Cars/

  • Kshetri, N. (2010). The global cybercrime industry. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kudlich, H. (2003). Grundrechtsorientierte Auslegung im Strafrecht. Juristenzeitung, 58(3), 127–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühl, K. (2008). Fragmentarisches und subsidiäres Strafrecht. In U. Sieber & G. Dannecker (Eds.), Strafrecht und Wirtschaftsstrafrecht (pp. 29–46). Heymann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagodny, O. (1996). Strafrecht vor den Schranken der Grundrechte. Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, H. (2015a). Das ultima-ratio-Prinzip im Strafrecht. In W. Hadding & U. Herrmann (Eds.), Festschrift für Wolfgang Schlick (pp. 523–533). Heymann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, H. (2015b). Die jüngere Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu Strafrecht und Strafverfahrensrecht. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 35(12), 665–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. S. (2006). Corporate bodies and guilty minds. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, W. S. (2018). The compliance game. Revista dos Tribunais, 107(2), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Elster, J. (1992). Choice over time. Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüderssen, K. (1979). Die generalpräventive Funktion des Deliktssystems. In W. Hassemer, K. Lüderssen, & W. Naucke (Eds.), Hauptprobleme der Generalprävention (pp. 54–80). Metzner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamayek, C., Paternoster, R., & Loughran, T. A. (2017). Temporal discounting, present orientation, and criminal deterrence. In W. Bernasco, J.-L. van Gelder, & H. Elffers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of offender decision making (pp. 209–227). OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansdörfer, M. (2018). Über die strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit beim Einsatz maschinell-autonomer cyberphysischer Systeme – oder: Prolegomena zu einem Allgemeinen Teil des Cyberstrafrechts. In S. Barton, R. Eschenbach, M. Hettinger, E. Kempf, C. Krehl, & F. Salditt (Eds.), Festschrift für Thomas Fischer (pp. 155–170). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattes, H. (1977). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von den Ordnungswidrigkeiten. Erster Halbband: Geschichte und Rechtsvergleichung. Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBarnett, D. (2003). When compliance is not the solution but the problem: From changes in law to changes in attitude. In V. Braithwaite (Ed.), Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance and evasion (pp. 229–243). Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B. (2016). Kriminologie (5th ed.). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, F. (2015). Art. 83 AEUV. In H. von der Groeben, J. Schwarze, & A. Hatje (Eds.), Europäisches Unionsrecht (7th ed.). Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2004). Time and punishment: Delayed consequences and criminal behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4), 295–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öncüler, A. (2010). How do we manage an uncertain future? Ambiguity today is not ambiguity tomorrow. In E. Michel-Kerjan & P. Slovic (Eds.), The irrational economist. Making decisions in a dangerous world (pp. 107–115). PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieth, M., & Ivory, R. (2011). Corporate criminal liability. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Popp, A. (2006). “Phishing”, “Pharming” und das Strafrecht. Multimedia und Recht, 9(2), 84–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, P. (2018). Art. 5. In G. Sydow (Ed.), Europäische Datenschutzgrundverordnung (2nd ed.). Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengier, R. (2018). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (10th ed.). Beck.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Renzikowski, J. (2002). Die Unterscheidung von primären Verhaltens- und sekundären Sanktionsnormen in der analytischen Rechtstheorie. In D. Dölling (Ed.), Festschrift für Karl Heinz Gössel zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 3–13). Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotsch, T. (Ed.). (2014). Criminal compliance. Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin, C., & Greco, L. (2020). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Band 1 (5th ed.). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger, H. (2018). Art. 83 AEUV. In R. Streinz (Ed.), EUV/AEUV (3rd ed.). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schjolberg, S. (2014). The history of cybercrime, 1976–2014. Books on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlepper, C. (2014). Strafgesetzgebung in der Spätmoderne. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt-Leonardy, C. (2013). Unternehmenskriminalität ohne Strafrecht? Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2008). Mastering complexity in the global cyberspace. In M. Delmas-Marty, M. Pieth, & U. Sieber (Eds.), Les chemins de l’harmonisation pénale (pp. 127–202). Société de Législation Comparée.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2018). Administrative sanction law in Germany. In M. Dyson & B. Vogel (Eds.), The limits of criminal law (pp. 301–332). Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U., & Brodowski, D. (2018). Teil 19.3: Strafprozessrecht. In T. Hoeren, U. Sieber, & B. Holznagel (Eds.), Handbuch Multimedia-Recht (47th ed. suppl). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U., & Engelhart, M. (2014). Compliance programs for the prevention of economic crimes: An empirical survey of German companies. Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhr, O. (2016). Art. 83 AEUV. In C. Calliess & M. Ruffert (Eds.), EUV/AEUV (5th ed.). Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, S., Schwarzenegger, C., Ege, G., & Young, F. (2014). The emergence of EU criminal law. Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swoboda, S. (2010). Die Lehre vom Rechtsgut und ihre Alternativen. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 122(1), 24–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann, K. (1969). Tatbestandsfunktionen im Nebenstrafrecht. Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann, K. (1975). Der Entwurf eines Ersten Gesetzes zur Bekämpfung der Wirtschaftskriminalität. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 87(2), 253–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timpe, G. (2017). Die strafrechtliche Produzentenhaftung. Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung im Strafrecht, 18(6), 272–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNODC. (2013). Comprehensive study on cybercrime. United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. (1993). Norm und Pflicht bei den unechten Unterlassungsdelikten. Duncker & Humblot.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. (2008). Towards a global Convention against cybercrime. First World Conference of Penal Law. Revue électronique de l’AIDP C-07:1 Retrieved August 27, 2021, from http://www.penal.org/sites/default/files/files/Guadalajara-Vogel.pdf

  • Vogel, J., & Bülte, J. (2020). § 15. In H. W. Laufhütte, R. Rissing-van Saan, & K. Tiedemann (Eds.), Leipziger Kommentar (Vol. 1, 12th ed.). De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelgesang, S., & Möllers, F. (2016). Ransomware als moderne Piraterie: Erpressung in Zeiten digitaler Kriminalität. Juris – Die Monatszeitschrift, 3(10), 381–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A. (2005). Fairness, Verbrechen und Strafe. BWV.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Leitner, F. (2020). Fefes blog. Retrieved August 27, 2021, from https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a19dfb18

  • Wall, D. S. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, D. S. (2010). The organization of cybercrime and organized cybercrime. In M. Bellini, P. Brunst, & J. Jähnke (Eds.), Current Issues in IT Security. Proceedings of the interdisciplinary conference in Freiburg i. Br./Germany, May 12–14, 2009 (pp. 51–66). Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht/Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. H. (2014). Probability errors: Overoptimism, ambiguity aversion, and the certainty effect. In E. Zamir & D. Teichmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law (pp. 335–353). OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlers, W. (2018). Criminal law as a regulatory tool. In M. Dyson & B. Vogel (Eds.), The limits of criminal law (pp. 235–262). Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wörner, L. (2019). Der Weichensteller 4.0: Zur strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit des Programmierers im Notstand für Vorgaben an autonome Fahrzeuge. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 14(1), 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Dominik Brodowski

Authors
  1. Dominik Brodowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Brodowski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Legal Informatics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Georg Borges

  2. Institute of Legal Informatics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Christoph Sorge

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brodowski, D. (2022). The Role of Criminal Law in Regulating Cybercrime and IT Security. In: Borges, G., Sorge, C. (eds) Law and Technology in a Global Digital Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90513-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90513-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90512-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90513-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation