Mariam Tsatsanashvili
Gelati Academy of Sciences
Tariel Sikharulidze
Ilia Chavchavadze State University

December, 2007

Based on the example of Criminal Code of Georgia

Introduction of Internet and full scale use of the newest technologies has created the danger of real war in the virtual world. Internet, Arpanet (initial name of Internet)  first appeared in 1969 as a research network created by leading research agencies (Arpa) and US Pefence Department (DOD). Initially in Arpanet was connecting four American universities via electronic component and served as a means of communication between scientists. Later these technologies rapidly spread and developed in other countries of the world as a unique means of dialoge among cultures, businessmen, consumers and state authorities. Despite these positive effects, September 11, 2001 events radically changed security expert’s opinion on the importance of the use of Internet. Today no one doubts that the newest informational technologies Internet, as well as other services based on it, along with its positive side, contains the gravest threat against humanity. The notion of “Cybertherorism” emerged, which attracted scientist attention to the fact, which in the near future terrorists’ traditional weapon and methods would turn into anachronism.

In most cases such forecasts come true. Electronic means enable terrorists to act anonymously. More over which don’t require mass participation of “Kamikaze-terrorists”, that means that tomorrow’s terrorists will be able to being more harm by using a keyboard than a bomb.

A sharp dispute broke out among scientists not only over the notion of “Cyberterrorism”, but on development of principles and methods for avoiding this threat as well. Among the multi aspects research of this problem, legal analyses of this of interest in order to correctly introduce the problem into legal environment and effective application of statutes.
Criminal Code of Georgia became effective on 28 December, 2002 and amendments on July, 2006 deals with the system of making the punishment more severe.

It should be said, making this article practically effective and its application is impossible without systemic processing of the criminal, criminological systemic and criminalistic aspects of Cyberterrorism. Exactly due to the lack of such theoretical development Latvia didn’t introduce criminal reglamentation of the similar article.

At this stage we touch the problem of criminal definition of Cyberterrorism and the level of its study as we consider that the above mentioned article of the Criminal Code of Georgia not only requires further specification and refinement, but it’s necessary to create scientifically developed judicial practice.

The term Cyberterrorism for the first time war used in 1980 by Barry Collins, senior researcher at California Security and Intelligence Institute, for defining Cyberspace and terrorism  while the firs working definition belongs to FBI special agent Mark Pollit: cyber terrorism is deliberate, politically motivated violence against peaceful (non-belligerent) targets which is accomplished in a form as attaching information, computer systems, programmes and data bases and their distraction by subnational secret agents.  Regardin these dangers American influential experts and such organizations as SANS (Sysadmin, Audit, Network,Security www.sans.org), NIPC   national infrastructure preserve centre at FBI have fixed their position at these threats.

Later, one of the leading experts of Cyberterrorism Professor from Georgetown Dorothy Denning earmarks three aspects of activities in the Internet: “Activism” “Hacktivism” and “Cyber terror”. Activism as Dorothy Dennis defines, is a legitimate (normal to her appraisal) use of cyberspace for advancing your own ideas or for accomplishing some other goals, including retrieval of information, creation of Internet sites, e-mail use, spread of electronic publications, as well as use of Internet for free receipt and spread of information or for coordination of activities in Internet. “Hacktivism” is the mixture of Activism and Hacherism. It comprises the operations imploying hacker’s technique against target web-sites and its not inflicting a destructive damage. Examples of such actiens are virtual blockade, sending computer “Trojans” and viruses, bombardment of automatic e-mail, cracking computers etc. Cyberterrorism is a mixture of terrorism and cyberspace, it includes politically motivated hackers operations aimed at achievement of devastating results such as lethal or hard economic or political outcome.  Denning’s classification is supported by the data of “Computer Emergency” statistic research group. According to this data, 52685 attacks which could have paralyzed the US infrastructure were registered in 2001. This figure is twice as much as the data for 2000. Since then the statistic of incidents has been growing on a frightening scale, from scanning of credit cards to other computer attacks.

The necessity of studying this problem is being actively discussed in Post-communist countries. Alexander Popov, the head of CIS anti-terrorist centre thinks that real threats should be expected from new versions of technological terrorism, first of all from Cyberterrorism.

US Federal Government paid due attention to the threat and subject of its prevention was touched in Presidential Clinton’s speech (22 may 1998) and in some reports prepared for the Congress.  Much earlier to the events of 11 September 2001, the candidate to Presidency George Bush mentioned Cyberterrorism in his pre-election speech.

After terrorist acts of 2001 he founded the Office of Cyberspace Security. Among the different documents prepared by the US Administration we can single out 2003 US “Cyber Security Strategy”  and US Patriot Act, Section 814 – Deterrence and Prevention of Cyberterorism.

On 5 July 2006, at the conference of General Prosecutors of Europe, V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation declared. That using informational and telecommunication systems for the criminal purposes becomes very active. This is why Russia starts development the global strategy against the Cyberterorism, among them the unification of National Criminal Law.

It’s noteworthy that in recently worked out state documents we came across another object property – which can also be the target of Cyberterorism. In these documents they talk about terrorism as illicit use if power and violence against individuals and property, governments’ peaceful cities for intimidating or inducing them to do something, achieving some social or political intentions by compute resources : it means that the target of Cyberterorism can be digital property s well.

Oleg Nechiporenko, the expert of International military research from “Fort Liverwort’s academy and others  don’t share this position; in their opinion while defining Cyberterorism, the aims of computer affects and scales of receives results should be studied in details.

 To back this position we will name the cases, when after defining the aim, we can change the qualification of the offence:

1. Military –political conflict context:

a) Armenia-Azerbaijan
In February 2000 Armenian hacker group Liazor Apache Group, Russian Apache Team organized computer attacks against Azerbaijan state organizations and 20 mass media sites via Internet. These attacks were accomplished from the territories of Armenia, Russia and the USA. Three members of the group were arrested by Los Angeles police.

b) Afghanistan – The USA
In November 2001 the group Force Pakistan penetrated into the US Administration server and placed threats against the USA and Great Britain military forces and demanded stopping military actions in Afghanistan and withdrawel of their forces from Saudi Arabia.

c) In 2000-2002 (during aggravation of Palestinian problem) 584 computer attacks were registered in IL (Israel) domain zone, Israel Parliament and Defense Ministry servers were violated many times.

d) Russian Federation – Chechnya
Systematic attacks on Russian portals have been accomplished since 1999. Only during one week in May 2000, 140 attacks were registered on “Caucasia” portal.

e) Yugoslavia – USA (NATO)
In summer 1999, during military actions, NATO computer network was blocked in Italy NATO Headquarters and US Defense Ministry portals were penetrated, on political motives.

2. The aim remained unclear in the following contexts:

a) 2001 – Attacks on US, Great Britain, Australian portals resulted in distraction of some portals of China, Kuwait, Romania, Georgia, and Vietnam (accomplished by the group Entaguard).

b) In May 2002 penetration into the US Space Intelligence Centre network and stealing of secret importation (individually by a British hacker) took place.

c) In June 2002 the penetration into the US Strategic Research Centre and stealing of secret importation (individually by a British hacker) took place.

The first group of enlisted cases having political aims can be classified as Cyberterrorism, while the second group hot having such aims can be qualified as computer crimes.

Andrew M. Colarick in his work “Cyberterrorism Political and Economic Implication” published in 2006 along with deliberate, politically motivated violence accomplished via computer attacks, while qualifying as Cyberterrorism, raises of fact, the author underlines that we can accuse a person in Cybeterrorism who cooperates with terrorists, terrorist organizations, who help them with a computer and his expertise. The author of the same book focuses his attention, to that part of the Cybeterrorism’s definition, given by CSIS, where they talk about deliberate, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs and data. While Kate Lurdo, vice-director of FBI’s Cyber department considers important that part of the definition of terrorism which deals with criminal actions, accomplished means, which are followed by violence or discontinuation or destruction of services, intimidation if population for subduing them for definite political or ideological purposes.

On the bases of these two definitions Collarick gives us his own version of the definition of Cyberterrorism. Cybeterrorism is deliberately committed politically motivated criminal action, accomplished by sub national groups or secret agents, against information and computer systems, computer programs and data, which results in intimidation of peaceful (non belligerent) targets.

For introduction of the Article on Cyberterrorism in the Criminal Code it is necessary to differentiate it from terrorism and computer crimes Cyberterrorism, like terrorism is deliberate action of group pf people aiming at destruction for fulfillment of large scale political, religious are ideological goals.

Cyberterrorism is just one variety of Cyberthreats and with its scales and goals differs from such threats as computer crimes: if during computer crimes the aim of penetration into the network can be stealing of information, hindering its operation extortion or acquisition of money or damage of local network or simply professional interest – cracking the code and penetration into the computer, the aim of Cyberterrorism is political and economic destabilization of the country. It can be described as Sabotage or stealing of military or civil assets for political reasons. Through like in computer crimes during Cyberterrorism information equipment and technologies are subject, means or weapon of crime, but if such crimes are organized and committed for violating public security, intimidation of population or attempt to influence the government decision making process, it should be ascribed to Cyberterrorism, thon there is constituent component of Cyberterrorism.

While defining Cyberterrorirsm some experts, along with aims focus on the scales of implications i.e. in 2003 report to the US Congress, according to experts computer attacks can be qualified as Cyberterrorism in the results of that attacks will be devastating enough to create fear equal to the one of or stronger of the fear of physical terrorist action or its outcome. This computer attacks which can be followed by destruction or deaths or massive cut of electricity, air catastrophes, and mass pollution of water or full loss of confidence in the economic branch can also be qualified as Cyberterrorism.

Taking into consideration the established results, there is an opinion among scientists regarding the connection of Cyberterrorism with terrorism to be precise, regarding their similarity, which means that Cyberterrorism doesn’t require separate criminal reglamentation. 
Oleg Nechiponenko states that no matter how strange it might seem, terrorism is first of all an art of search for new forms and methods for achieving stated goals: one can state for certain that the terrorists are hampering the progress by using scientific and technical achievements for their devastating aims.
Terrorists are threat not only for people’s loves or health but for the whole society, they can damage system of government, destroy property and establish the atmosphere of fear. This definition deals with terrorism in general; the role of new technologies and equipment is seen only in the aspect of means or methods for carrying out of terrorist acts.

 Ekaterina Starostina contrary to Oleg Nechiponenko, in her work, publishes in 2005, thinks that terrorism as criminal phenomena has international character and belongs to the category of international crimes. But the author is still unaware, how electronic terrorism could be detected in sphere of his technologies.   That means that Starostina doesn’t categorically deny the problem of Cyberterrorism, though she is for working out special principles for its legal reglamentation. K.Salimov, Baku State University professor gives very good qualification of such principles. He names few signs for describing the problem of terrorism:

1. are used extreme forms of violence or threat of violence.
2. aims of terrorist act exceed accomplished destructions, harm or murders.
3. such aim can be achieved by psychological pressure on person who are not the direct victims of terrorism. A victim of terrorism is close symbolically rather than factually.

It is noteworthy that addition to above mentioned signs to the principles of use of computer technologies they aren’t considered client sufficient bases for separate definition by US NIPC which is currently part of US State Security Department. The experts of this organization share the definition of terrorism as of criminal act committed via computers and result in violence, death toll, destruction pressure on the government for inducing them to change their policy (this definition belongs to Ron Dick NIPC Director in 2002).

Joshua Green in his article “The Myth of Cyberterrorism” quoted Dorothy Denning “I stay aware whole night terrorized by fear that Cyberterrorists would manage to destroy my life, Cyberterrorism is neither a bomb installed in my car, nor an act committed by means of chemical biological or nuclear bomb. None of them can be compared to Cyberterrorism,” – states Denning.

Though we must mention here that Green unlike Denning is very skeptical about Cyberterrorism, while Denning in her works doesn’t exclude the possibility that Cyberterrorism can emerge in future.

Richard Clark, US National Security Council Coordinator in questions of security, infrastructure and counterterrorism considers such discussions to be exaggerated and calls upon his colleges to stop using of the term “Cyberterrorism” and use the term “Information war”. Expert James Kristy (Defense-wide Information Assurance Program) coordinator of counter-intelligence and law enforcement structures shares Clark’s position, that Cyberterrorism has never been used against the United States of America. Even more, the last hacker attacks on US Army from 1500 different places of 50 countries constitute to cyber crimes, William Church, former officer of US Army Intelligence also thinks that America has never experienced threat of Cyberterrorism.   Such we can see that there is no unanimity even among scientist and practitioner experts on the separate definition of Cyberterrorism.

There is no doubt the hackers’ activities can be followed by the same results as terrorism but from legal point of view, deliberate destruction of information in Cyber space should be considered as a constituent part of terrorist act taking into account its goals and results. In its turn examples of Cyberterrorism can imply use of informational technologies organizing attacks carrying out intelligence activities, etc. But use of informational technologies, as means  of conducting operations which implies unenvisafed limitless threats and has political coloring, becomes the bases for a new constituent component of new crime.

It’s true that terrorism is a global problem, but Cyberterrorism; despite some semiliterate radically differs from terrorism. Cyberterrorism is a mixture of cyberspace and terrorism. Cyberterrorism envisages use of information as means method for achieving their terrorist goals. Cyberterror exists both in cyberspace and beyond it and implies destruction of a process consisting of devices, systems or informational components, or the action which is directed towards destruction or discontinuation of any service or destruction binary code is considered to be a Cyberterrorist Act.  We agree with the scientifically proved arguments concerning the existence of Cyberterrorism in reality and will try to formulate signs, which should become basic for its legal definitions

• Cyberterrorism is an attack against information, computer systems, networks, programs, data bases.
• Violence or threat of violence carried out through computer and telecommunication systems against state military or/and evil strategic objects, criminal infrastructures.
• The result of the action is violation of civil security, state strategic, political or economic interests, and intimidation of population.
• Violation can take place in the form of property destruction, devastation or some other grave results as well in the form of discontinuation of services to information equipment and technologies.
• The aim is exert pressure on Government decision making process.

Cyberterrorism is not only a future threat, it already exist with visible results. Therefore simultaneous improvement and unification of legal mechanisms is important to implement the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrimes and other international acts to prevent crime, which means full scale standards in Cyberspace. Though problems of Licensing and standardization in the Cyber and telecommunication spheres are separate subjects of research.