Abstract
The development of information technologies and electronic networks created preconditions for different types of large-scale dissemination of information, new accesses to information, and information exchange at the national and international levels. Information technologies have in one way or the other pervaded almost every aspect of human activities. These developments have given rise to an unprecedented changes, but they also determined the emergence of new types of crime as well as the commission of traditional crimes by means of information technologies. The paper analyses one of the offences against the security of information systems (IS) – unlawful access to IS, which is criminalized in Lithuanian CC Article 1981, and presents various aspects of its interpretation and qualification. This analysis is based on international and European Union legal documents, also Lithuanian case-law practice. It is important that the last changes of the CC Article 1981 were determined by the Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA. The author also agrees, that a criminal prohibition of unauthorized access is able to give additional protection to the system and the data at an early stage, but it is important to avoid overcriminalization of such offence. The author draws attention, that the breach of confidentiality of IS was criminalized a decade ago in Lithuania, but real incrimination problems of such offence emerged recently. Considering quite different qualification practice, unlawful access to IS problem solving options are suggested in the paper. For example, it is offered to qualify the perpetrator’s actions of unlawfully connecting to e-banking or e-mail as an independent criminal act, provided in CC Article 1981. It is concluded that violation of security measures should be interpreted, inter alia, as a violation of determined restrictions (requirements), when damage for these security measures was not caused. The analysis also revealed that the separation of criminal offence against confidentiality of IS from similar criminal offences against the financial system and crimes against inviolability of a person’s private life is problematic.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have