Cyber-Extortion And Online Radicalisation Prosecutions
1. Cyber-Extortion: Overview
Cyber-extortion is a criminal act where a perpetrator threatens to damage, block access, or reveal sensitive information about a person or organization unless a ransom or other demands are met. This often involves hacking, ransomware attacks, or threatening to release personal or corporate data.
Legal Framework
Laws against cyber-extortion are generally found under computer misuse, cybercrime, or extortion statutes.
Examples: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in the U.S., UK’s Computer Misuse Act 1990, or equivalent laws elsewhere.
Prosecution requires proof of:
Unauthorized access or damage to computer systems/data.
A threat or demand made to extract value.
Intent to cause fear or compel compliance.
2. Online Radicalisation: Overview
Online radicalisation involves the process by which individuals are influenced or indoctrinated into extremist ideologies through internet content, often leading to terrorism or hate crimes. Prosecutions focus on material promoting terrorism, recruitment, or incitement.
Legal Framework
Anti-terror laws criminalizing promotion or support of terrorism.
Laws against hate speech, incitement to violence.
Evidence includes social media posts, videos, forums used to radicalize individuals.
Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: United States v. Hutchins (2017) — Ransomware Extortion
Facts:
Marcus Hutchins, a security researcher, was arrested for creating and distributing the Kronos banking malware. While not a straightforward extortion case, it involved malware that could be used for cyber extortion.
Legal Points:
Charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for distributing malicious software.
Highlighted the use of malware in financial theft and potential extortion.
Raised questions about intent and reformation—Hutchins helped stop the WannaCry ransomware attack later.
Outcome:
Pleading guilty to lesser charges, highlighting the challenges in prosecuting cybercriminals who also act as white hats.
Case 2: R v. Abu Hamza al-Masri (UK, 2014) — Online Radicalisation
Facts:
Abu Hamza was prosecuted for inciting terrorism through online sermons and materials that were accessible worldwide.
Legal Points:
Convicted under the UK Terrorism Act for incitement and encouraging acts of terrorism.
Use of online platforms to spread extremist ideologies was central.
The court emphasized the impact of online communication in recruitment.
Outcome:
Life imprisonment, showing how online radicalization leads to severe legal consequences.
Case 3: United States v. Ross Ulbricht (Silk Road Case, 2015) — Cyber-Extortion and Illegal Online Market
Facts:
Ulbricht operated Silk Road, an online marketplace facilitating illegal drugs and services, including extortion against vendors and buyers.
Legal Points:
Charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, computer hacking, and narcotics trafficking.
Evidence included extortion attempts through threats to vendors.
Illustrates cybercrime blending extortion with broader illegal markets.
Outcome:
Life imprisonment, demonstrating the federal government’s stance on cyber-enabled crime.
Case 4: R v. Anjem Choudary (UK, 2016) — Online Radicalisation
Facts:
Anjem Choudary was convicted for inviting support for ISIS through social media and websites.
Legal Points:
Prosecuted under the Terrorism Act for publishing material that encouraged terrorism.
Online presence used for recruitment and spreading propaganda.
Highlighted role of social media platforms in combatting radicalization.
Outcome:
Five and a half years imprisonment, reinforcing the government’s crackdown on online extremist speech.
Case 5: United States v. Jeremy Hammond (2013) — Cyber-Extortion via Hacktivism
Facts:
Hammond hacked into Stratfor, a private intelligence company, leaking thousands of emails. He claimed it was for transparency but also extorted the company by threatening further leaks unless demands were met.
Legal Points:
Charged under CFAA and conspiracy statutes.
Courts ruled that hacking and leaking information with threats constitute extortion.
The case balances activism and criminal extortion.
Outcome:
Ten-year prison sentence, reflecting harsh treatment of cyber-extortion through hacking.
Case 6: R v. Khuram Butt et al. (UK, 2019) — Online Radicalisation Leading to Terror Attack
Facts:
Three men were convicted of planning the 2017 London Bridge terrorist attack after being radicalized online.
Legal Points:
Their online activities and communication were key evidence.
Showed progression from radical online content to real-world violence.
Supported broader anti-terror laws tackling online grooming and recruitment.
Outcome:
Long-term imprisonment, highlighting prosecution effectiveness on online radicalization translating to terror acts.
Summary
Cyber-extortion prosecutions focus on unauthorized computer access and coercion/demands, often using malware, hacking, or threats.
Online radicalization prosecutions hinge on materials or acts encouraging terrorism or extremist violence.
Both require gathering digital evidence, including communications, online content, and forensic data.
Courts worldwide are increasingly adapting laws to cover complex cyber threats.
RELATED Blog
0 comments