Education, Science, Technology, Innovation and Life
Open Access
Sign In
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Sociology and Ethnology
  4. Vol 6, Issue 5, 2024

Anonymity and Multi-jurisdictionality Hinder Government Control of Cyberspace

Download as PDF

DOI: 10.23977/jsoce.2024.060504 | Downloads: 8 | Views: 114

Author(s)

Yi Zhou 1

Affiliation(s)

1 Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Corresponding Author

Yi Zhou

ABSTRACT

The inherent characteristics of anonymity and multi-jurisdictionality in cyberspace present significant challenges for effective government regulation and control. This essay explores how these characteristics undermine governmental efforts by examining two specific cases: cyberextortion and digital currency. In the case of cyberextortion, multi-jurisdictionality and the lack of inter-jurisdictional cooperation create substantial obstacles to law enforcement, particularly when the subject of a cyberextortion is another government of a country. For digital currencies, as represented by Bitcoin, the decentralized and anonymous nature of transactions poses significant barriers to regulation and taxation. Although governments have employed various prohibitions and regulations to try to control cyberspace, these efforts have often proven ineffective or counterproductive due to the limited reach of single-national jurisdictions and the distinctive nature of the cyberspace. Enhanced international cooperation may offer a potential path for governments seeking to regulate cyberspace, though it is unlikely to fully overcome the challenges presented by anonymity and multi-jurisdictionality.

KEYWORDS

Cyberspace; anonymity; multi-jurisdictionality

CITE THIS PAPER

Yi Zhou, Anonymity and Multi-jurisdictionality Hinder Government Control of Cyberspace. Journal of Sociology and Ethnology (2024) Vol. 6: 27-34. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/jsoce.2024.060504.

REFERENCES

[1] Lawrence Lessig, 'The Law of the Horse: What Cyberlaw Might Teach' (1999) 113(2) Harvard Law Review 501, 505.
[2] Cyber Security Industry Advisory Committee, Locked Out: Tackling Australia's Ransomware Threat (Report, March 2021) 2.
[3] Rachael Falk and Anne-Louise Brown, 'Exfiltrate, Encrypt, Extort: The Global Rise of Ransomware and Australia's Policy Options' (2022) 14(2) Australasian Institute of Policing Journal of Professional Practice and Research 29, 29.
[4] James McIntosh, 'The Case for a Prohibition on the Making of Cyber Ransom Payments' (2024) 40 Company and Securities Law Journal 158, 160.
[5] Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty, Cyber Insights Ransomware Trends: Risks and Resilience (Report, 2021) 4.
[6] Australian Government, Australia's Cyber Security Strategy 2020 (Report, 6 August 2020) 10.
[7] CyberCX, CyberCX Best Practice Guide Ransomware and Cyber Extortion (Report, 2021) 4.
[8] Kristina Keneally and Tim Watts, Beyond the Blame Game: Time for a National Ransomware Strategy (Policy Statement, 2021) 5.
[9] Australian Cyber Security Centre, July 2021–June 2022 Annual Cyber Threat Report (Report, 2022) 30.
[10] United States National Security Agency, People's Republic of China State-sponsored Cyber Actor Living off the Land to Evade Detection (Joint Cybersecurity Advisory, 24 May 2023) 1.
[11] Dean Armstrong, Thomas Steward and Shyam Thakerar, Cyber Risks and Insurance: The Legal Principles (Bloomsbury Professional, 2021) 165.
[12] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 180–181.
[13] Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 (Cth).
[14] Australian Government, Strengthening Australia's Cyber Security Regulations and Incentives (Discussion Paper, 13 July 2021) 21.
[15] The New York State Senate Bill S6806A (2021).
[16] McGrathNicol, Ransomware on the Rise (Report, 14 November 2022) 1. 
[17] Anna Cartwright et al, 'How Cyber Insurance Influences the Ransomware Payment Decision: Theory and Evidence' (2023) 48 The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice 300, 303.
[18] Rui Fanga, Maochao Xub and Peng Zhao, 'Determination of Ransomware Payment Based on Bayesian Game Models' (2022) 116 (102685) Computers & Security 1, 12.
[19] Omri Marian, 'Are Cryptocurrencies Super Tax Havens? ' (2013) 38 Michigan Law Review First Impressions 112, 113.
[20] Joel Emery and Miranda Stewart, 'The Taxing Challenge of Digital Currency' (2017) 28 Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice 236, 238.
[21] Robert Schlimgen, 'Virtual World, Real Taxes' (2010) 11(2) Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 877, 882.
[22] Senate Economics References Committee, Inquiry into Digital Currency (Report, 2014) 5.
[23] Burgess et al, Cooper, Krever, Vann's Income Taxation (Thomson Reuters, 2012) 309.
[24] Dempsey v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2014) 98 ATR 698, [115].
[25] Uta Kohl, 'The Horror-Scope for the Taxation Office: The Internet and its Impact on Residence' (1998) 21(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 436, 438.
[26] United States v e-gold Ltd, 521 F 3d 411 (DDC, 2008).
[27] Uta Kohl and Andrew Charlesworth, Information Technology Law (Routledge, 4th ed, 2012) 77-79.
[28] Danton Bryans and Franne Jelske Anema, 'Bitcoin and Money Laundering: Mining for an Effective Solution' (2014) 89 Indiana Law Journal 441, 472.
[29] Emily M. Little, 'Bitcoin' (2014) 21(5) Investment Lawyer 22, 23.
[30] Terence Wong, 'Bitcoin Deconstructed: Part 2 – Real and Virtual Worlds' (2014) 30(8) Australian Banking and Finance Law Bulletin 122, 126.
[31] Terence Wong, 'Bitcoin Deconstructed: Part 1 – Concepts and Signposts' (2014) 30(6) Australian Banking and Finance Law Bulletin 70, 72.
[32] Miranda Stewart, 'Transnational Tax Information Exchange Networks: Steps Towards a Globalized, Legitimate Tax Administration' (2012) 4(2) Word Tax Journal 152, 153.

All published work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2016 - 2031 Clausius Scientific Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.