Raksta tapšanas ideja ir saistīta ar Valsts policijas iesniegto priekšlikumu Tieslietu ministrijas Kriminālprocesa ekspertu pastāvīgajai darba grupai par grozījumiem Kriminālprocesa likuma 219. panta otrajā daļā. Kriminālprocesa likuma 219. pants “Automatizētās datu apstrādes sistēmā esošo datu kontrole” būtībā ir analogs Kibernoziegumu konvencijas 19. pantam, kas uzliek dalībvalstīm pienākumu pieņemt tādus tiesību aktus, kas atvieglotu to teritorijā esošo sistēmu pārmeklēšanu. Priekšlikuma būtība: atteikties pantā no nacionālās teritoriālās piemērošanas klauzulas, jo tā ierobežojot policijas iespējas iegūt pierādījumus, ja no pārmeklējamās sistēmas ir iespējams likumīgi piekļūt datiem, kas glabājas sistēmās, kas atrodas ārpus Latvijas Republikas teritorijas. Citiem vārdiem sakot, idejas būtība ir mainīt panta piemērošanas jurisdikciju no nacionāli teritoriālās uz pārrobežu. Diskusija par to, vai vienai dalībvalstij ir tiesības veikt datu sistēmu pārmeklēšanu citā dalībvalstī, notiek jau kopš Kibernoziegumu konvencijas pieņemšanas. Turklāt tā turpināsies vismaz līdz Konvencijas otrā Papildprotokola pieņemšanai, kur būtu jāatrisina jautājumi ar pārrobežu sistēmu pārmeklēšanu un datu izņemšanu. Rakstā tiks analizēts, vai un kā situācija, īpaši saistībā ar jurisdikciju kriminālprocesā, pēc Kibernoziegumu konvencijas un Kriminālprocesa likuma pieņemšanas ir mainījusies, un tiks sniegti priekšlikumi, kā efektīvāk būtu risināma problēma, kuru aktualizējusi Valsts policija. The article “Control of Data Located in Automated Data Processing Systems: National and International Application Aspects” is the result of the idea initiated by the proposal submitted by the Latvian State Police, to the Permanent Working Group of Criminal Procedure Experts of the Ministry of Justice regarding the amendment of Section 219, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Law “Control of Data in an Automated Data Processing System” is essentially analogous to Article 19 of the Cybercrime Convention, which obliges Member States to adopt such legislation as to facilitate the search of data in systems located within their territory. The essence of the proposal is to renounce the national territorial application clause in the Article, as it restricts the police operability to obtain evidence in criminal proceedings in situations where data stored in another computer systems are located outside of the territory of Latvia but are legally accessible from searchable system via Internet. In other words, to change the scope of jurisdiction of search and seizure to transborder search and seizure. The debate on whether one Member State is entitled to search and capture data in a system located in the territory of another Member State, is not new. It has been running since the adoption of the Convention and it is believed it will continue at least until the adoption of the Second Additional Protocol to the Convention, which should address issues related to cybercrime investigations. In the article, the authors will analyse what and how the situation has fundamentally changed since the adoption of the Cybercrime Convention and the Criminal Procedure Law, especially regarding the understanding of jurisdiction in the application of criminal procedural instruments. The authors also aim to provide their solutions for solving problems in relation with the proposal submitted by the State Police.
The aim of the article is to analyse the problem of applying substantial harm in offenses against the security of information systems, in particular Paragraph one of Article 241 and the paragraph one and two of Article 243 of the Criminal Law. Although substantial harm is defined in Article 23 of the Law on the Procedures for the Coming into Force and Application of the Criminal Law, the wording of the current law and its application in the court practice of Latvia is still problematic. The authors have studied the European Union and regulations in Latvia on the network and information system, which provides security of services essential to society. The authors concluded that systems which provide essential service and significant impact of service must be recognised as the direct object of the offense of Article 241, Paragraph three and Article 243, Paragraph five of the Criminal Law. Furthermore, it is not necessary to prove existence of harmful effects in order to prosecute these offenses. The authors propose to introduce a classification of information systems that would functionally cover all existing systems in the country. Therefore, the authors propose to simplify this process of determining significant damage and replace the current procedure with an algorithm. General methods of scientific research and methods of legal interpretation have been used in the research. Keywords: algorithm, automated data processing system, substantial harm, security incident, non-material loss, criminal delinquency
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.