With the Aid of Technology Without Which The Crime Would Not Have Been Committed

The Issue:

In Criminal Law, a person is punished the same way as another who instituted the direct act of accomplishing the crime, if it be proven that without the former’s help or contribution, the latter’s effort would not have been fruitful.

Would that hold the same for the makers and producers of technology used as a necessary means of accomplishing a crime?

While I was reading up on China and the Internet Filtering sanctioned by the said nation’s laws through state orders and regulations, the issue surfaced (that has yet to be resolved) as to whether or not the businesses that supplied China with the necessary technology to be successful in China’s curtailment of the human rights to free expression and right to access of information, be held accountable in the same way as China would be, on the occasion that China is to be made to pay for its acts.

This brings to mind the concept of technology and the responsibility of its manufacturers and distributors. The said business is profitable, to say the least. To get more people to buy is the way so as a company will not only thrive, but also flourish, for the production of more technology to generate more income. However, this must be subject to limitations, don’t you think?

Technology, as with persons, may be considered as a valid mode or means to the culmination of a criminal act. But unlike people that have the capacity of thought, choice and reason, these are objects subject to control of their makers. The essence of conspiracy in a crime is that the person who aided another has all the faculties to assess a given situation, and amidst the knowledge and capability to discern right from wrong, of what would hurt and bring detriment to another, that person still chose or became fully negligent in assisting another to commit a transgression of the law. One cannot say the same in technology and its creators.

The Whys:

One, the intent of the makers of a specific technology is difficult to ascertain.

Although a specific type of computer program or hardware, or both, have been specifically produced to suit the needs and specifications of a client, with the awareness that it may be used to the detriment and curtailment of the rights of another person or groups of people, it will be difficult to hold the companies liable for the aforesaid violations of the law that may result from the use of the technology produced. Companies may always feign innocence to the intentions of their users or cite realization of profit, a main principle of business, in doing so.

To illustrate: it is a reality that technologies are sold en masse. As compared to China’s case, wherein foreknowledge of how technology will be used is easier to prove and that these have the probability to impede various recognized rights, one cannot say the same for technology sold in a larger scale. Thus, it will be infinitely hard to determine each and every intention of the company in making such- of whether or not they have produced such objects to enable the commission of crimes or to make profit.

Two, companies do not have full and direct control over their consumers’ use of what they have produced. These companies can always avail of the excuse that these companies made the technology to provide its consumers with technical solutions for the speedier transaction of their businesses. They should not answer anymore when the situation arises that an ingenious technology user violated laws with the use of technology they have spawned.

However, as earlier stated, technologies produced may directly cause the effectuation of certain criminal acts. Surely, the companies that produce these have knowledge of a computer program’s limitations, and more importantly, an idea of their capabilities . Surely, they could have had knowledge on the scope of power of the technology that they have made and anticipated the transgressions of the law and the harms these may cause.

Recommendations:

The law must recognize the important role of companies in the making of certain technologies and as to whom they sell these to. These may be used by consumers for the improvement, and on the flipside, the destruction of lives. To hold a certain company liable though for acts committed by its consumers is a gray matter, wherein facts and circumstances of the situation must be determined first to arrive to a conclusion of such. A guide to such would be the looking in of the relationship between the production of a specific type of technology by a company and their intention in doing so, taking into account their foreknowledge of their consumers’ intentions in purchasing and using the technology that the company has made.

Taking all the above considerations, in the coming up on laws involving cyber crimes, one must take into account the integral role that technology makers and distributors play in the picture. As such, they must not be scot-free of the effects of the technology that are their brainchild. However, as merely, in a say, mere agents in commission of crimes, they must not be wholly and solidarily liable for the acts of the users of their technology.

In Criminal Law, a person is punished the same way as another who instituted the direct act of accomplishing the crime, if it be proven that without the former’s help or contribution, the latter’s effort would not be fruitful. But in Cybercrimes, the law is not so clear. Those who are currently fashioning laws in relation to such must take the distinctions into account.