EXPLORING THE LEGAL STRUCTURES FOR 'DIGITAL CRIMINOLOGY' IN

CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY: PERSPECTIVES ON CRIME AND JUSTICE IN

THE DIGITAL ERA

Research proposal

Submitted to
Dr. Fozia Naseem
Presented By
Muhammad Ahmad
Roll # 4750
Section A
LLB session 2019-2024

COLLEGE OF LAW

GOVERNMENT COLLEGE UNIVERSITY FAISALABAD

INTRODUCTION

1|Page
Multidisciplinary research has extensively established how digital and communications
technologies, especially social media, have a revolutionary influence. Along with the early 1980s
introduction of personal computer workstations and the 1991 advent of the "world wide web,"
the criminological study of computer and cybercrimes has grown exponentially. When this
literature is plotted against advancements in communications, computers, and other digital
technologies, it becomes clear how important technological advances have affected
criminological theory and study. But in this piece, we argue that criminologies of computers and
cybercrime have not given enough thought to recent and continuing technological
advancements like the social web, big data, and the Internet of things. The main areas of focus
for research in this field are still law enforcement and investigation, legislation, and the
motivations of cybercriminals. These topics are frequently examined within the framework of
individualized and "rational offender" theories, which aim to explain technology as only a tool
used in the commission of common crimes. Furthermore, over the past ten years, a lot of
research on computer and cybercrime has mostly focused on the following subjects: hacking,
identity theft, financial theft, illegal online markets and networks, child sex exploitation,
cyberbullying, and, more recently, information privacy and digital surveillance.
This research work focuses on the legal frame work made by the state to control the digital
crimes the laws including Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (United States) is enacted in
1986, the CFAA is a primary legislation that addresses unauthorized access to computer
systems, computer-related fraud, and activities that compromise computer security. It
criminalizes unauthorized access to protected computers and networks, including hacking, data
breaches, and cyber espionage. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (European Union)
implemented in 2018, the GDPR is a comprehensive data protection law that aims to safeguard
the privacy and personal data of individuals within the European Union (EU). It establishes
regulations for the processing, storage, and transfer of personal data, imposes obligations on
organizations handling such data, and outlines severe penalties for non-compliance. The
Cybercrime Convention (Council of Europe) is also known as the Budapest Convention, this
international treaty focuses on combating cybercrime. It addresses a wide range of criminal
activities, including illegal access, data interference, system interference, and content-related
offenses. The convention facilitates international cooperation among signatory countries to
investigate and prosecute cybercrimes effectively. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
(United States), DMCA is a legislation that addresses copyright infringement in digital
environments. It provides a framework for protecting digital content and outlines provisions for
copyright owners to enforce their rights against online infringement. Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA) (United States) safeguards the privacy of electronic communications and
regulates the interception, access, and disclosure of electronic communications and associated
data. It establishes restrictions on government surveillance and unauthorized access to
electronic communications.

2|Page
Hence, to accomplish the actual goals of justice, a clear, logical, and important pathway is
needed to explain the perfect and total flow of blatant scenarios of accountability. New
research in the field of "digital criminology" may be enriched and energized by using the "digital
society" as a basic framework. First, we present a brief summary of past developments in
Internet and mobile technologies, emphasizing how they relate to criminal tendencies and the
constraints that currently exist in criminological research. We also discuss current criminological
investigations into theories of technosociality, which attempt to extend the field's purview
beyond the conventional emphasis on the 'cyber' or 'virtual' aspects of criminal activity and
online crime. In addition, we define the concept of the digital society by incorporating ideas
from multidisciplinary theories of technology and social interaction. Our goal is to clarify how
this idea may go beyond the boundaries of traditional "cyber" criminology, providing a way to
broaden theoretical models and empirical research on crime and justice in the digital age.

CHAPTRIZATION
CHAPTER NO 1:
Existing Mechanisms for International Cooperation (e.g., Council of
Europe Convention on Cybercrime, Budapest Convention) Case Studies
and Examples of Successful Collaboration
Overview of Cybercrime Laws:
The conventional scope of computer and cyber criminologies has arguably developed to the
comparative neglect of a wider range of ways in which computers and digital networks enable
social harm. These include the role of technologies in a wider range of offending and
victimization, and recognize the increasingly embedded nature of online/offline experiences in
crime and justice, the online victimization of marginalized communities (such as on the basis of
race, gender and sexuality), and broader issues of persistent social and digital inequalities as
they relate to crime and justice. Rapidly emerging issues such as online justice movements,
digital vigilantism, and so‐called ‘open‐source’ policing or social network surveillance, provide
further examples under‐examined within criminology. One possible explanation for what might
be described as a ‘siloed’ cyber criminological focus lies in critiques of the discipline more
broadly; namely, that criminology itself has become increasingly insular and self‐referential,
losing some of its fundamental and dynamic origins as the multidisciplinary study of crime,
deviance and justice (see Garland 2011 for a detailed discussion). In light of this, we suggest
that computer and cyber criminologies could benefit from an expansion and revitalization that
might be inspired by reference to developments in social, critical and technological theory from
outside the discipline itself. Indeed, it is our intention to re‐invigorate an ongoing conversation

3|Page
within the discipline that might expand the scope of conventional frameworks of cyber-crime
towards a broader exploration of crime and justice in the digital age.

Comparative Analysis of Cybercrime Legislation

We offer the concept of the ‘digital society’ and its associated theoretical antecedents as one
such framework to inform, expand and inspire innovative crime and justice scholarship within
an emerging field of ‘digital criminology’. To do so, we first provide a brief history of key
developments in Internet and mobile technologies and their associated trends in crime and
criminological research, as well as some limitations of this scholarship to date. Secondly, we
consider recent criminological engagements with theories of techno sociality, which have
sought to expand the discipline beyond a conventional ‘cyber’ or ‘virtual’ approach to online
crime and criminality. Third, informed by interdisciplinary social and technology theory, we
define what we mean by the digital society and explore how this concept may further push the
boundaries of ‘cyber’ criminologies and fruitfully expand theoretical frameworks and empirical
examinations of crime and justice in the digital age.
Criminology in this pre‐web era (1980s to 1991) recognized that such widespread computer
availability and electronic data storage, combined with internally networked workstations and
dial‐in connections, had opened‐up governments, corporations and educational institutions to
new forms of crime through technology misuse. Computer‐related economic crimes (including
financial data theft and identity fraud), ‘eavesdropping’ and the interception of confidential
communications, software piracy (via illegal disk‐based copies), and the security and privacy of
confidential information systems were among the predominant concerns of the time (see, for
example, Clough, Mungo, 1992; Sieber, 1986, p. 34). Given the predominance of computer
technology in public and corporate organizations, these emerging harms were in turn largely
associated with white‐collar crime (Croall, 1992; Kling, 1980; Montgomery, 1986, p. 365-378).
This pre‐web period also marked the initial legislative leaps to address computer‐enabled crime.
For example, one of the earliest laws that defined computer crime was passed in Florida in the
United States in 1978 in response to the fraudulent printing of winning tickets at a dog‐racing
track using a computer (Hollinger and Lanza‐Kaduce, 1988, p. 34). This law was notable as it
defined all unauthorized access to a computer as an offence regardless of whether or not there
was malicious intent (Casey, 2011, p. 35). By 1983 another 20 states had introduced computer
crime legislation. The Computer Fraudand Abuse Act of 1984 criminalized various forms of
unauthorized computer accessing of information. Viewing information relating to defense or
foreign relations matters was regarded as a felony offence, whereas intrusions designed to
access or alter all other non‐classified forms of information were regarded as misdemeanors
(Griffith, 1990, p. 460). Similar computer crime laws were subsequently introduced elsewhere.
In Australia, for instance, a 1989 amendment to the Crimes Act outlined three categories of
computer ‘hacking’ crimes: mere access without seeking out or altering specific information;
access without initial intent but seeking or altering information; and access with intent to seek
or alter specific information. In England, meanwhile, it was 1990 before the first criminal statute

4|Page
to tackle the misuse of computers was passed (Wasik, 1991, p. 44). Consistent with many
legislative frameworks the very act of using a computer to breach a network or database was
highlighted as an offence regardless of specific intent (Greenleaf, 1990, p. 21). Indeed, a tension
running throughout these initial legal reforms was the question of whether the act of computer
misuse or unauthorized access itself should be specifically criminalized, in addition to the
equivalent terrestrial or analogue crimes that may result.
The modern ‘World Wide Web’ went live to a global public on 6 August 1991 (Leiner et al.
2009). While understanding and legislating computer crime typified criminological research of
the 1980s and early 1990s, with the ‘global web’ era (1990s to 2000s) came an associated shift
towards Internet and ‘cyber-crime’ research. The increased accessibility of online information
sharing and communications that the global web brought for everyday users was widely
recognized as creating new and massively expanded opportunities for crime because ‘the
perpetrators who attacked machines through machines ... started attacking real humans
through the machines [emphasis added]’ (Jaishankar, 2011, p. 26). Thus, while financial fraud,
data theft, information privacy and identity crime became (and remain now) persistent themes
in criminological research, the attention of ‘cyber-crime’ scholars broadened to include
interpersonal harms such as online child sexual exploitation and ‘child pornography’ (see, for
example, Armagh, 2001, Esposito 1998, Mitchell et al. 2010) with both crimes having become
the focus of much public and policy concern.
The scope and focus of cyber-crime scholarship in the global web era is well captured by David
Wall’s (2001) original and highly influential typology which comprises four categories of cyber-
crime:
1) Cyber‐trespass, incorporating unauthorized access to a computer system, network or data
source, such as through on‐site system hacking, online attacks, and/or malicious software
(‘malware’).
2) Cyber‐deception/theft, including financial and data thefts, intellectual property thefts and
electronic piracy. Such crimes may be facilitated through fraudulent scams, identity fraud and
malware.
3) Cyber‐porn and obscenity, referring to the online trading of ‘sexually expressive material’ and
including sexually deviant and fetish subcultures, sex work, sex trafficking and sex
tourism, as well as child sexual grooming and exploitation material.
4) Cyber‐violence, referring to the various ways that individuals can cause interpersonal harms
to others. Such harms include cyberstalking, cyberbullying, harassment and communications
that support prospective acts of terror (for example, including ‘bomb talk’ or the circulation of
instructions for making explosives and other weaponry).
A further feature of the social web era is the increasingly ‘mobile web’, with smartphones and
wearable technology becoming ever‐more ubiquitous and simultaneously collecting expansive

5|Page
‘big data’ about ourselves, our identities and our everyday lives. Criminological research has
also sought to engage with these increasingly automated, algorithmic and computational
capacities as they relate to crime data analytics, law enforcement and justice system practices
(Berk, 2008, Birks, Townsley, Stewart, 2012, Brantingham, 2011). There is to date, however, a
comparative dearth of criminological research that has begun to empirically and critically
explore the range of challenges and opportunities presented by ‘big data’ analytics. More
recently, Janet Chan and Lyria Bennett Moses (2016, p. 25) have noted criminologists’ relatively
small engagement with big data research has tended to lie in two main areas: social media data
analysis; and an increasing uptake of computer modelling/algorithms as a predictive tool in
police and criminal justice decision making. They suggest that criminologists and, indeed, social
scientists more broadly must increasingly ‘share the podium’ and collaborate with technical
experts to further progress this field.

Challenges and Gaps in Legal Frameworks

The literature gap for a study on "Crime and Justice in Digital Society" or the development of
'Digital Criminology' might include areas where research or scholarly work is relatively sparse or
underexplored. There might be a gap in detailed analyses or empirical studies focusing on new
and emerging cybercrimes, such as deepfake technology misuse, cyberbullying, AI-driven
crimes, or the exploitation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices for criminal activities. Research
examining the nature, prevalence, and impact of these emerging cyber threats might be
relatively scarce. While traditional punitive measures for cybercrimes are often studied, there
could be a gap in literature exploring restorative justice approaches specifically tailored to digital
offenses. There might be a lack of research on alternative dispute resolution methods or
community-based responses for digital crimes and their effectiveness in addressing harm
caused by cybercrimes.
A gap in the literature might exist concerning comprehensive analyses of cybersecurity policies,
their implementation, and their impact on public awareness and resilience against cyber
threats. Research exploring the effectiveness of educational initiatives, public awareness
campaigns, or policy interventions aimed at reducing cyber vulnerability could be relatively
limited. The area of limited research also focusing on the integration of digital forensics into the
criminal justice system. Understanding how digital evidence collection, preservation, and
analysis influence legal proceedings, investigations, and case outcomes could be an area
requiring more scholarly attention. It also the efficacy of international legal frameworks and
cooperation mechanisms in addressing cybercrimes that span multiple jurisdictions. Research
could delve deeper into the challenges faced in coordinating legal actions across borders, such
as differences in legal systems, jurisdictional conflicts, and variations in data protection laws.
The literature analyzing might lack the impact of privacy laws, like the GDPR, on law
enforcement investigations and the admissibility of digital evidence. Research might explore
how stringent data protection regulations impact the collection, sharing, and use of digital
evidence in criminal cases and the associated legal challenges. As new technologies emerge,

6|Page
there might be a gap in the literature concerning the development and implementation of legal
frameworks and regulations specific to these technologies. Research might explore how laws
surrounding biometrics, IoT devices, autonomous systems, or quantum computing address
potential security and privacy concerns. Several jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring
organizations to notify individuals and authorities in the event of a data breach compromising
sensitive information. These laws aim to ensure transparency and prompt action to mitigate
potential harms to affected individuals.
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (United States): The CCPA is a state-level law that
provides California residents with enhanced data privacy rights. It grants consumers control
over their personal information and requires businesses to disclose their data practices and
provide opt-out options for data selling. Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act
(TIAA) (Australia), this Australian legislation governs the interception of telecommunications and
access to communications data. It regulates the lawful interception of communications by law
enforcement agencies and security authorities. Directive on Security of Network and
Information Systems (NIS Directive) (European Union) NIS is Directive aims to enhance the
cybersecurity capabilities of EU member states. It mandates organizations in essential sectors,
such as energy, transport, and finance, to implement robust cybersecurity measures and report
significant cyber incidents.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (United States), COPPA is designed to protect
the online privacy of children under the age of 13. It requires websites and online services
directed at children to obtain parental consent before collecting personal information from
minors. The United Nations convention against Transnational Organized Crime, while not solely
focused on cybercrime, this international treaty aims to combat various forms of organized
crime, including crimes involving computer systems. It provides a framework for international
cooperation in investigating and prosecuting transnational cybercrimes. Jurisdictional challenges
and international treaties, cybercrimes often transcend national boundaries, leading to
jurisdictional challenges. International cooperation through treaties and agreements, such as
mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), helps facilitate cooperation among countries for
investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes committed across borders.
These laws and legal measures play a vital role in addressing digital-related crimes, protecting
individuals' rights in the digital sphere, and fostering a safer online environment. Continuous
updates and adaptations to these laws are essential to effectively combat evolving cyber threats
and safeguard individuals and organizations in the digital age.

CHAPTER NO 2

2.Legal Standards for Admissibility of Digital Evidence & Challenges

and Best Practices in Digital Investigations
United States:

7|Page
Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE):
Rule 401: Defines relevant evidence as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence."
Rule 402: States that relevant evidence is generally admissible unless excluded by the
Constitution, federal statutes, FRE, or other rules.
Rule 901: Sets forth requirements for authenticating or identifying evidence, including digital
evidence. Methods may include testimony of a witness with knowledge, distinctive
characteristics, or chain of custody documentation.
Rule 902: Specifies certain types of evidence that are self-authenticating, including certified
domestic records of regularly conducted activity, certified foreign records, and electronic
signatures.
Rule 1001-1008: Governs the definition and handling of various types of evidence, including
writings, recordings, photographs, and duplicates.
Case Law:
Daubert Standard: Established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), this standard
governs the admissibility of expert testimony, including in digital forensics. It requires that
expert testimony be based on reliable principles and methods, relevant to the case, and applied
reliably to the facts.
Frye Standard: Some states still adhere to the Frye Standard, which requires that scientific
evidence be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
United States v. Jones (2012): Supreme Court decision ruling that the warrantless use of a GPS
tracking device on a suspect's vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment,
highlighting the need for adherence to constitutional principles in digital investigations.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

Section 3: Defines evidence and its forms, including oral, documentary, and electronic evidence.
Section 22A: Provides for the admissibility of electronic records, stating that electronic records
may be admissible as evidence if it satisfies the conditions laid down in the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
Section 65B: Specifies the conditions for admissibility of electronic evidence, including
requirements for certification by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to
the operation of the relevant device or system.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973:

8|Page
Section 91: Empowers the court to issue summons, order production of documents, or direct
the discovery and inspection of documents or other material objects, including electronic
records.
Section 165: Grants the power to search and seize documents, including electronic records, if
necessary for the purposes of investigation or trial.
Case Law:
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others (2014): Supreme Court decision interpreting Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, laying down guidelines for the admissibility of electronic evidence,
including the necessity of a certificate under Section 65B(4) for electronic records.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005): Delhi High Court decision emphasizing the
importance of maintaining the integrity of electronic evidence and adherence to proper
procedures in its collection and preservation.
Both the United States and India have established legal frameworks governing the admissibility
of digital evidence, including statutes, case law, and court rules. These frameworks aim to
ensure that digital evidence is reliable, authentic, and relevant to the case at hand, while also
upholding constitutional rights and procedural fairness. Adherence to these legal standards is
crucial for maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system in the digital age.

Technological Challenges:
Addressing technological barriers to digital investigations, including encryption, anonymization,
and data obfuscation techniques, requires understanding the challenges they pose and
developing strategies to overcome them:

Encryption:
Challenge: Encryption scrambles data, making it unreadable without the appropriate decryption
key. This can hinder law enforcement's ability to access and interpret digital evidence,
particularly in cases involving encrypted communications or encrypted storage devices.
Strategy:
Legal Measures: Advocate for legislation requiring technology companies to provide law
enforcement with access to encrypted data under certain circumstances, while also balancing
privacy rights.
Technical Solutions: Invest in research and development of advanced encryption-breaking
techniques or tools that can bypass encryption without compromising security for law-abiding
users.

9|Page
Cooperation with Tech Companies: Foster collaboration between law enforcement agencies
and technology companies to develop mutually acceptable solutions for accessing encrypted
data while respecting user privacy.

Anonymization:
Challenge: Anonymization techniques are used to conceal the identity or location of individuals
involved in criminal activities, making it difficult to trace their digital footprint and establish
culpability.
Strategy:
Digital Footprint Analysis: Develop sophisticated algorithms and tools for tracing and analyzing
digital footprints across multiple online platforms to uncover patterns of behavior and identify
potential suspects.
Collaboration with ISPs and Online Platforms: Work closely with internet service providers
(ISPs) and online platforms to obtain subscriber information and IP addresses associated with
suspicious activities, while adhering to legal and privacy regulations.
Enhanced Cyber Intelligence: Invest in cyber intelligence capabilities to monitor and analyze
online communications and activities, identifying and disrupting criminal networks operating
under the guise of anonymity.

Data Obfuscation Techniques:

Challenge: Data obfuscation techniques, such as steganography, encryption, and data
manipulation, conceal the existence or meaning of digital evidence, making it challenging to
detect and interpret.
Strategy:
Advanced Forensic Tools: Develop and deploy advanced forensic tools capable of detecting and
extracting hidden data, including steganographic content embedded within images, audio files,
or other digital media.
Cryptanalysis and Decryption: Invest in research and development of cryptanalysis techniques
and decryption algorithms to uncover hidden information and decrypt encrypted data.
Training and Capacity Building: Provide specialized training and resources to digital forensic
investigators to enhance their skills in detecting and analyzing data obfuscation techniques
effectively.
Addressing technological barriers to digital investigations, including encryption, anonymization,
and data obfuscation techniques, requires a multi-faceted approach that combines legal,
technical, and collaborative strategies. By staying abreast of technological advancements and
fostering collaboration between law enforcement agencies, technology companies, and

10 | P a g e
cybersecurity experts, law enforcement can enhance their ability to overcome these challenges
and effectively investigate digital crimes in the modern era.

CHAPTER NO 3
Balancing Security, Civil Liberties, Ethical Guidelines & Importance of
Public Awareness in Cybersecurity
AIMS
This research aims to explore, evaluate, and address various dimensions of the legal landscape
concerning cybercrimes, digital justice, and the regulatory framework in the contemporary
digital era. They guide the research in acquiring a comprehensive understanding of legal
dynamics and challenges in addressing cyber threats.

 To Evaluate the Effectiveness of Existing Legal Frameworks: Assessing the efficiency of

current laws and legal mechanisms in addressing various cybercrimes within the digital
landscape, aiming to identify their strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
And to Examine International Legal Cooperation in Combating Cybercrimes: Investigating
 the challenges and opportunities related to international legal collaboration in
addressing cybercrimes that transcend national boundaries, with a focus on
understanding legal harmonization and its effectiveness.
 To Analyze the Impact of Privacy Laws on Digital Evidence and Justice: Investigating the
influence of privacy regulations on the collection, admissibility, and utilization of digital
evidence in legal proceedings, and exploring their implications for ensuring justice in
digital crimes. And to Identify Gaps in Cybersecurity Regulations: Identifying gaps or
limitations in existing cybersecurity regulations and industry standards, and analyzing
their impact on preventing and prosecuting cybercrimes across various sectors.
 To Explore Legal Approaches to Emerging Technologies: Examining how different
jurisdictions regulate emerging technologies (e.g., IoT, blockchain, AI) concerning
cybercrimes and justice, and understanding the legal challenges and opportunities
presented by these technologies. And to Gather Perspectives from Legal Practitioners
and Experts: Obtaining insights from legal professionals, law enforcement officials, and
cybersecurity experts regarding the adequacy of current laws and regulations in
addressing digital crimes, aiming to incorporate their suggestions for improvements.
 To Investigate Restorative Justice Approaches in Digital Contexts: Exploring restorative
justice principles and their applicability to digital crimes, with a focus on understanding
their potential role within legal frameworks dealing with cybercrimes. And to Assess the
Impact of Data Breach Notification Laws: Evaluating the effectiveness of data breach

11 | P a g e
 notification laws in enhancing transparency, accountability, and mitigating harms
resulting from cyber incidents, and analyzing their variations across jurisdictions.
 To Draw Lessons from Significant Cybercrime Cases: Extracting insights from notable
cybercrime cases or legal disputes involving digital technologies, aiming to learn from
these experiences and use them to inform the development or modification of legal
approaches in digital criminology.

Methodology
When conducting research on "Crime and Justice in Digital Society" or 'Digital Criminology'
concerning laws and legal aspects, the choice of research methodology is crucial for obtaining
credible and comprehensive findings. Here are potential research methodologies that could be
employed in this research is, conducting a comprehensive review of existing laws, legal
frameworks, international treaties, and case law related to cybercrimes and digital justice. This
involves analyzing statutes, court decisions, policy documents, and legal literature to identify
gaps, inconsistencies, and areas for improvement in the legal landscape. Conducting in-depth
case studies of significant cybercrime cases or legal disputes involving digital technologies.
Comparing legal approaches and outcomes across different jurisdictions can provide valuable
insights into the effectiveness of legal frameworks and international cooperation in addressing
cybercrimes. Utilizing quantitative methods to analyze datasets related to cybercrime statistics,
legal outcomes, or compliance with cybersecurity regulations. Statistical analysis can help
identify trends, patterns, and correlations within legal frameworks and their impact on
cybercrime rates or legal proceedings. Conducting an assessment of the impact and
effectiveness of specific cybersecurity policies or legal regulations. This involves evaluating how
these policies are implemented, their practical implications, and their actual impact on reducing
cybercrimes or improving digital justice.

CONCLUTION

Author David Garland makes the case in an edited collection titled What is Criminology?
(Bosworth, Hoyle, 2011) that criminology is losing its dialogic nature of cross-disciplinary
engagement to the detriment of our discipline and that it needs to be regularly infused with
outside empirical and theoretical innovation. This article argues, in large part, that
criminological responses to computer and cybercrime have, up until now, mainly been insular
and have not involved critical, interdisciplinary interactions with fields like media and cultural
studies, politics, journalism, sociology, and computer science. We argue that this is especially
harmful to the advancement of a new generation of researchers studying the relationship
between technology, crime, deviance, and justice in the digital age. The goals of the proposed
avenues for digital criminological study are to include and greatly expand the traditional

12 | P a g e
boundaries of computer and cybercrime studies as well as the legislation designed to combat
these crimes. They are at once a challenge and an invitation for the further development of this
subject. While there are many social, technological, and disciplinary frameworks that can
stimulate criminological research, a common theme unites many of them: the recognition that
the influence of technology on modern crime and justice extends beyond its use as a tool or to a
specific domain of human experience.
Here we have employed the notion of the 'digital society' to emphasize the indispensable role
of technology in our experiences with victimization, crime, and the legal system. This idea
emphasizes how new technological social practices are emerging in the fields of justice and
crime, and it also shows how important social, cultural, and critical societal ideas are to
understanding and combating crime in the digital age. Thus, the term "digital criminology"
refers to the rapidly developing field of scholarly research that uses criminological, social,
cultural, and technical theories and approaches to investigate crime, deviance, and justice in a
digital domain. We support digital criminology as a platform that provides opportunity to
expand the boundaries of modern criminological theory and research, as opposed to being
rigidly classified as a sub-discipline. Our goal is to promote a more thorough and continuous
dialogue within the field that touches on issues of technology, social dynamics, crime, deviance,
and justice. Our ultimate goal is to open up new conceptual and empirical directions in this
developing subject.

Recommendations and Suggestions

When considering the exploration of the legal structure for 'Digital Criminology' in
Contemporary Society, specifically within the context of Pakistani law concerning Crime and
Justice in the Digital Era, the following recommendations and suggestions can be beneficial,

 Advocate for reforms in Pakistani cyber laws to address emerging cyber threats
effectively. Propose amendments that align with international best practices, ensuring
adequate legal provisions to combat cybercrimes while safeguarding individual rights
and privacy. And encourage training programs and capacity building initiatives for legal
professionals, law enforcement agencies, and judiciary members in Pakistan. Focus on
enhancing their understanding of digital laws, cyber forensics, and technological
advancements impacting legal frameworks.
 Emphasize collaboration and coordination among Pakistani law enforcement agencies,
regulatory bodies, and international counterparts to improve cross-border cooperation
in tackling transnational cybercrimes effectively.

13 | P a g e
  Support campaigns aimed at increasing public awareness regarding cybercrimes, digital
rights, and safe online practices in Pakistan. Promote initiatives that educate citizens
about legal protections and resources available in case of digital victimization.
 Recommend flexible legal frameworks that can adapt to the rapid evolution of
technology. Propose policies that can efficiently address new cyber threats without
compromising individual liberties or impeding technological advancements.
 Encourage research initiatives focusing on Pakistani cyber law and policy development
specific to digital criminology. Support studies that assess the effectiveness of existing
laws and policies in combating cybercrimes within the Pakistani context.
 Highlight the importance of considering local socio-cultural dynamics while formulating
legal responses to cybercrimes in Pakistan. Ensure that legal interventions are relevant
and sensitive to the unique challenges faced within the country.
 Advocate for collaborations between the government, private sector, and civil society
organizations to address cybersecurity challenges collectively. Encourage partnerships
that facilitate information sharing and joint efforts in combating digital crimes.
 Stress the need for legal responses to cybercrimes in Pakistan to be in line with ethical
principles and human rights standards. Ensure that legal measures prioritize fairness,
justice, and respect for individual rights.
 Recommend periodic evaluations of Pakistani cyber laws to assess their efficacy and
relevance in addressing evolving cyber threats. Suggest a review mechanism to ensure
continual adaptation to technological advancements.

14 | P a g e