Harassment through Digital Media: A Cross-Jurisdictional Comparative Analysis on the Law on Cyberstalking
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The cyber world is an extension of the real world. It is another dimension where we can work, study and play. But people also tend to lose their inhibitions on the Internet, often while keeping their anonymity. Because of the perceived and real freedoms in the digital environment, people are emboldened to act in ways that they may not normally do in the real world. One recent phenomenon that is steadily becoming a problem in every country with a high level of electronic connectivity is the act of cyberstalking. The electronic medium is an important factor due to its very nature such as low cost and ease of use, potential anonymity and stealth as well as the insignificance of physical distance to the act of cyberstalking. Hence, cyberspace affords lesser impediments to aggressive behaviour. The borderless nature of electronic communications medium, concomitant jurisdictional concerns and the unique challenges posed to computer forensics such as the collection of evidence and investigations also arise as relevant issues in this context. Cyberstalking has become a concern that has translated into law in larger and more technologicallymatured jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan and even in a small country like Singapore. Existing laws relating to harassment or intimidation are often fact- or relationship- specific and are inadequate to meet the needs of modern society, while nascent cyberstalking laws are substantively disparate. I will first use Singapore as a case study and backdrop by presenting the factual experience and judicial developments in Singapore relating to cyberstalking and identify some of the usual problems in its treatment under law. I will then analyse and compare the cyberstalking laws of several key jurisdictions to determine the common elements and treatment amongst them with a view to the formulation of a proposed statutory solution that will take into consideration the different rights and interests of members of society in the use of digital media for social interaction. I will also briefly consider the issues of prescriptive, adjudicatory and enforcement jurisdiction and the need for greater international cooperation to deal with the problem through the harmonisation of substantive laws, the coordination in procedural investigative measures and complementary recognition and enforcement laws.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».