Abstract
AbstractCybercrime has increased significantly, recently, as a result of both individual and group criminal practice, and is now a threat to individuals, organisations, and democratic systems worldwide. However, cybercrime raises two main challenges for legal systems: firstly, because cybercriminals operate online, cybercrime spans beyond the boundaries of specific jurisdictions, which constrains the operation of the police and, subsequently, the conviction of the perpetrators; secondly, since cybercriminals can operate from anywhere in the world, law enforcement agencies struggle to identify the origin of the communications, especially when obfuscation strategies are used, e.g. dark web fora. Nevertheless, cybercriminals inherently use language to communicate, so the linguistic analysis of suspect communications is particularly helpful in deterring cybercriminal practice. This article reports the potential of forensic translation in the fight against cybercrime. Although the term ‘forensic translation’ is typically understood as a synonym of ‘legal translation’, it is argued that the implications of forensic translation span beyond those of legal translation, to include analyses of language rights, of the right to interpretation and translation in legal procedures (in the EU), or even investigative and intelligence practices. Translation is a pervasive activity that is conducted, not only by professional translators, but also by lay speakers of language, often using machine translation systems. The ease of use of the latter makes it particularly suitable for cross-border criminal (e.g. extortion or fraud) and cybercriminal communications (e.g. cybertrespass, cyberfraud, cyberpiracy, cyberporn or child online porn, cyberviolence or cyberstalking). This article presents the results of the analysis of cybercriminal communications from a forensic translation perspective. It demonstrates that translation is frequently used to spread cybercriminal communications, and that reverse-engineering the translational procedure will assist law enforcement agencies in narrowing down their pool of suspects and, consequently, deter cybercriminal threats.
Funder
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Universidade do Porto
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Ainsworth, J. 2021. How I got started. Language & Law/Linguagem e Direito 7 (1–2): 30–32.
2. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3. Baaiji, C.J.W. 2012. Fifty years of multilingual interpretation in the European Union. In The oxford handbook of language and law, ed. P.M. Tiersma and L.M. Solan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bassnett, S. 2002. Translation studies, 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
5. Berk-Seligson, S. 1999. The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 6 (1): 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.1999.6.1.30.