Cyber Crime in Saudi Arabia

07/08/2021 by No Comments

Spread the love

Kuwait’s Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, through its Ministry of Interior, is a key part of the Saudi Arabian National Security Commission (NASC) that is entrusted with the monitoring of cyber crime incidences. Saudi Arabia has a separate Security Commission that reports directly to the Crown Prince.

The recent cyber attack on the websites of the Royal Media Company and the Kuwait Investment Company (GIC) is the latest in a long list of cyber crimes that Saudi Arabia is attempting to tackle. The recent cyber attack was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia’s cyber crime unit and the NASC in order to cause damage to these entities.

The incident was reported as follows: “Kuwait’s Ministry of Interior has reported that a cyber attack has been launched on the website GIC websites. It also reported that the cyber-crime unit of the Ministry of Interior has been conducting cyber crimes and has seized the websites of Kuwait Investment Authority and other entities and entities have been hacked. The cyber crime unit of the Ministry of Interior has also blocked access to the websites of the Kuwait Investment Authority and the Kuwait National Bank through its cyber crimes unit and have also reported on the hack of GIC website.

This is the latest cyber crime by Saudi Arabia and the latest in a long list of cyber crimes that Saudi Arabia is attempting to tackle.

Cyber crime is not unusual in Saudi Arabia. It occurs everywhere in the world – from the United Kingdom in the private sector to Russia and China in the public sector. The Saudi Arabian economy has been affected by cyber crime for years.

The country’s Internet is used to coordinate the activities of several state agencies.

Kuwaiti websites and the Kuwait Investment Company were victims of a cyber attack by Saudi Arabia’s cyber crime unit.

The Gulf state has been at the forefront of the technology of cyber crime for more than a decade. The country leads the world with cyber crimes.

While various media reports have been published about the cyber crime, it is important to note that the incident was not targeted at a single company but rather at several different entities.

The country also has many cyber crime experts who monitor the cyber crime incidents of the government.

Tips of the Day in Network Security

1)Do as research as possible.

you research as easy as possible.

any new activity.

2) Do the basics.

at how it ties to a new attack.

might attack you.

3) Be prepared.

to do the job.

successfully defend you.

to do the job.

that you should do so.

prepared than to do so.

Kuwait is the new cybercrime law No. 63.

Article Title: Kuwait is the new cybercrime law No 63 | Network Security. Full Article Text: Article in Kuwait. Full Article: Kuwaiti Journalists, Journalists Association, and Journalists Association Law Ministry press release: Kuwait is the new cybercrime law The Kuwaiti journalists, journalists association and the journalists association have a new cybercrime law to curb online cybercrime (No. The law is an update in the Cybercrime law No. 5 which was issued only in 2016.

The Cybercrime law No. 5 is considered an important legal instrument. It aims to protect the rights of journalists and media outlets in Kuwait from cybercrimes and cyberstalking. It applies to all media outlets and not only to journalists. It has various parts, including a criminal law, a civil law and a non-custodial law. The law does not mention the Internet. The criminal law is a criminal law that has two main parts: a general punishment and specific punishment. The general punishment includes imprisonment for one to five years without parole and with fine up to 500 dinars. The specific punishment is imprisonment for one to five years with fine not more than 50 dinars. There are two exceptions to both conditions: if the offense is for libel or defamation and if an Internet related crime involving the criminal law is involved, the sentence is up to ten years imprisonment without parole and with fine not more than 10,000 dinars. For the first exception, if the crime is not for libel or defamation and if the Internet related crime is not involved, the punishment is a fine not exceeding 25,000 dinars.

The criminal law has different provisions between the general punishment and the specific punishment. The general punishment has three provisions: (1) a crime is punishable by imprisonment for five years without parole or with fine not more than five million dinars (50,000 dinars); (2) if the defendant is a juvenile, the punishment is imprisonment with a fine not exceeding five million dinars (50,000 dinars); and (3) if the crime is a non-custodial offense, the punishment is imprisonment for five years with a fine not more than five million dinars. For the second and third provisions, the criminal court has the power to order the defendant to pay a fine to the victim in addition to imprisonment.

Law No. 63 of 2015 for the combating of information technology crimes

Article Title: Law No 63 of 2015 for the combating of information technology crimes | Network Security.

The law No 63 of 2015 for the combating of information technology crimes aims to enhance the operation of the Criminal Prosecution Service in the fight against information technology crimes, and to make it a unified and harmonious national law for its prevention and mitigation. The law establishes criminal responsibility for acts committed on the basis of information technology, as well as criminal responsibility for acts committed on the basis of unauthorised and unsocial use of the Internet, on the ground of the alleged offence being committed by a person who has been convicted of an offence connected with information technology, and of an offence committed by anyone for the purpose of, or in relation with, the illegal use of the internet. By doing this, it seeks to ensure that all the necessary resources are available for the prosecution of such crimes. The law aims to increase the coordination between the different law enforcement agencies.

The law establishes criminal responsibility for any person who is liable to commit a crime connected with information technology on the basis of the alleged offence being committed by a person who has been convicted of an offence connected with information technology and of an offence committed by anyone for the purpose of, or in relation to, criminal use of the internet.

By doing this, it seeks to ensure that there is unified and harmonious national law for the prevention and mitigation of the crimes caused by information technology. For every crime under criminal responsibility, it establishes criminal responsibility for one of five kinds of offences defined in the law. These include murder, arson, fraud, offences which may lead to criminal responsibility of a minor, and the crime of computer tampering, and also for the crime of computer use for the purpose of espionage.

The provision of the law for offences of the type referred to in Article 3(1)(a) to (e) does not extend to the crime of the type referred to in Article 3(1)(f) (this type of crime falls in the crime of computer use for the purpose of espionage). On the other hand, in any case where the crime is committed by a person who has been convicted of an offence connected with information technology, the criminal responsibility is extended to a criminal responsibility for the crime of computer use for the purpose of the espionage committed by any person.

Human Rights Watch: Articles 6, 7 and 13 are “effective barriers to critical political speech over the internet”.

Article Title: Human Rights Watch: Articles 6, 7 and 13 are “effective barriers to critical political speech over the internet” | Network Security.

Since its founding in 1996, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been dedicated to the monitoring and promotion of human rights worldwide, and to promoting freedom of expression online. In recent years, human rights organizations have increasingly expressed concerns regarding governments’ efforts to muzzle critical political speech. In its Annual Report 2008-2009, HRW analyzed and published in detail a global survey of the state of political and civil liberties in governments that have attempted to implement and expand their use of Internet surveillance against freedom of expression. The latest edition of Human Rights Watch’s Annual Report contains further analyses of a number of countries that continue to restrict free expression online, including Turkey, Egypt, and Brazil. While we have noted many of these countries’ efforts to restrict freedom of expression and freedom of opinion online since 2008, the current situation has raised concerns about the effectiveness of these restrictions on political prisoners, journalists, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the like.

We began this analysis by noting that more countries have attempted to limit critical political speech online than any other type of online activity, which makes us consider this a particularly important area to monitor. Because governments have used Internet monitoring to restrict critical political speech or intimidate activists, it is particularly important to understand the limitations of these government efforts. Many governments (as well as activists) have suggested that Internet monitoring effectively inhibits free expression or imprisons dissidents in virtual detention or under surveillance. We’ve reviewed evidence that suggests this is not the case, but we continue to recognize the need for governments to address these limitations in order to preserve political stability and build a more peaceful society.

For governments that seek to restrict Internet-based critical political speech online, the most serious impediment to free expression arises from the lack of effective controls. Despite the availability of information-processing technologies, Internet monitoring effectively restricts only a small percentage of Internet communication. For example, the government of Belarus tried to block YouTube in 2009, and also tried to block YouTube in 2007, when it tried to block a report about a Belarusian police raid that targeted political activists.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.