Criminal Law in Cyberspace age 5 Some neutralization techniques, however, risk punishing utility-producing activities. For example, encryption has the potential to further massive terrorism ( which leads many in the law enforcement community to advocate its criminalization) but also the potential to facilitate greater security in communication and encourage freedom(which leads many others to push for unfettered access to the technology ) This is a standard dilemma that the law encounters in regulation of technology, call it the dual-use problem. The problem arises when an activity has both positive and negative uses, and forbidding the act forfeits the good uses. To help solve the problem, I introduce a conventional tool, the sentencing enhancement, as a mechanism that selectively targets improper uses. Policymakers and cademic have given little attention to sentencing enhancements, and lack a theory of when they should e used. This Article endeavors to fill that gap, arguing that they are suited for acts whose benefits and harms are context specific. It shows, for example, how enhancements provide a solution to the encryption debate because they can be aimed at encryptions harmful applications Second, cybercrime adds additional parties to the traditional perpetrator-victim scenario of crime. In particular, much cybercrime is carried out through the use of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as America OnLine. Criminal law should consider imposing responsibilities on third parties because doing so promotes cost deterrence. Third parties can develop ways to make crime more expensive, and may be able to do so in ways that the govemment cannot directly accomplish. The same logic sometimes applies to victims of cybercrime; law can develop mechanisms to encourage optimal victim behavior as well. As part of this discussion, the Article shows how victim self-help depends on changing police behavior, and outlines a strategy to make police departments behave more like fire departments(focusing on warning and prevention, and less on chasing people after they commit crimesCriminal Law in Cyberspace Page 5 Some neutralization techniques, however, risk punishing utility-producing activities. For example, encryption has the potential to further massive terrorism (which leads many in the law enforcement community to advocate its criminalization) but also the potential to facilitate greater security in communication and encourage freedom (which leads many others to push for unfettered access to the technology). This is a standard dilemma that the law encounters in regulation of technology, call it the dual-use problem. The problem arises when an activity has both positive and negative uses, and forbidding the act forfeits the good uses. To help solve the problem, I introduce a conventional tool, the sentencing enhancement, as a mechanism that selectively targets improper uses. Policymakers and academics have given little attention to sentencing enhancements, and lack a theory of when they should be used. This Article endeavors to fill that gap, arguing that they are suited for acts whose benefits and harms are context specific. It shows, for example, how enhancements provide a solution to the encryption debate because they can be aimed at encryption’s harmful applications. Second, cybercrime adds additional parties to the traditional perpetrator-victim scenario of crime. In particular, much cybercrime is carried out through the use of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as America OnLine. Criminal law should consider imposing responsibilities on third parties because doing so promotes cost deterrence. Third parties can develop ways to make crime more expensive, and may be able to do so in ways that the government cannot directly accomplish. The same logic sometimes applies to victims of cybercrime; law can develop mechanisms to encourage optimal victim behavior as well. As part of this discussion, the Article shows how victim self-help depends on changing police behavior, and outlines a strategy to make police departments behave more like fire departments (focusing on warning and prevention, and less on chasing people after they commit crimes)