With the prevalence of online traffic, cases involving the illegal acquisition of Token data have kept emerging. Nevertheless, multiple judicial dilemmas persist for such cybercrimes: inconsistent criteria for determining the legal nature of Tokens; widespread conviction by default under the crime of illegally obtaining computer information system data; and judicial practices that penalize only the front-end act of stealing Tokens while overlooking subsequent harms caused by volume-boosting and comment-manipulation. For such cases, special judicial interpretations targeting cyberspace should be promulgated to clarify the legal attributes of Token data and unify adjudication standards. Consideration should be given to adding a new crime of impairing online-traffic order to specifically regulate criminal acts of stealing Tokens for bulk account login to conduct volume-boosting and comment-manipulation, so as to safeguard fair competition in platform traffic. Meanwhile, adjudicative mindsets ought to be adjusted: the entire black-and-grey industry chain shall be evaluated as a whole, and conviction shall be based on the core perpetrating acts of the crimes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiahui Li (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: