The Urgency of Indonesian Cyber Law in Addressing Algorithmic Crime

Abstract

The rapid evolution of algorithms and Artificial Intelligence has given rise to a new category of criminal conduct that conventional criminal law fails to recognize: algorithmic crime. Unlike traditional cybercrime, algorithmic crime operates autonomously, transnationally, and often without direct human mens rea. Examples include 24/7 gambling bots that recruit victims, AI-driven ransomware that selects targets, deepfakes used for fraud, and manipulative algorithms in e-commerce and illegal online lending platforms. This article argues that Indonesia’s cyber legal framework is structurally unprepared. First, substantively, Law No. 1 of 2024 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law) and Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) remain anthropocentric, defining perpetrators exclusively as human or legal persons and providing no normative space for autonomous systems as subjects of law. Second, structurally, law enforcement agencies lack digital forensic capacity and are outpaced by perpetrators. Third, culturally, conventional Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) procedures require an average of nine months, whereas data stored on foreign clouds can be deleted within seven days. Using a normative juridical method with conceptual and comparative approaches, this study identifies three fundamental crises: an ontological crisis regarding the legal subject, an epistemological crisis concerning digital evidence, and an axiological crisis in sentencing philosophy. Without comprehensive reform, Indonesia risks becoming a primary market for algorithmic crime. This article proposes a seven-point roadmap: (1) adoption of a system accountability doctrine to prosecute algorithm controllers; (2) enactment of a Digital Criminal Procedure Code enabling 72-hour takedown orders and cryptocurrency asset seizure; (3) ratification of the Budapest Convention and a reciprocal Indonesian CLOUD Act for cross-border data access; (4) establishment of a specialized Cyber Court and algorithmic auditors under the Supreme Court; (5) shifting sentencing policy from incarceration to asset forfeiture; (6) implementation of a National AI Audit System; and (7) strengthening class action mechanisms for victims. Keywords: Cyber Law, Algorithmic Crime, ITE Law, System Accountability, CLOUD Act, Digital Sovereignty.