Of course it can. Cyber-space is regulated by the same laws. The question is would a crime specific unconditional law regulate better. Then the answer is no the basic principle as an extreme example being. If you cannot regulate with a law of murder, what good does creating additional laws against the weapon do?
Laws are and have always been adjusted to work with the advancement of society and technology. Granted, there is a lot of work to be done regarding this but usually its not an issue until it really becomes an issue and there are calls for change.
I would say the problem is not the laws themselves but the justice system mainly the judges who are from a different era and they don't have the understanding of modern technology like a younger person might.
While it goes faster and faster, laws stay put. They refuse to evolve or adapt. Think, did the founding fathers know we would own AK-47s when they made the 2nd amendment? Or know of Facebook when they made the 1st? No, and laws can stay the same, but to avoid the controversy and war over laws today, they need to be redefined. And seeing how slow they truly are, i do not see that happening any time soon.
Technology and Law are 2 different kinds of expertise. Technology is fast, changing, ingenious, properly mastered by few but very accessible. Any technological expert can 'design' the next big scam or threat working in the dark. Law is slow, heavy, rigid, bureaucratic, public and governed by many hands, therefore always a step behind. When trying to obtain power and money the speedy and creative are always going to be winners.
The internet and technology in general is too vast for a handful of people in the government to understand and keep track of, and that's a good thing. Governments mainly want to control their subjects, and with the freedom that the internet provides, it makes it a lot harder for them to censor opinions and facts that are unfavorable to them.
The NSA surveilance spying on us is illegal and no one does anything about it. We have a right to privacy and we’re forced to give it up for “security”. There’s been no debate about this illegal program either when there is so many questions like privacy and determining if it’s illegal or not. The other reason why is because the u.S can’t control what happens when someone outside the a country is doing something illegal that affects someone in the u.s. it gets hard to arrest them or go after them.
New laws should be written to protect privacy, Dignity and freedom of speech. It is fundamental that IT companies have "Locus Standi". The internet and IT industry has lacked to provide this and has many cases been striked from court based on "Lex Situs". To prevent the owners of these industries from governing them selves "Nemo Judex In Parte Sua".
There are a numerous number of crimes that could be committed while the average surfer is on the web. According to Lifehacks, "3. 1 Billion out of the 7 Billion people on earth are already online. " This represents the significance of the internet, Showing that almost half the population of the world has access to the internet. In my personal opinion, I don't think a higher force could prevent these many people from committing crimes although there are many ways which the government could prevent crimes on the web. To come to my conclusion. If any individual human being has access to the internet then they will have a way to stay protected doing illicit activities therefore laws cannot keep up with todays technology because today's technology is too advanced.