Analogy and Cybercrimes: regulation and interpretation

In the IGCBP - Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme group Americas J from tutor Marilia Maciel, the point was made by one course participant that analogy can be a solution:

QUOTE
Analogy is a very common practice to regulate some conducts on Internet, actually, french criminal law about cybercrimes are inspired in this philosophy. At the conduct are the same, is a crime, the only difference is environment where conduct is present or the tool to commit the crime. The big deal is liability, of course is most difficult to find the real criminal in cyber space than real world, but is not impossible. In my professional practice as lawyer, when I detect a criminal conduct on Internet, I try to find the typical antijuridical conduct to support my legal action; sometimes is very hard to get proofs but sometimes criminals are very obvious and have big mistakes which allow find them relatively quick.
UNQUOTE

Her point, made with a link to this CircleID article, was complemented by one of the classroom colleagues who agreed that analogy is an excellent tool to regulate new technologies:

QUOTE
However, in criminal law it is banned for interpreting purpose. That is an effect of the so-called "legality principle", which prohibit using
analogy in order to punish a conduct. Of course, this discussion is
limited to criminal law, since in contractual and torts you can use the
analogy, in order to set forth liability.
UNQUOTE

This point was supported by other colleagues:

QUOTE
...(this) goes for Brazil as well. Majoritarian Criminal Law Doctrine and Jurisprudence would say that using analogies to make a person's conduct fit a penal provision is forbiden by the 'nulla poena sine lege'.
UNQUOTE

QUOTE
In Brazil we do not have a criminal law which specifically regulates online conducts. Some bills were proposed and are still under debate in Congress. The main one was called “law Azeredo” (the name of the senator who was the rapporteur). Civil society and the academia organized mobilizations throughout the country to avoid its approval, for several reasons. First of all, the criminal law should be regarded as “ultima ratio”, the last resource, to be used when every other way to hamper a certain behavior have failed. In Brazil, we still do not have a civil law framework that establishes rights and responsibilities of Internet users and providers. Before a criminal law is approved, we should first try to solve the problems in the civil sphere. Secondly, the law massively criminalized behaviors that are common and socially accepted in Brazil, such as to copy the songs from a CD you bought to you iPod (someone could go to jail for 4 years for that). Thirdly, it raised privacy issues, because the logs of people's access to the Internet could be correlated with their personal information without judicial authorization. This law is now stalled in Congress and should not be approved anymore. Thanks to society´s mobilization, the Ministry of Justice has created an online platform for consultation, a unique process in which the Brazilian can help to draft a civil law framework for the Internet in Brazil. See the link to the platform created for this consultation below: http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/
UNQUOTE

QUOTE
This principle of criminal law (...) was the main reason for the sanction in 2008 in Argentina of the computer crime law, wich involves changes to the criminal offenses (tipos penales in spanish) in order to contemplate the use of information technology in both the completion of crime and in the damage done in hardware, software, databases, etc.
UNQUOTE