Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Building a Global Cyber Police Force

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-recommend-team-america dept.

Security 155

dasButcher writes "One of the biggest obstacles to fighting hackers and cyber-criminals is that many operate in the safe harbors of their home countries, insulated from prosecution by authorities in foreign countries where their targets reside. As Larry Walsh writes in his blog, several security vendors and a growing number of countries are now beginning to consider the creation of a global police force that would have trans-border jurisdiction to investigate and arrest suspected hackers."

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First order of business.... (1, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431286)

Arrest those pirates! (no, not the ones off the coast of Somalia, since that would make too much sense)

Re:First order of business.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431404)

Finnally team america will save us! Fuck Yeah!

Re:First order of business.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431666)

So lick my butt and suck on my balls...

... no, wait

Re:First order of business.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431824)

So Team America is an ally of the Finns... wait, what?

Re:First order of business.... (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431520)

Well, that's already being taken care of ( ACTA, the secret copyright treaty [slashdot.org] ).

And I think this would be the same way that ACTA is - USA laws forced in to other countries. No thank you. And I'm pretty sure Russia and China don't want to introduce USA laws either, and with those countries out of it, is there any point?

Re:First order of business.... (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431802)

Meh, how do you rate someone +5 Troll?

The post above me clearly classifies as righteous bastard. :)

Re:First order of business.... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432064)

+5 anything, -1 troll, +1 underrated. The most recent rating (except over and under) is the description shown. Over and Under rated just modify the value.

Re:First order of business.... (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432094)

Thanks for the info.

Re:First order of business.... (0, Offtopic)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432310)

Or -1 Troll, then +1 Underrated until it gets to +5. But meh.

I actually think the primary rating is the most significant one, percentage-wise (it shows the percents when you click the rating), with the exception of underrated and overrated (which don’t modify the description, only the score). A +5 Insightful that gets a -1 Troll won’t be rated at +4 Troll, it’ll be +4 Insightful with a rating breakdown of something like 80% Insightful, 20% Troll.

First order of business....clear out Redmond (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432148)

First order of business should be to clear out Redmond. That's where the damage comes from. Microsoft is not a technology problem, it is a personnel problem. Get rid of the staff promoting, signing off on, or boosting Microsoft products (on both sides of the fence) and you kill off 99.9999% percent of existing malware and virtually all vectors for botnets.

The economy could use a $ 10 000 000 000 USD boost about now right? Of course. Get rid of Conficker and the others. The savings for the first year will be more than that [google.com] .

This sounds like wishful thinking (4, Insightful)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431288)

I foresee this running into a lot of problems. I mean, we can't even get a lot of countries to agree to ICJ (International Court of Justice) jurisdiction. How are we going to get them to agree to let people physically into their countries to investigate crimes and make arrests? Ain't gonna happen ... and this kind of thing is only effective if everyone signs up without reservations.

Re:This sounds like wishful thinking (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431412)

I don't know. Countries are pretty good about extraditing murder suspects.

'Team X can fly in, talk to the police here, poke around, and report their findings." That doesn't sound too controversial or hard to pass as a first step. Then when that works out, add allow them to pull in the local police to make the arrest, and you have a nice, tidy system.

Re:This sounds like wishful thinking (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431538)

Of course you can see a lot of problems with this. So can they. They are trying to consider it logistically. There would be hundreds of things to considers and they know this. But as more and more countries face these same technological challenges they will want to do something about the issues they face and this Global force may be their answer.

It is likely to happen at some point and there will be many legal challenges to the jurisdiction issues that will be faced, but eventually we'll have this in place and worked out the kinks and the world will face a new issue to tackle.

Re:This sounds like wishful thinking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431562)

You're kidding right? When money is concerned almost all humans can agree. If it's profitable, we'll do it, even if it requires raping Constitutions or Bills of Rights.

Re:This sounds like wishful thinking (2, Interesting)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431764)

I predict the following:

> Funded almost entirely by the USA

> Staffed almost entirely by the USA

> Enforceable primarily in the USA, to a smaller degree in a few friendly countries, and with a handful of other countries agreeing to extradite suspects, maybe, if we ask them politely enough on days of the month evenly divisible by 13.

Re:This sounds like wishful thinking (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431918)

> Enforceable primarily in the USA, to a smaller degree in a few friendly countries, and with a handful of other countries agreeing to extradite suspects, maybe, if we ask them politely enough on days of the month evenly divisible by 13.

That's not how it goes. USA is already part of many treaties, except that they always refuse to extradite their own citizens to other countries. In this case they probably want a one-way "treaty" too.

Re:This sounds like wishful thinking (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432118)

The US demands that its citizens be given the due process of law as is guaranteed by our Constitution and laws. This is key when some random country demands we hand over a citizen to have them try him or her for some supposed crime.

Re:This sounds like wishful thinking (1)

gedw99 (1597337) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432480)

Please. They use trade agreement force sign up.

"Legislate these treaties into your law, or you cant trade with use ! "

unamused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431296)

I don't see how this is a good thing.

Can only see that if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431310)

It follow American laws - which most of us dont want.

Do not want. (5, Insightful)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431314)

The trouble with this, of course, is that one man's "hacker" is another man's journalist, or whistle-blower, or what have you.

 

Re:Do not want. (4, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431336)

I object to this for a different reason: I consider the concept of an organization with world jurisdiction intrinsically dangerous and unacceptable. It's like a monopoly: if you don't like their rules, where else are you going to go?

Re:Do not want. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431462)

I object to this for a different reason: I consider the concept of an organization with world jurisdiction intrinsically dangerous and unacceptable. It's like a monopoly: if you don't like their rules, where else are you going to go?

To the unsettled reaches of the outer solar system? Hey, it worked for Mal Reynolds....

Re:Do not want. (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431484)

Hey, it worked for Mal Reynolds....

For a while.

Re:Do not want. (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431510)

I see that as a good thing for private funding of space exploration and colonization!

Re:Do not want. (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431590)

This is true (and is one of the main reasons most documents released by international bodies such as the UN are aspirational or voluntary only).

But, there are real and serious problems with cross-jurisdictional crime (of many types ... forget hacking, try fraud, money laundering etc) that traditional forces find it very very hard to tackle due to jurisdiction. There's a balance to be had somewhere. You shouldn't be able to get away with things just by fleeing to a different place. It's like the old 'driving over the county line', on a larger scale.

Re:Do not want. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432304)

But, there are real and serious problems with cross-jurisdictional crime (of many types ... forget hacking, try fraud, money laundering etc) that traditional forces find it very very hard to tackle due to jurisdiction. There's a balance to be had somewhere. You shouldn't be able to get away with things just by fleeing to a different place. It's like the old 'driving over the county line', on a larger scale.

It's not "getting away with things" if it isn't illegal where you're doing it. That's the whole point. Take money laundering: It's a made up crime. There is nothing inherently wrong with it except that making it illegal makes it easier for law enforcement to catch people who commit other crimes. There is a strong argument in favor of legalizing it as a prophylactic measure against government corruption, to make sure that dissidents can more easily fund "illegal" journalism, underground railroads, etc. This is what we want to force on the citizens of countries where those sort of measures are already necessary?

There are other ways to deal with this. One of the most obvious, and I can't imagine why they don't already do this, is to require banks in other countries to reverse funds transfers at the request of US law enforcement as a condition on accepting money from US banks in the future. Who wants to commit fraud if they don't get to keep the money? And if the country lets fraudsters get the money before the reversal and leaves their country's banks holding the bag, the local banks will put massive pressure on the local government to sort out the problem. Either way, problem solved from the perspective of the US, without any international law enforcement.

No... (5, Insightful)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431324)

Personally I think anything with "trans-border jurisdiction" is just asking to be taken advantage of. I like the seperation of government and jurisdiction, although I definately think that something like th UN should reform some of their policies on extradition. In any case, trans-border jurisdiction means jack squat if you cant get the local government to cooperate.

Re:No... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431776)

Rule of thumb: the more power is concentrated and consolidated, the more injustice will result. The absolute worst thing that could happen for freedom and equality is "world government".

The U.S. has no problem doing this when they want (3, Interesting)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431794)

Like the U.S. law in congress right now forcing foreign banks to provide all information related to American owning accounts internationally, close them, or have 30% of the bank's assets in the United States withheld.

How about the recent EU SWIFT information handover to the U.S.?

I could see the U.S. doing something similar with internet connections of ISPs that run through the U.S., or have buisness in the U.S. Perhaps they will withhold 30% of their bandwidth.

The hackers are not the real problem (5, Insightful)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431332)

The real problem is the lack of international cooperation and extradition treaties that would cover not only cyber crime, but crimes of all sorts. Creating a hyper-focused solution for a narrow aspect of a broader problem is only going to create more problems, and ultimately erode more freedoms than the number of crimes it may solve.

Re:The hackers are not the real problem (4, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431722)

and ultimately erode more freedoms than the number of crimes it may solve.

So your proposed solution is international cooperation and extradition treaties to cover all crimes? To me that sounds like a global police state. I like the fact that separate countries have separate jurisdictions and separate laws. If a question of law or right and wrong is strong enough and means enough to you, then declare war; otherwise butt the hell out of other peoples' business. People these days, especially in the United States, have become far too willing to use the power of law and government to crush individual freedoms and "deviants" whom they don't like while at the same time failing to recognize that they could be next. Ask yourself this: are you wiling to pick up a rifle and risk your own life and limb to enforce a law? If the answer is "no" then maybe its not important enough and we shouldn't have that law.

Re:The hackers are not the real problem (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432312)

It's even worse then that. The establishment has been pushing the fact that people are not responsible for their own actions for the last 2 generations. This in turn results in more government power as people expect the government to step in and control things instead of them having to do it themselves and it looks to me like the damn Blue Bloods have succeeded in corrupting the "Great Experiment of Democracy" and taken power back from "We the People" but I don't have any suggestions other then outright execution of All Political Leaders throughout the entire world. But to be effective, it would have to be all of them at one time, otherwise the only other option is to "Nuke it from Orbit" to be sure we get all of them.

Interpol (4, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431344)

Wouldn't that be Interpol? Sounds too much like big brother when someone asks for a police force that already exists. The bigger problem with hackers is they are hard to find regardless of which country they are in. Sure Iranian Hackers are harder to catch but with their bandwidth are they really a threat? Do we need yet another redundant police force?

Re:Interpol (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431386)

I agree that this sounds like just another branch to add to Interpol. I mean, its short for International Police, right? Which is exactly what they are insinuating with Global Cyber Police...

As a side note, low bandwidth does not make a hacker any less of a threat. Especially the kind who like to set up botnets on American PC's that DO have high bandwidth capabilities.

Re:Interpol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432340)

Especially the kind who like to set up botnets on American PC's that DO have high bandwidth capabilities.

Wait, what?

Once the arrests are made... (3, Interesting)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431354)

who will prosecute the suspects? A criminal trial is expensive and ends up importing criminals to whichever nation chooses to prosecute. That's the reason that the Somali pirates get turned loose. A similar situation would arise for trans-border cyber crime. Everyone would hope that someone else would prosecute.

Re:Once the arrests are made... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431472)

Just shoot them on the spot. Survivors will be shot again.

Or, we can use them for medical experiments.

Re:Once the arrests are made... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431518)

Dont forget that a lot of the targets of cyper crime tend to over-exaggerate the damages involved.

Also you'll be stuck with a system where you're responsible for any actions that might become a crime at some time
in any member state.

Re:Once the arrests are made... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431746)

I generally thought it'd be the nation whom was victimized. IE - American citizens victims, American Court, and all that.

The teamamerica tag (1)

Borommakot_15 (1259510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431358)

The teamamerica tag made me want to say this...

"Matt Damon..."

That's great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431376)

Except computer crime doesn't have anything to do with hacking and there's a whole world of unharmonious national laws.

Interpol? (5, Interesting)

manyxcxi (1037382) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431382)

Isn't that pretty much what the International Criminal Police Organization is supposed to do? It's the second largest intergovernmental conglomeration behind the UN, and has almost 200 member countries. Given that cyber crime is crime nonetheless, I'd hope that they were gearing up to be able to handle more and more of it. I feel like more than anything, the laws need to catch up to the criminals in these cases- or they aren't really criminals at all.

Re:Interpol? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432128)

no no no, that's a french thing of some sort. We need an AMERICAN international police force.... yeah, that's the ticket.

In principle... (2, Informative)

allcaps (1617499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431432)

As long as America can vote away from this nonsense, I'm alright with the rest of the world doing what they want with their countries.

Re:In principle... (3, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431686)

Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude? It always seems like they want all the benefits from being part of international organisations, but none of the responsibilities. When I did International Law at university the running joke when being introduced to a new treaty or instrument was that it had been signed by "basically everyone ... except the US".

One quite shocking example: the only two countries that are not signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child are Somalia and the US (and Somalia has announced plans to ratify it soon). I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??

There are quite a few other fairly fundamental treaties that the US is virtually alone in not ratifying. Kinda amusing really when you consider the UN building itself is in New York. Why provide the facilities for all these other countries to come in and make agreements, and not participate yourself? Seems odd to me...

Re:In principle... (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431778)

Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?

Because we value our liberty and sovereignty more than most other countries?

I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??

Because that's not all it does and many Americans hold legitimate concerns about it's passages regarding economic, social and cultural "rights" and are worried that it would intrude into the parent->child relationship?

Re:In principle... (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432224)

Fair enough. I'm an American citizen (by marriage) and have lived in the US a while, so I know the American psyche and can see where you're coming from.

I just think it's odd that it's so often the US, and the US alone, that has lingering concerns stopping them ratifying things like this.

If it were 180 countries vs. 20 countries, then that would tend to suggest that there were some serious and genuine issues, since multiple countries have come to the same conclusion. If it were 195 and 5 even. But it's very often the US that stands almost completely alone.

Although the concerns the US has in each case are perfectly legitimate when examined on their own, its a trend that's difficult to ignore and would tend to indicate that the US has some 'different' way of thinking about things. It's almost as if they are just trying to be 'different' for the sake of being different, to emphasise their power and independence, rather than examine things on their merits.

See also: countries not using the metric system. The US isn't dumb - they have the brightest scientific community in the world and the world's largest economy, so they must be aware of the benefits a move to the metric system would bring (and have demonstrably brought to other places). Yet - they are almost alone in not doing it. Something just doesn't make sense there...

Re:In principle... (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432356)

I don't think it has anything to do with our "power", although that does make it easier. Most Americans do not want to see us surrender our sovereignty to trans-national institutions and treaties. I will personally always oppose attempts to do so, simply because most of the rest of the world views freedom differently than we do.

In Europe they view "free speech" differently. You may not have the right in many European countries to engage in so-called "hate speech". While I certainly don't subscribe to the views of the KKK I think it's extremely dangerous to muzzle them and would defend their right to free speech to my dying breath. In other countries (China) you may not even have free speech at all.

Few countries allow their citizens to keep and bear arms in the manner that the United States does. Even in those countries that allow and encourage private arms ownership do not allow their citizens to carry them on a routine basis. Many countries take the view that their citizens have no right to possess arms. If the US surrendered our sovereignty it would be only a matter of time before similar restrictions were sought here.

Many countries have no presumption of innocence or right to remain silent. Many of those that do have watered them down. In the UK now it's permissible for the legal system to draw a negative inference from the fact that you remained silent. Thus they effectively have no right to remain silent.

Those are just three examples of liberties that I would worry about losing/seeing restricted if the US surrenders more of her sovereignty. For those reasons and others I will never support treaties that require us to do so or attempts at forming a "world government".

I will grant you that our refusal to adopt the metric system is kind of silly. That's more from inertia than anything else though. People who weren't raised on it don't have the same initiative understanding of the measurements as those who were. Personally I can't comprehend Celsius without converting it in my head. I have an easier time understanding meters/kilometers/etc but the temperature measurements baffle me. Maybe my kids will have an easier time of it.

Re:In principle... (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431808)

Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude? It always seems like they want all the benefits from being part of international organisations, but none of the responsibilities.

A lot of us wouldn't mind giving up the purported benefits as well, actually.

One quite shocking example: the only two countries that are not signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child are Somalia and the US (and Somalia has announced plans to ratify it soon). I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??

Yeah, and what American could be against USA PATRIOTism, right? A country shouldn't sign or ratify a treaty based on it's title or claimed purpose. In any case, the US HAS ratified the protocol on the sale of children into slavery and child prostitution. Furthermore, the US is a signatory (but not ratifier) of the convention proper.

Re:In principle... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431876)

I agree with you in principle, but I think that the US government may object to a treaty if it seems to give too much external influence into US government matters.

I would like to think that the US government would want to take a lead role in an effort to "prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution", if nothing else but to improve its image in the world, but for them to refuse to ratify such a treaty, to me, indicates that there is something in the details that they found unacceptable and that they could not have changed or removed.

As far as why the UN is in the USA, I think that was more so that the US could keep an eye on it more easily.

Re:In principle... (1)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432056)

  • UN - The UN is a joke to many. It is consider a super-congress. Politicians only looking out for themselves. Full of corruption, greed, and power grabbing.
  • none of the responsibilities - What about France, China, etc. taking responsibilities for spreading conventional & nuclear weapons to out of control countries?
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child - creates the UN as a one world government, conflicts with US constitution. The US has signed and ratified both (military and sale/prostitution) of the optional protocols to the Convention.
  • Why provide the facilities for all these other countries to come in and make agreements, and not participate yourself? - The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it.

I suggest you look it up on Wikipedia before opening you mouth and confirming that you do not know basic facts.

If this were a valid law, no one under the age of 18 would be allowed to full-time train, or compete in the Olympics.

Re:In principle... (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432348)

I did look it up on Wikipedia. I was just relaying the running joke (and what I could remember about one particular example) from law school which was prior to 1995 anyway, as it happens. I was more referring to the general mindset of "one set of rules for us, one for everyone else" that is prevalent (rather than the issue of treaties more generally ... that was just an example).

Are you sure your Olympics example is right btw? All the other countries that have both signed and ratified it, and passed it into local law, obviously field athletes under 18 in the Olympics. So are you implying that every other country is contravening the convention that they have ratified? Genuine question here - I don't know the specifics ... it just sounds like it can't possibly be right.

Re:In principle... (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432060)

Because Treaties are the only thing that are of higher authority than our constitution. The same constitution that has been amended 27 times. Additionally, the mistake we make is if anything being too willing to sign treaties. There's definitely treaties out there that we should never have ratified, let alone signed. The WTO is a good example of a horrible mistake that somebody should've seen coming. It's not that bad, but good luck punishing the Chinese or Japanese for currency manipulation, and good luck getting to set your own environmental regulations. These are problems not just for the US, but all the other nations stupid enough to sign and ratify that treaty.

Re:In principle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432074)

Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude? It always seems like they want all the benefits from being part of international organisations, but none of the responsibilities.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/UN_Finance/assesment2009.pdf [globalpolicy.org]

Re:In principle... (1)

Terwin (412356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432602)

The US is only footing 22% of the bills of the UN? I always thought it was more than that(more along the lines of a majority).

I suppose it is not surprising that the only other country with a double digit contribution is Japan(16%).

Then again, it looks like this is just the operations budget, so does not include things like the troops provided for the various police actions that the UN is so often involved in.
(and that generally seems to be so dominated by the US that they are often called US wars, even though we never seem to annex any of those places we have 'conquered,' unlike the Russians, Germans, or just about anyone else that has ever been involved in wars in Europe or Asia)

Re:In principle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432390)

Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude? It always seems like they want all the benefits from being part of international organisations, but none of the responsibilities.

What the hell are you talking about? Care to give an example? Either we sign a treaty or we don't. Care to tell me what the landmine treaty does for the US, aside from gut defenses on the Korean DMZ?

It's called self interest, kid. Get used to it. Just because the sheeple in the EU are gullible doesn't mean that we are.

One quite shocking example: the only two countries that are not signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child are Somalia and the US (and Somalia has announced plans to ratify it soon). I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??

But how does this keep everybody else from signing and ratifying? You act like we're screwing it up for everybody else; we're not.. go do it! We're not your servant. And don't get me started on the climate change emails that were just released.

There are quite a few other fairly fundamental treaties that the US is virtually alone in not ratifying. Kinda amusing really when you consider the UN building itself is in New York. Why provide the facilities for all these other countries to come in and make agreements, and not participate yourself?

Trust me, quite a few of us would like to see the UN moved to Geneva or some other "enlightened" and "neutral" place. There should be NO body outside of the US to which the US answers; the constitution is sacred and supreme. Any foreign entanglements that interfere with personal liberties or are resource grabs against the wishes of the people must be dealt with quickly and decisively.

What I don't get is, given the animus of the rest of the world toward the US, why do you (and they) care what we do? Seriously, work around us. The Chinese already own our economy, so we're going to be very ineffectual in the near future anyway. Then again, the Chinese have indicated that they're targeting the Euro next, so this could be amusing.

Re:In principle... (3, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432726)

Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?

That's a rather broad statement that smells suspiciously of flamebait. One could just as easily ask why other countries constantly want to include the US in agreements that will often require US to shoulder a disproportionate burden of the cost. The question is just as valid (that is to say, a grain of truth but barely scratches the surface).

As far as CRC (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm)...

I mean for God's sake, what possible objection could the US have against a treaty aiming to prevent the organised sale of children into slavery and child prostitution??

This is like when someone attaches a ridiculous rider to a bill related to children, then publishes smear ads when a house member votes the bill down because of the rider. "Jo Schmo is against The Children!" A couple of things that might be objectionable (I don't know this for sure), which aren't covered in your over-generalized "prevent sale into slavery" :

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

What does that mean for those who want to give up their children for adoption at birth? In those cases it is possible for the child to know and be cared for by his parents, but also not reasonable if the parents will not be keeping the child.

A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents

And if one of those parents is in prison due to having tried to kill the child? If it were my kid, you can be damned sure I wouldn't allow him/her to visit that parent until and unless they requested it with full understanding of what it means.

States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall: (a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29; (b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources; (c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books; (d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous; (e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.

Do I need to explain the potential pitfalls in this one? Particularly "e"? Or the rather ignorant assumptions present in "d"?

2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (d) To diminish infant and child mortality; (b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care; (c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers; (e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; (f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services. 3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. 4. States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

Seriously? I mean this sounds great, but we're here in a country that can't even decide if healthcare is a basic right - and you want the government to bypass what they've been elected to do and commit the nation to this as a whole? I'm not saying that these things shouldn't be a right- but I am saying you can't short-circuit the political process -- even "for the children" .

A separate and overarching issue I see here is that a lot of the onus is put on the State (in this case, USA as a whole) to unilaterally create and enforce the necessary regulations. Many of them are good, some of them are controversial. Contrary to your generalization, the controversial ones aren't "protect kids from slavery". In a country like the US where historically we have been about giving less power to the federal government (though this is changing, for good or ill... ), ratifying such an agreement would require the federal government to be involved in multiple ways it has never been involved before.

I can see... (4, Insightful)

runyonave (1482739) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431438)

the MPAA, RIAA and other such scumbags getting in on this. Instead of catching real hackers, they go for the easy fish and arrest students and casual pirates.

Nowadays I don't have trust in any authoritative figure like this. They are usually backed by big corporations, that serve only corporate interests.

Re:I can see... (1)

allcaps (1617499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431550)

You can't spell scumbags without cumbags...

Re:I can see... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431724)

So Big-Porn is behind is all?

Who knew.

2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431488)

World-wide laws, coming soon from your New World Order dictators.

Outrageous (1)

The Bringer (653232) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431516)

A global law enforcement agency just serves to usurp the rights of a nations citizens by rendering a nations laws harmless. While this may be in the best interest of large corporations, it is most certainly not in the best interest of the majority of internet users. This system will be abused, taken advantage of, and otherwise misrepresented to back the agendas and interests of organizations. Should this actually happen, which I highly doubt, I see a lot of innocent individuals getting crucified by this agency.

Would you trust someone this stupid? (4, Insightful)

thethibs (882667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431522)

The problem here is not a lack of police with the jurisdiction to investigate and arrest suspected hackers. The subject countries have lots of those.

What's missing is a state willingness to prosecute, a willingness that won't change just because the cops are enforcers from Superpol. There is no reason to believe that the US, for example, would let a bunch of policemen from Europe and the Middle East come in and arrest US citizens on the basis of allegations that they broke some Saudi law. They barely tolerate Interpol, and those guys are just librarians.

When you balance the probable damage a "global police force" would do (is anyone naive enough to think that their mandate wouldn't be expanded?) against the damage that expatriate hackers do, the wise thing is to go with the hackers. The proper solution is the one already in place, and that's to have bilateral and multi-lateral extradition agreements.

Sending contract cops into a country that doesn't have laws against hacking may make good TV but the real-life consequences are much more complicated.

Re:Would you trust someone this stupid? (2, Funny)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432294)

"What's missing is a state willingness to prosecute, a willingness that won't change just because the cops are enforcers from Superpol."

That's SuperCyberPol, mister!

the internet has been called the wild west (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431552)

and the parallel holds, since the end of the real wild west consisted of the feds moving into lawless lands and taking over from vigilante, ad hoc systems of justice, just like this proposal. that was pretty much the historical end of the real wild west

so i'm waiting for the internet's version of "dodge city", where tourists can go and experience the vicarious thrill of driveby downloading, phishing exploits, nigerian email scams, and id theft, much like in the real "dodge city", gunfights at high noon and cattle rustling are now recreated for tourist's sake

"wow dad, i was browsing the dancing hamster website with the purple gorilla in the taskbar on the windows ME simulation, and like, i just got pwned! the simulation showed me as the payload modified the registry settings in the simulation! was it really like that in the bad old days?"

"that's right son, when your dad was your age browsing the internet, you always had your sidearm antivirus at the ready. craven desperate men and psychotic outlaws were always just around the corner, a click away. you had to deal with danger and treachery on a daily basis"

"gee dad, did you actually get an email from belarus claiming to be citibank asking for your security credentials out of concern for your security?"

"sure did"

"that's scary dad! how did the early internet pioneers ever survive in such a hostile wilderness. how did we ever make it this far?"

"sometimes i wonder myself son"

Re:the internet has been called the wild west (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431846)

and the parallel holds, since the end of the real wild west consisted of the feds moving into lawless lands and taking over from vigilante, ad hoc systems of justice, just like this proposal. that was pretty much the historical end of the real wild west

Well, except some of the main figures of Wild West lore -- Wyatt and Morgan Earp, to name two -- were Feds. Lawless and crooked Feds, but Feds nevertheless.

Re:the internet has been called the wild west (2, Insightful)

thethibs (882667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431880)

Not to rain on your parade, but you may not have noticed that all the "wild west" stories about places like Dodge City and Tombstone are about federal marshals abusing their power and getting little help from the citizenry.

In fact, the "wild west" was a pretty quiet place that only became wild when the US Marshals arrived and disarmed the townspeople, creating a large supply of victims that in turn justified the federal presence.

I'm not sure how that translates to the internet.

you're logically incoherent (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431950)

i see you are feeding this weird mythology that governments and police are the source of criminal behavior in this world. the truth is that criminal behavior runs amok without some sort of police presence. of course a minority of police will always do bad things, but you're insane depiction of the wild west as crime free utopia until the government arrives is some sort psychotic delusion on your part

United Nation for Geeks (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431558)

Like the United Nations. But run by geeks, with member states actually paying their dues in a timely manner. Also, not despised and feared by the citizenry.

That is just so wrong (3, Insightful)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431564)

...is that many operate in the safe harbors of their home countries

You cannot impose yourself into someone else's country as their laws differ from yours. Calling it a "safe harbor" is a bit offensive. Like you want to poke them with a stick but local law, culture and geography doesn't allow you to do what you please with "them"..?

I'll start imposing my local laws on Americans. Then complain you wont allow me to proscecute an American, on American soil, under my terms. Say, I would be an Arab (I'm not) and I consider porn-watching criminal and punishble by death. (I've had to write a report on Saudi servers of a client once, where someone downloaded porn hoping we wouldn't login on those servers. Which became locally a criminal case punishable by death. No joke.)

As long you do not have a consensus, globally or the on what "cyber criminality" is, and the severity which it should be prosecuted and make it equally enforcable (legal backing) this is impossible. Once you have this consensus, globally, there would be no "safe harbor" anymore.

Team America World Police (1)

jfalcon (163956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431566)

I say we get Al Gore to form the world police. After all, he 'invented' the Internet and the Internet is an American invention. He might have more luck with doing this rather than herding people in climate change talks...

1st action (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431600)

put in jail those that already taken the obvious "cyberpol" name for their own purposes.

I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431628)

the U.S.A. was the world's cop?

Yours In Yasnogorsk,
Kilgore Trout

Re:I thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432260)

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

Yours In Yasnogorsk,
Kilgore Trout

this is an AWESOME... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431646)

...intro to a comic book series. So dark, so dystopian. I would eagerly read the introductory issues to find out what hero or heroes could possibly stand up to such a corrupt international power with no oversight! Will the heroes be teens, merely human, or something else? Will they be born a hero, or become one out of circumstance. It really is an exciting -- wait, what. This is nonfiction? There is no hero? um...

Re:this is an AWESOME... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431788)

Your ideas interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

We have already laws for that. (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431670)

If something is already illegal in a country A, we don't need more laws or services, because you can already arrest this man. If something is legal, he is allowed to do that in his country, even if that is not something other countrys like.

Also, thats not how the internet work. The internet work in "networks". If you have a problem with a student, on a university, you call the ISP / university. If you have a problem in other country, you contact the authorities of that other country.

Mission Priority (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431698)

I'm sure the top priority will be catching those EVIL copyright violators.

Send in the drones? (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431704)

On the one hand malicious hackers should be killed. On the other, many of the most capable of them are believed to be closely tied to the Russian and Chinese (and Nigerian) governments, encouraged for both their ability to bring in monies, and for cooperation in state cyber-espionage goals. So the only usable model for international intervention may be the one currently used against Qaida in Pakistan - sending in American drones. Except Russia and China (and Nigeria) have rather more use for their hackers than the current Pakistani government has for its Qaida/Taliban ops centers. So they might just be a little touchy about drones taking out buildings in their big cities.

Exactly What We Need (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431728)

Another International Group planning to draw its power from ... enforcing something it probably doesn't fully understand... and punishing by means of... I'm in!

On a more serious note, is there a real life example of this concept actually working?

And so it begins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431730)

Through a combination of treaties, "cooperation" and now an entity for "enforcement", the realization of a one world government is coming to fruition.

Through the elimination of borders and consolidation of wealth and power, we will cease to see nations and will begin to see a single world, with a single government, a single monetary system and a single police force.

And it will all trace back to "we only did it in the name of securing the internet".

Re:And so it begins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30431928)

And the Euro was created because of the internet. Oh wait, no it was not.

Woot! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431742)

Thunderbirds are go!

Teach them cyber ne'er-do-well's what for, Brains!

Highly unlikely (1)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431810)

I don't see any evidence that this is anything other than the fevered dream Kaspersky and DeWalt. Though I'm sure that won't stop the tin foil hat brigade from going into full on freak-out mode.

I, for one, (1)

gitoffmylawn! (1639005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431818)

do NOT welcome our global police overlords!

Sounds like... (1)

fructose (948996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431856)

Team America.

Seriously.

We all know how well that went...

duh (2, Insightful)

dropadrop (1057046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431870)

How about first just doing something about the crimes? I've had good success with the UK police force, and the FBI (with some exceptions), but several other countries authorities have been painful to work with even in cases where there is solid evidence and the countries laws have clearly been broken. I can see how a law like this would help things, but just working on the cases based on current laws would already make a big difference.

A good read... (1)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30431982)

For a good read on the difficulties of tracking criminals through a global internet read The Cuckoo's Egg [amazon.com] . It reads like a suspenseful spy novel but is entirely non-fiction.

Security Vendors Want It! (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432030)

So it must be good for everyone, not just their bottom lines

*Harrumph* on that shit.

Why re-create the wheel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432146)

We have a global police force: interpol.

Ummm, InterPol (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432154)

I'm surprised no one has ever heard of InterPol, it is on every video casette, dvd and Bd you ever owned. The problem is countries other than the US have rights. No one is going to surrender those rights to allow a bunch of gun toting Americans cart blanch to fire at will.

Accountable to whom? (2, Insightful)

gedrin (1423917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432220)

Who will write the laws that this orginization enforces?

To whom will the law writers and this orginization be acountable?

What processes will exist for removing law writers and enforcers who do bad jobs?

What process will exist to appoint new law writers and enforcers?

These seem like rational questions.

The next awesome novel... (1)

JayPee (4090) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432248)

This sounds like the next super awesome Tom Clancy novel. John Clark will be all cyborged out.

Just shut off their Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432254)

If a country has a problem with criminal activity originating from another country's Internet users, simply block the offending country's address range at the border.

The problem with anything "global": (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432272)

There is no choice anymore. You can’t go anywhere for asylum. The worst things that can be global, are governments, and police!

In my eyes this is heading straight to the end of all freedom by total global group-think. Either you follow it, or you go to jail (or die).

I can’t imagine anything worse. Ever. Even a nuclear war and being raped can’t beat that. Because with those things you at least die some day. (Which is a way of becoming free again.)

Cyber crime and corrupt governments (2, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432288)

The problem isn't being protected from remote governments, its the tacit approval and involvement of the local government.

Russia, anyone? Do you think that cybercrime there doesn't involve FSB?

Sounds Like A Line Of Action Figures (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432492)

Will the Global Cyber Force have "Smash Action Kung-Fu Grips"? (along with a disclaimer in fine print that says "does not actually hack"?)

Apperances are deceiving. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30432630)

without them malicious hackers we would have never known about say ( estimate ) 70% of the known exploits.. think about what this means... 70% of the currently known exploits could have been kept silent by Corporations or Governments for Strategical puproses or monetary. Now Imagine a conflict between nations.. China vs the USA... ( think Code Red incident ) just imagine the chaos you'dt find yourself in.
  Nah personally Id't rather have this kiddie stumbling onto a exploit and abusing it to DDoS his hacker buddies then a government sitting on a stockpile of unknown exploits.

And with a global cyber police force... (2, Insightful)

ScientiaPotentiaEst (1635927) | more than 4 years ago | (#30432686)

... the global DMCA can be better enforced.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>