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!

New Legislation Would Crack Down On Online Criminal Havens

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the have-in-my-hand-a-list dept.

Security 208

Hugh Pickens writes "The Hill reports that Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have introduced a bill that would penalize foreign countries that fail to crack down on cyber criminals operating within their borders. Under the bill the White House would have the responsibility of identifying countries that pose cyber threats and the president would have to present to Congress in an annual report. Countries identified as 'hacker havens' would then have to develop plans of action to combat cybercrimes or risk cuts to their US export dollars, foreign-direct investment funds and trade assistance grants. Numerous American employers, including Cisco, HP, Microsoft, Symantec, PayPal, eBay, McAfee, American Express, Mastercard and Visa, as well as Facebook, are supporting the Senators' legislation."

cancel ×

208 comments

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

Criminal Havens (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593590)

Partying was going on in a two-story cookie-cutter house in Thousand Oaks, California. The medium-sized crowd ebbed and flowed to the beats of Bob Marley, the Grateful Dead, and the albums of umpteen niggers who'd made it big blathering about bitches and bullets.

Roberto was a loveable microcephalic who was always invited to the parties because he was willing to perform clownish acts, often involuntarily, so that he could entertain the guests and barter his idiocy for some of that sweet, opalescent Columbian flake cocaine being doled out by the spoonful on the dinner table. Budweiser is the best beer to drink with cocaine as there's just something about its sharp back-palate taste which accentuates the drip of the cocaine, dissolving in snot, running down the back of the nasal passages and numbing the upper gums if not the entire forehead if the shit was good, before forming cocaethylene [wikipedia.org] in the bloodstream.

The stupor was so infectious and prevalent that the young adult men lined up to compete against each other for the underleg region of Mara, a Catholic girl with genital warts. She didn't look bad, and tequila-soaked condoms would surely mitigate the pathogens responsible for causing cauliflower-crotch. Meanwhile, Roberto tossed some vomit across the kitchen floor in a line so perfect that its straightness was rivalled only by the white ones on the table, or perhaps the one Daniel Victor Jones [liveleak.com] painted across the 210 freeway when he incinerated his dog and blew his head off on live television in 1998.

The host of the party, Seb, didn't take kindly to Roberto's antics and insisted that Roberto chug a whole beer at once or else he would never see his expensive prescription glasses again. Roberto, afraid of puking again, took a nervous preliminary gulp before he unwittingly raised the beercan full of Seb's piss, chugging it all in one swing and finishing with a sigh of relief. Roberto was religious when it suited him, and so he attributed the absence of vomit to divine intervention. He would've realized the unfortunate truth had his consciousness drifted to artist Andres Serrano's Piss Christ [wikipedia.org] if he had any sense of association. He received his glasses amidst a sea of roaring laughter.

As we traversed the hallway of the second floor, a bedroom door popped open and an unknown male staggered out of the bedroom and down the stairs while pulling up his pants. Inside the bedroom, the pungent air thick as a ghost, Mara reclined on the bed. Both of her arms were raised with her hands behind her head, revealing her flawless underarms which appeared to be airbrushed and showed no signs of irritation, perspiration, stubble, or residue as her left nipple peeked out above the covers. No condoms were seen anywhere in the room.

Mike, the resident idiot savant, wore a grin rivalling that of the Cheshire Cat. His smile was not purely one of happiness(though he was feeling good), he was showing the bruxism of nightlong cocaine abuse. Hours of cocaine abuse causes clenching and grinding of the teeth. This is not necessarily due to its action on the jaw, but its effect on the gums. It causes a dull, painless ache which leads to the urge to grab a steel scribe and pick the living hell out of the dental vestibules. Fortunately, most cocaine abusers fall asleep from exhaustion before they suffer the sensation of underskin bugs which are more of a tweeker(not cokehead) problem.

Mike had Tourette's syndrome. Whether or not the label was fabricated by his guilt ridden mother who used drugs while he was in utero was a matter of debate, but totally not appropriate for discussion then. What was fact, however, was that drugs affected Mike more than they affected the rest of us. Mike had a penchant for punk rock music, and so he invited us to give him a "wild haircut". We settled on a mullet with a racing stripe down the middle and the number "3" in the spirit of the late, great Dale Earnhardt. His mother was not pleased when she found him asleep in bed at 3pm the next day.

Re:Criminal Havens (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593680)

News flash, long time copy/pasta troll accidentally
posts logged in and reveals his uid.

Given that it is ethanol, no-one was surprised, he's known as atroll anyway.

AC to not undo richly deserved downmod.

Re:Criminal Havens (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593900)

Or, in the style of The Onion, "Area man accidentally outs himself as copy/pasta troll".

Re:Criminal Havens (0)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593930)

Your downmod is undone without any notification if you post as AC. You'd need to post from a different IP.

Re:Criminal Havens (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594042)

Ah well at least his post has vanished somehow?

Does posting as AC when logged in really undo the mods?

If so I could just use one of the other 3 machines on my desk and running over term service.

What could possibly go wrong (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593626)

This legislation is just going to blow up in our face as soon as other countries start demanding that we rat out our citizens for "criminal" activity (e.g. dissent, political freedom, etc.)

Quoting a James Cameron flick... (2, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593646)

"Gee, I feel safer already" A lot of huff and puff, and not much else.

Re:What could possibly go wrong (1)

singlevalley (1368965) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593868)

I, for one, welcome our internet lords...

Re:What could possibly go wrong (1)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594604)

I, for one, don't welcome our inter%^a*,[=NO CARRIER

Re:What could possibly go wrong (4, Interesting)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594024)

This legislation is just going to blow up in our face as soon as other countries start demanding that we rat out our citizens for "criminal" activity (e.g. dissent, political freedom, etc.)

i'd guess it's more targeted at illegal activity such as 'piracy' and 'copyright infringement'. This smacks of RIAA/MPAA and leverage against countries such as Sweden for their lack of ability to close down The Pirate Bay.

Re:What could possibly go wrong (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594064)

Orrin Hatch is famous for sucking up to the RIAA/MPAA

Re:What could possibly go wrong (1, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594158)

Orrin Hatch is famous for sucking

FTFY.

Welcome to the Empire (5, Insightful)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593630)

Wow. "Obey our laws or else!" Imperialist America strikes again!

Re:Welcome to the Empire (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593740)

Wow. "Obey our laws or else!" Imperialist America strikes again!

Wow. That's an ignorant statement. Your parents would be embarrassed (as we can tell you're young by that juvenile approach).

Re:Welcome to the Empire (0, Troll)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593768)

I'm intrigued. Let's see if you can actually put some intellectual weight behind your statements. Explain.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (4, Insightful)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593836)

Um, how about: Don't let criminals strike at the US from within your borders if you want us to give you free money.

I guess there are a multiple ways to think of the same actions.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (4, Insightful)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593866)

I think you're confused about who the criminals are and who has the money.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (3, Insightful)

DeadRat4life (1638391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593928)

i dont really think you understand how American foreign policy really works. We are not the cops of the world despite what the people in power seem to think. If you want a good understanding on what US foreign policy really is, read/listen to some Noam Chomsky.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (4, Insightful)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594080)

Limiting trading with a country that commits crimes against you isn't an abuse of foreign policy. This isn't being "cops of the world" this is being cops of the US and interacting less with countries that won't play nice.

And yes, it is the US definition of nice, but so what? Each country is free to choose who they want to trade with and it is usually based upon the countries following each other's laws when dealing with each other.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (5, Insightful)

zondag (1114149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594670)

Limiting trading with a country that commits crimes against you isn't an abuse of foreign policy. This isn't being "cops of the world" this is being cops of the US and interacting less with countries that won't play nice.

And yes, it is the US definition of nice, but so what? Each country is free to choose who they want to trade with and it is usually based upon the countries following each other's laws when dealing with each other.

A bit rich coming from the country that, at least until recently, was only sabotaging international law. Being Dutch I particularly remember the Hague Invasion Act [hrw.org] .

But hey, you have a different president now. So if we were to accept that a country that is an origin of cybercrime is, as a country, committing a crime: Who specifically do you advocate starting a trade war with? Europe, China, Brazil, India, Russia? All of them?

Re:Welcome to the Empire (4, Informative)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594060)

Oh goody! Let me guess, we get to define who the criminals are, right? Let's see, we need to exclude:

1) wars of aggression (Vietnam, Lebanon, Phillippines, Iraq, etc)
2) trade wars (Iraq, Cuba, pretty much all of central and south america)
3) covert coup d'etat (Iran, Iraq, pretty much all of central and south america)
4) aiding and abetting known terrorists (the CIA in Iraq, Iran, and pretty much all of central and south america)

And remember, if you so much as allow a single credit card to be stolen from an IP address from within your country, we reserve the right to use any of the above methods to exact justice.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594688)

You forgot weapons of mass destruction: the US remains the only nation in the world ever to have dropped a nuclear weapon on a civilian-populated area.

I do wonder how much further the US can push its luck before the rest of the world just starts telling them to shove it, though. As I have noted before, they are no longer the world's "superpower" by any meaningful standard, though plenty of people in the US government don't seem to have realised that yet. These repeated attempts to promote US business interests abroad might carry some weight in the US where they recently officially legalised buying the government, but it's not really in anyone else's interests. For the rest of the world, sucking up to a major foreign government is only worth it if the rewards are commensurate, and no-one really believes that about the US any more, and there is a lot of political competition today in many states with traditionally close ties to the US making it harder to do things quietly behind closed doors than it used to be (see: SWIFT, ACTA).

Re:Welcome to the Empire (1)

james.mcarthur (154849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594322)

"Um, how about: Don't let criminals strike at the US from within your borders if you want us to give you free money." Free money? Since when does the US Government (or any Government ..) give anybody "free" money. There are always strings attached.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594620)

...if you want us to give you free money.

It is general and public knowledge that the US are out of real money to give. The US has only increasingly wobbly IOUs printed in green and black on rectangular slips of paper.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (1, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593816)

TFA summarized: "If people from your country attack us, and you won't do anything about it, we won't trade with you so much."

How horribly fascist.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593914)

First up, Canada, for viciously attacking America's IP. In the form of a 12 year old in Montreal who videotaped a movie off the screen at a cinema.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (2, Informative)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593830)

Nations routinely "attack" each-other economically over trade-related issues in the form of tariffs, duties, quotas, et al. Has nothing to do imperialism or your hatred for America.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (5, Interesting)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593952)

I started this thread and I'm tired of one assumption you all keep making: You all keep talking about my hatred of America. Well, let me spell this out for you - I LOVE AMERICA. I have done so my entire life. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't love my country, neither does it mean I love my country less than you. Th truth is that I just hold my country to a higher standard than you do.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594594)

How do you love that which has no form? Is it the idea? What is the idea? Who defines it?

Re:Welcome to the Empire (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594124)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism [merriam-webster.com]

Main Entry: imperialism
Function: noun
Date: 1800

1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

If you don't think forcing another country to obey our laws by violating their national sovereignty through political and military influence isn't imperialism, you're fucking stupid.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594270)

extending the power and dominion of a nation

Not quite the same as wanting a country to stop harboring and protecting people who use cyber-attacks (vague term I know) against the US.

If you kept breaking my windows, and running into my neighbor's house every time I came out to yell at you, and my neighbor did nothing about it, yeah, I'd stop letting him borrow my power tools.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (1)

WidgetGuy (1233314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594258)

Puts me in mind of a corollary flowing directly from the "Everything in moderation" rule: "Everything in moderation. Including moderation."

Works for me!

More like the Pot calling the kettle black (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593862)

Scads of cyber criminals and spies here in the good ole USA? Say it ain't so!

Re:More like the Pot calling the kettle black (1)

paganizer (566360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594516)

there are scads of cybercriminals right here on slashdot.

How many posters in this thread are posting using a neighbors WiFi without permission?
how many of us posted the illegal DeCSS code in posts?
how many people here have downloaded a MP3?
how many people here have discussed baseball without the express written consent....
well, you get the point. We're all criminals.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593920)

Wow. "Obey our laws or else!" Imperialist America strikes again!

How else do you expect these things to work?
The money and business opportunities we send there way is soft power.
And the threat of removing that money is hard power.

If [Country] doesn't like our policies, they can always align themselves with Russia or China.

P.S. Sorry Canada

Re:Welcome to the Empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594526)

Canada: No oil for you...

Canada is top Oil import for the U.S.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

As a Canadian, I would rather not be in the WIPO and trade with U.S. China would be quite happy to buy our natural resources.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594056)

Imperialist America strikes again!

Aw, someone's mad because -their- empire's evil plans aren't making it onto slashdot...

Re:Welcome to the Empire (4, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594078)

No. Take a look at the two pushing this bill: Hatch in particular has a history of supporting idiotic things like allowing copyright holders to destroy property of suspected infringers and Gillibrand has a hostory of taking large campaign contributions from parties directly related to legislation she was involved in. It therefore shouldn't be terribly surprising that these two were involved.

Re:Welcome to the Empire (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594398)

Imperialist America strikes again!

We outsourced imperialism awhile ago. We're mostly consultants now for other countries. Didn't you get the memo? /not joking

Re:Welcome to the Empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594426)

At least Norway will not be invaded to destroy Pirate Bay. Only penalized.

Well (5, Insightful)

CSFFlame (761318) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593636)

And by Cyber-Threats, they mean that they fail to encforce the DMCA.

Re:Well (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593656)

Not just the DMCA, but ACTA, which makes the DMCA look tame, especially the fact that ISPs have to record *every* packet you send out for data mining reasons for 7 years.

Re:Well (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593864)

Not just the DMCA, but ACTA, which makes the DMCA look tame, especially the fact that ISPs have to record *every* packet you send out for data mining reasons for 7 years.

Every packet?

nmap -n -iR 0 -sL | cut -d" " -f 2 | while read IP
do
    dd if=/dev/random count=512 | netcat -u -r $IP
done

I'm trying to figure out a way to use xargs instead of the while loop, but I can't quite get it done. Any ideas?

Re:Well (1)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593848)

Oh? Are you sure they don't mean botnet command centers?

Re:Well (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593898)

This could be dicey.

So what is an online criminal?

What situations would involve reduced trade with, say, Canada...

1) Botnet initiated in Canada, with participants all over the world
2) Botnet initiated in another country or the US, with Canadian participants
3) Someone who downloaded the latest Metallica song in Canada
4) Someone who posted a copyrighted Fox News report on their Canadian blog
5) Hackers! from Canada
6) A website that is infected with malware, with the company or server residing in Canada

A few are legitimate, and the rest are going to be interesting. My guess is all of the above will be part of the definition of an "online criminal"

I used Canada, because I'm Canadian.

Re:Well (4, Insightful)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594022)

I doubt any of those things would result in less trade with Canada. I am sure NAFTA would over rule it for one.

How about Botnet command centers that have been located, the IPs they are using have been found, the ISPs providing the internet connection have been found and asked to take them offline. However the ISPs and the country will not take them offline.

This is a bad legislation (4, Informative)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593666)

As shown with the Special 301 list which stated the Canada was needing to update copyright laws (which could label Canada a criminal haven since it doesn't have a DMCA). After it was issued about Canada being in the wrong, many companies publicly stated otherwise. [slashdot.org]

Re:This is a bad legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594342)

Bad for Spain, too (P2P haven).

Pointless (3, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593668)

This is pointless legislation because they very country it's targeting (*coughpeople'srepubliccough*), we refuse to recognize for their already existing undeclared "warfare" against the US, such as their currency manipulation.

"Cyber warfare" will just be one more thing we ignore for economic/political reasons.

Here we go again... (3, Insightful)

whitespiral (941984) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593686)

Just like child porn, cybercrime is another excuse to go after their real goal: Dictate who does what on the web. Soon after, they'll say file sharing is cybercrime, and they will twist another country's arm to impose their ACTA crap.

Not want to be bitching... (5, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593690)

But as a non-american I really really really DO NOT want US laws. If I would, I would move to the US. The arrogance is striking. Btw, ca

Re:Not want to be bitching... (1)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593820)

I agree that you should not have to follow US laws.
However it also seems fair that we (the US) should cut back on foreign aid to a country that say won't shut down the Botnet command centers operating in their borders.

Re:Not want to be bitching... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593960)

Considering the companies supporting the bill, I imagine they'll regret it once they realize the people they wish to reduce trade with are going to be their biggest customers.

Paypal? I bet at least a bit of their cashflow is generated by fraudulent companies...
Cisco? I wonder if a couple of those co-lo companies use Cisco gear for their multi-homed connections.
HP? I wonder if they also use HP servers...they are among the cheapest.

Re:Not want to be bitching... (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594242)

I'm fine if the legislation is only about shutting down botnet command centers, spammers and malware.

Not fine if it includes stuff like "if you don't have DMCA laws, you're a criminal haven - since criminals (from the US POV) can reverse engineer and break DRM, even if your country says that is not a criminal act". Same if those countries just happen to have different copyright laws (e.g. Canada).

A lot of legislation has very nice titles, e.g. "No Child Left Behind Act", but the details are what count.

You pick a good name and enough people might believe what they want about it and thus support it without looking too closely at the details.

Same like those "investment" funds - "High-Grade Structured Credit Fund" or "High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund" ;).

Re:Not want to be bitching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594742)

And yet, in an (un)ideal society, two types of laws would be upheld, foreign and domestic. I agree Canada should not adopt DMCA, but neither should Canadian citizens receive immunity when facing international copyright charges - and neither should U.S. citizens when violating Canadian laws. Responsibility falls on the individual to educate themselves when dealing with nonnative works.

(I can already see the rebuttal: 12 y/o gets extradited to China for illegally downloading Mahjong, to be squashed by tank.)

Re:Not want to be bitching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593834)

As an american, this strikes me as a terrible idea. I really really DO NOT want the US to rule the world, and I find the arrogance in this act apalling.

Re:Not want to be bitching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593840)

You're not being forced to follow US laws. This is the US deciding to whom it will give money. I think that's a perfectly appropriate thing for the US to do.

exactly (5, Insightful)

DeadRat4life (1638391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594068)

i bet all the people defending this, and the general foreign policy of acting like the cops of the world, would be outraged at the thought of having to follow canadian, french, russian, ect. law. They would probably call for a military strike of London if the shoe was on the other foot. Fucking hypocrites.

Re:exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594790)

No, I think most simply would not care.

I'm trying to remember the last Canadian/French/Russian content I obtained online. Uh... nope, sorry, couldn't come up with anything.

Not to say it doesn't happen mind you, but I think you strongly underestimate U.S. ethnocentrism.

Re:Not want to be bitching... (1)

XeroSine (1067136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594162)

Well look at who's in office......mr arrogance himself.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593696)

Let's see how serious they are. How about starting with China?

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594126)

How about starting with America?

Clean your own house before you complain about the mess elsewhere.

Slashdot is run by 4chan (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593730)

Here is the mentally ill lying psychopath thief Christopher Poole (AKA Moot) in action.

http://www.anontalk.com/dump/mootard.txt

so will the WTO give Antigua even more free IP ove (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593748)

so will the WTO give Antigua even more free IP over this as the US may try to push the Online gambling ban?

Single serving friend! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593756)

'All hail the empire'... 25 more years(maybe) of the current over fifty illiterate electronic generation!
I'm with the US gov... We're here to help! (Right)

First up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31593804)

..Canada and all those other countries that decline to enact DMCA-style laws.

The last gasp attempts (0, Troll)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593814)

from a dying empire. Threaten anyone and every one to fall in line like the tyrants citizen citizens and encroach on others sovereignty.

Re:The last gasp attempts (2, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594114)

Threaten anyone and every one to fall in line like the tyrants citizen citizens and encroach on others sovereignty.

Sounds an awful lot like you're talking about China there except for the last gasp and dying empire parts.

For given definitions of cyber crime... (1)

LuNa7ic (991615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593894)

What's the bet the most immediate target is Spain, for the cyber-crime of not enforcing US copyright law?

Re:For given definitions of cyber crime... (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594444)

They'd consider it, then they'd realize that Spain is part of the EU and making trade sanctions against the EU is like shooting yourself in the foot with a shotgun, so instead they'll probably rattle their sabers meaninglessly at countries like Serbia and Ukraine.

...and what about Tax Havens? (4, Interesting)

Col Bat Guano (633857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593904)

Are we likely to see legislation against tax havens that allow people to secrete money away from legitimate taxation and policing enquiries?

Oh silly me - that's where the politicians and their rich friends put their money...

Hypocracy at its finest (1)

allcaps (1617499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593910)

So, would America end up penalizing itself?

Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercrime (5, Informative)

zondag (1114149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593916)

Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercrime [enigmasoftware.com]

So apparently, if you add up all of Europe we'd match the US as the largest source of cybercrime. But the hypocrisy aside, Europe won't be the target of US sanctions.

Re:Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercr (1)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594244)

According to that site you gave, 23% of cybercrimes are from within the US. That means that 87% comes from outside of the US.

So, by doing this, the US is trying to attack that 87% which is, by far, the majority. It only makes sense, don't you think?

Re:Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercr (1)

zondag (1114149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594368)

I think the number you're going for is 77%.

But the point is that according to those numbers, the major non-US sources of cybercrime are also your major trading partners and close allies. I don't think the US will be rushing to attack any of them with sanctions. Instead you'll be attacking or threatening the usual suspects, which puts on a good show but has little actual effect.

According to that site you gave, 23% of cybercrimes are from within the US. That means that 87% comes from outside of the US. So, by doing this, the US is trying to attack that 87% which is, by far, the majority. It only makes sense, don't you think?

Re:Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercr (1)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594500)

And by 87% I mean 77%, of course.

Re:Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594612)

Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercrime [enigmasoftware.com]

So apparently, if you add up all of Europe we'd match the US as the largest source of cybercrime. But the hypocrisy aside, Europe won't be the target of US sanctions.

Does that mean US should start cleaning their act first? :P

Hey (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 4 years ago | (#31593968)

It's a roll call of supporters that stand to lose the most from foreign "hackers" that don't conform to their EULA doctrine. Great idea, lets police other countries even more and spread real law enforcement dollars even more thin while enforcing patient right of companies so they can make their bottom lines a little more appealing. This is what happens when you have analysis's that do the "we are potentially losing X amount of dollars because of pirating and hacking".

Re:Hey (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594460)

I don't think American Express, Paypall, Visa and Mastercard are worried about people ignoring their EULA and pirating their IP. I suspect they rather hope to catch all the people stealing credit card details.

This is not about hacker havens (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594012)

This is a future backdoor for enforcing upcoming ACTA, and for cracking down on file sharing/other perceived piracy/copyright infringements. And ultimately for imposing global internet censorship (controls on perceived indecent or perceived dangerous content).

This isn't about hacker havens or real bad guys. Lobbyists aren't handling billions of bucks wanting representatives to shut down 'hacker havens'.

The big bucks are coming down from the **AA

Not that stopping crime is a bad thing. But this sort of thing is going to be abused going forward.

It's contrary to free trade. And while the current intent may be great, the future consequences could be dire, if some agreement can't be reached early to limit its scope.

Re:This is not about hacker havens (1)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594194)

If we (the earth) ever end up with global internet censorship its not going to be coming from the US and its not going to come until after someone pries our (Americans) First Amendment from our cold dead hands.

Re:This is not about hacker havens (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594230)

I hope you are right, but as far as I can see the US has did a lot for censorship lately. Or do you know what the ACTA is about? Seen what is happening with viacom vs youtube? It's the DMCA that has shut down free speech in the USA and the usage of the most smallest part of a book is no longer considered fair use.... Buddy really, I hope you are right, but I am afraid you will be wrong.

Re:This is not about hacker havens (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594344)

It's the next racket reminiscent of "The War on Drugs" that never ends and sucks money like vacuum cleaner.

Re:This is not about hacker havens (1)

Fireshadow (632041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594436)

Lobbyists aren't handling billions of bucks wanting representatives to shut down 'hacker havens'.

Close. From 2006 to 2010, Kirsten Gillibrand received $424,434 in campaign donations from individuals at "Boies, Schiller & Flexner". This is a law firm that specializes in Intellectual Property and International Arbitration among other things. From 2009 to 2010, Hatch received $25,050 from HP's PAC and individuals in campaign donations.

I have my opinion as to the bills true authors. Conduct your own research though. Form your own opinion.

References: Open secrets dot org. (www.opensecrets.org). Always entertaining to look up a representatives name to see who the donors are.

Boies, Schiller & Flexnerhttp://www.bsfllp.com/practices/100 [bsfllp.com]

If You Knew Orrin (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594030)

like i knew orrin, you'd wonder if this is really his way of setting up draconian ip enforcement for his hollywood pals' he's never been able to do otherwise. is it a secret hatch to hollywood?

Attack the foreign hackers! (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594096)

You see, we have several technology darlings here in the US that like to make software that's hopelessly insecure. Sure, more secure software like Unix and its derivatives were invented here too, but we don't like them because they have command lines, and command lines are icky.

So because we can't be bothered to run software that's reasonably able to do e-commerce in an e-commerce era, we need a goat. It's best if that's a foreign goat. We're going to point our fingers at the foreign hackers and say that they are the ones hampering our eBay and our Amazon and our banking websites.

Because requiring secure clients to do e-commerce would be too hard. Nobody here would go for it.

Re:Attack the foreign hackers! (1)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594326)

If your neighbour's children keep throwing rocks at your windows, what do you do? Do you install bullet-proof windows or do you go talk to the neighbour?

Bullshit (1)

tvz (1774404) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594116)

This is nothing but a attempt to limit free speech on the internet. We figured out that cyberwar bullshit is a good enough reason to make developing countries filter, monitor, and log web access, basically set up their own little great firewall or lose US funding i.e. starve to death. This bill has little to do with hackers it's mainly to suppress the oppressed and enforce globalism. Free speech in developing countries is dangerous to the corporations exploiting them such as the ones backing this serious human rights abuse.

No Disney? (3, Insightful)

fyoder (857358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594150)

Numerous American employers, including Cisco, HP, Microsoft, Symantec, PayPal, eBay, McAfee, American Express, Mastercard and Visa, as well as Facebook, are supporting the Senators' legislation."

What, no Disney? No Sony? No RIAA and MPAA members? Did the others tell them to hide in the back and not to come out until the law is passed?

I'm all for going after the spammers and shit, but I sure as hell don't trust the US Gov't to use a very narrow definition of "cyber criminal" when big media pull out their cheque books.

Re:No Disney? (2, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594360)

I sure as hell don't trust the US Gov't to use a very narrow definition of "cyber criminal"

And this is exactly the problem, no one trusts the US government (more specifically, 76% of Americans only trust the government to do the right thing only some of the time, or never). Not just with defining cyber criminal, with anything.

Unfortunately it is with good reason. After a decade of Bush (and not just Bush, the incompetent congress that was with him), followed up with bailouts for incompetent banks and Obama pushing a lousy healthcare bill, there isn't a lot to trust.

There isn't a good solution that I know, but one thing is certain: everyone, left, right, and center, is distrustful of government right now. Because honestly there's nothing wrong with asking other countries to take care of their cyber criminals, the problem only comes with the ulterior motives.

You know... (1)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594306)

Just 'cause something has the potential to be abused you can't assume it will.

It seems to me that any measure the US takes in order to fix this or that is seen by slashdoters as evil incarnated trying to destroy our god-given free speech.

Just for a second get the free-speech crap out of your head and don't assume this measure will be abused. Then ask yourselves: will this work? If you come up with an answer while in that state of mind, fine, but until then keep all your "evil US is censoring me!" crap to yourselves or at least accept the fact that you're just ranting because it comes from the makers of the RIAA.

Re:You know... (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594496)

the RIAA are not part of the list of supporters and traditionally everything that can be abused has been abused, see every law in the history of mankind.

Anyhow there's nothing wrong with the concept behind this bill, just questionable if it'll be effective or not. Usually in the case of countries with very high crime the government will keep saying "Yes, yes, we're working as hard as we can to crack down on it!" but in the end they're powerless and trying to sanction the country just leads to even more crime as poverty increases.

Re:You know... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594568)

Just 'cause something has the potential to be abused you can't assume it will.

If a government has passed a law which can be abused and hasn't abused it, that just means they haven't got around to it yet.

For example, I remember when British anti-terrorist laws were only going to be used against, like, terrorists, and not Icelandic banks and people who over-fill their garbage bins. Or when speed cameras were only going to be installed at accident blackspots. And the 1920 Firearms Act was not going to be used to ban gun ownership, merely ensure that they would only be in the hands of decent law-abiding people.

In fact, it's hard to think of a British law which can be abused which hasn't been; I doubt that America is very different.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594364)

Me thinks that with the ACTA beginning to go down in flames that the organizations are attempting to backdoor in copy protection.

As an American, I find it offensive that our bought and paid for (by industry) politicians would have the unmitigated audacity to attempt to enforce generally ignored law upon the rest of the world via trade restraints.

When did the rest of the world have to obey US law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594422)

Last time I checked, enacting a rule in the White House does not affect the law of any other country.

In fact, I see this quite often with Americans. Many times, when in other countries they expect to be treated by US law and not the law of the country they're in. Sometimes I want to whack you guys with a 2x4. Your nationality has nothing to do with laws that are enforced based on geography.

The US has the right (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594590)

The USA has the right to not give aid and to not trade with certain countries. Either way, this is going to be used to force IP laws globally. The funny thing about cyber war, is that it is called a war. We have nuclear weapons and the potential to destroy each other. Does that mean we're at nuclear war? What we are seeing is cyber espionage and preparations for cyber warfare. The only way this can be fought is if the world largely stands against the American government. The American people need to also stand against their government, which is clearly no longer representing them or acting in their best interests.

Re:The US has the right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594748)

yes you are right about war and Americans...

and people said that the next world war will take place with computers how right they were
terminator is not going to happen any time soon i think

the American government who do "the mans work" not the figurehead im afraid is Mr Obama while the president he does not control all and no man or country should.
The men in power are most likely obsessive men in pinstripe suits in large ball rooms will fight behind their outdated computers while the army warms up the silos.. oh i mean the modems duh, orders are given by the vast machine, and followed to the digit, american capitalism now?

i mean really i wish people would realize that the war will come but only the stupid and ignorant do nothing
and while all humans can stop the "cybercriminals", everything is easy and fun but only the few or many steal, (damn russains??)
but then again welcome to the space age people or has that passed and the age of the machines is here? so soon...

although through history there has allways been the domination of cultures, europeans and the aborigines, and then the Aztecs, American Indians, even the Persian king Xerxes, Egyptians Ramses etc and the slave races, the bible also focuses on that point to if not a narrative about it, and many many others
so it looks like our culture continues with another fucking group of zealous, religious dickheads and megalomaniacs, and machines of the 20th century.

So we stop bribing them after we find criminals? (1)

sounds (466749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594602)

Considering the economic climate, why can't we find Senators who will simply eliminate US export dollars, foreign-direct investment funds and trade assistance grants categorically? Why should our government be sending our tax dollars outside the country anyway?

Police ? (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31594606)

The US still acting as the world's cop ? This is a thought model of the Bush era. Aged and provenly not working, that is.

YOU FAiL IT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31594610)

all servers. Coming risk lloking even Come Here but now Of vario0s BSD worthwhile. So I
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>