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!

Kaspersky Calls For 'Internet Interpol'

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the we'll-get-right-on-that dept.

Security 136

angry tapir writes "With cybercrime now the second largest criminal activity in the world, measures such as the creation of an 'Internet Interpol' and better cooperation between international law enforcement agencies are needed if criminals are to be curtailed in the future, Kaspersky Labs founder and security expert Eugene Kaspersky has argued. He said, 'We were talking about that 10 years ago and almost nothing has happened. Sooner or later we will have one. I am also talking about Internet passports and having an online ID. Some countries are introducing this idea, so maybe in 15 years we will all have it.'"

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

He dun goofed (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169406)

The consequences will never be the same.

would that means a bright future for his company? (2)

Azmodan (572615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169410)

I really wonder how someone who sells protection would really benefits from having a more secure internet...

Re:would that means a bright future for his compan (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169456)

what are you talking about? The "internet ID" and "internet passport" become items of intense personal value that must be protected. The stakes will be even higher to protect your papers under a "papers, please." internet.

Re:would that means a bright future for his compan (2)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169904)

Bingo. Someone manages to get ahold of someone's "internet credentials" can go to town, and the owner of the creds would be nailed, both civilly and criminally for this.

Remember, we have people who are unable to tell the difference between an IP address and a person. Think about the havoc someone can reach with forged credentials.

Of course, this would make the AV company fear campaigns be able to go up a notch by telling people the consequences of someone stealing their "internet passport", and how consumers need their CPU-hogging, OS-crashing, I/O intercepting, expensive [1] crap, when in reality, something like AdBlock is what actually will get the job done.

[1]: $30 to $50 per computer per year. There is just no real point to paying that, unless you have a business, and if you have a business, you should use ForeFront or SEP which doesn't care about subscriptions.

joy. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169424)

we all lose privacy so that the fucktards can pretend they're a little bit 'safer' from their own idiocy.

fuck 'internet passports' and 'online ids'. it's time for citizens to quit being chickenshits or eventually everything you do will be tracked back to this. this is different than the past because electronic surveillance completely erodes the natural privacy one has in the physical world. I don't want my every click, every download, every page hit recorded for some bored cop to puruse 20 years after the fact so it can be judged on current standards...all to meet a quota.

Re:joy. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169516)

Then make it illegal for bored cops to peruse it, and illegal for any evidence gathered that way to be used against you, but don't make it illegal to track down criminals based on evidence of crimes.

Re:joy. (4, Informative)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169570)

>Then make it illegal
Yeah. We could even add a constitutional amendment! Something like:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Then all we'll need is to figure out who will enforce this fine law.

Re:joy. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169976)

who will enforce this fine law

We will. That's how it works.

Re:joy. (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170066)

who will enforce this fine law?

We will. That's how it works.

Trouble is...we HAD a nice 4th amendment in the US constitution, however, the Supreme Court just kind fscked us on this one a day or two ago.

I'm worried when they can blow off the constitution so readily...if they can do that, well, they'll certainly NOT have a 2nd thought about blowing off an internet mandate about using info collected from it ....if the tool is there, the authorities WILL abuse it at some time in the future.

Their track record shows this....over and over again.

Remember how RICO was only supposed to be used to go after the mafia? Hmm...well, its being used in new and creative ways all the time.

If they can now kick down your door without a warrant just because they hear some (non-threatening sounds) and smell weed outside a bunch of apt. doors...they'll have no compunction about tracking your ass down by forced internet ID marked transactions, why wait for using it for criminal investigation, just continuously fishing for information on everyone...someone will slip and we'll get them, even if we have to change the laws and go after them retroactively.

Re:joy. (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170128)

Then you'd better vote harder.

Re:joy. (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170490)

If "we" includes you, you're slacking off. Go arrest the surveillance state. And hurry.

Re:joy. (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171328)

I like the general idea, but what the fuck is up with the random Capitalization of Words?

Re:joy. (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169576)

Are you that naive? governments make exceptions to due process all the time.. even laws that are well drafted, honed, and focused to begin with get their scopes widened over time by opportunistic politicians selling out to law enforcement and economic lobbies.

Re:joy. (2)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169582)

Laws can be changed or ignored. Also, everybody can be found guilty of something.

Re:joy. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169996)

Then find the people you fear in government, and charge them with the something you say you have on them.

Re:joy. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170594)

what the system says one can do and what can actually be done are two different things.

Re:joy. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171158)

No, they aren't. You're limited only by the law and your ethics. And as long as we have a law that allows the criminals to follow their ethics, that's where our society's dialogue will reside.

Re:joy. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170920)

You could, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them. They might even alter the law later. I'd rather not ever give them this ability in the first place to minimize the risks. Sure, it might be more difficult to catch these 'criminals', but that is how it should be, in my opinion.

Re:joy. (3, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170208)

It isn't the cops you should be worried about. Everything thing you do online has value to someone. It will provide them valuable market information. The fact that you don't click on the CNN link but do click on the Stormfront link is saleable to someone. The fact that you sort things in a list of items on Amazon by "best selling" rather than "lowest price" is worth something.

Now maybe individually these actions aren't worth much, but if a company can assemble many people's habits and actions together and offer them as a package so that trend analysis and forecasting can be done ... well, how much do you think Google was able to sell the brands of the routers actually be used in Chicago for? Better yet, how much do you think the brand names of routers in Highland Park (an affluent suburb) vs. brand names of routers in Wheeling (a mostly low-income suburb with trailer parks) is worth to DLink or Belkin?

This information is going to be collected and sold and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Re:joy. (1)

RobDude (1123541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170592)

I think a lot of people are arguing against a false dilemma here. Some people would suggest *not* giving up privacy but would welcome a more unified front from law enforcement.

As it stands now, most cyber 'crime' is only a crime in the technical sense of the world. Call the police when your computer gets hacked and see how seriously the pursue it. Unless you are a large company, dealing with millions of dollars or customer information absolutely nothing will come of it. And that's 10X true when the criminal is outside of the US.

The FBI provides tips on how to avoid being a victim of online fraud. But I sure couldn't find a place to *report it*. Just yesterday (seriously) a friend of mine had his old Hotmail account compromised and a hacker (whose IP address originated in Nigeria) send out e-mails to everyone on the list requesting money be wired. If a guy were going door-to-door in the US, and pulling a similar scam you *could* call the cops and they'd probably show up and investigate. But, the guy in Nigeria....it's pretty risk free as long as he continues to target individuals.

It's not just 'computer crime', but anything less tangible than a stereo or a car. I had my debit card number used fraudulently at a mail-order catalog. I was able to get the company to tell me it was being shipped to my town (but they refused to give any more information). I went to my bank, who refunded the charge and said they would launch an 'investigation'. I went to the police who told me to fill out a piece of paper.

Months later, my bank sent me a letter saying that they'd completed their investigation and had found that the charge *was fraudulent*. That's it. They were investigating *me*. They decided that *I* didn't do it; so they refunded my money. *NOBODY* cared or went after the people who used the card.

You'd really have to be retarded to get caught doing any of these things. No wonder it's growing.

Resources (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169446)

Didn't the FBI recently admit that almost 50% of their electronic crime capabilities are spent rooting around in child porn?

So, if Internet crime is the largest category, and half of it is child porn?...

wtf?!

Someone is lying.

Think there is an agenda here?

Won't someone please think of the children?

Re:Resources (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170312)

They'd like that -- if we were all thinking of the children it'd *waaaaaay* easier to bust us for child porn. How about you and your pervert buddies just stop thinking about the children and have a seat, while I call in Chris Hansen...

Re:Resources (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170390)

As someone who's livelihood comes from the prosecution of child porn, you have no idea.

First off, child porn is something that can be prosecuted. The botnet creator in Romania cannot be prosecuted and is actively being protected by their government. No point in trying to go after them.

Then there are the credit card theives. They get your number and use it and you have to ... cancel the card. Well, because you're not out anything, the merchant has insurance and the credit card companies don't want to prosecute there is no point. So nobody is going after them either.

Then there are the folks selling fake pills and claiming to be in Canada when they are really in Indonesia. Well, if the Indonesian government isn't interested and is likely going to shield them, there isn't any way to go after them.

It goes on an on. Either there is nobody to prosecute or it is happening across borders with a disinterested government at the other end. The FBI has plenty of weight to throw around, but before they bring all of their focus on some international perp everyone needs to be on board with it being the "right" target - and that is very difficult to achieve. Unless of course the guy is out there on IRC bragging.

Well, I guess that leaves child porn and a few other things, like massive copyright violation. That is the day for an FBI forensic examiner. Mostly it is child porn because there is so much of it out there and nobody wants to stand up for someone involved in it. Especially when they start taking pictures and distributing them, which is how many people are caught. Forgetting to turn off the geotagging on your iPhone can be really, really embarassing. Especially when you answer the doorbell and find an FBI agent with a GPS receiver saying "Yes, it was right here" to his partner.

Re:Resources (1)

RubberDuckie (53329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170790)

Too bad you posted anonymously (though I understand why you did), as some may miss this post. Until we get everyone on the same page as to who should be prosecuted, it's just going to be too easy to hide.

this could all be moot (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169454)

This could all have been mooted if in the original design of IPv4 it weren't made so easy to spoof. That same lackadaisical attitude spread to mail paths and DNS.

The fact is, in order to get data from point A to point B there is a necessary uniqueness to the identification of A and B. If that had been concretized rather than left flapping in the wind, while still allowing for mobility, then your packets would be your packets with 100% certainty.

I really haven't looked at IPv6 hard enough to know if it's less spoofable. But I hope so. I really want a button in my email client labelled "Spam" that brings up a full trace to the person who initiated the message, determines what spambot they were running, then correlates with the other bots to triangulate to the control node, and shuts it down with prejudice, preferably by injecting 50 kV into its keyboard.

Re:this could all be moot (4, Insightful)

AdamThor (995520) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169524)

I really want a button ... that brings up a full trace to the person who initiated the message...

You and Gaddafi both.

Re:this could all be moot (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169950)

You think Gaddafi isn't trolling and spamming? You want that button too.

Re:this could all be moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169612)

Crime is not a technological problem.

It is not necessary to uniquely identify A and B to get data from A to B. For that, you only need to know B. It is even possible to have protocols where the recipient is not known to the sender, if content based addressing is used.

I for one do not want to identify people who attack me, I want a way to stop them from attacking me. I don't care who they are.

There's currently a tendency to give people authority over the net in exchange for their mere promise that they'll save us from the bogeyman of the day (you know, spammers, identity thieves, kiddy fuckers, terrists, commies, pirates). These people have no clue what they're going to do to protect us. It is not even on their mind. They want the authority and then they want to use that authority to serve their agenda, which does not involve protecting you from anyone. Once they have the authority, all the whining that we gave up our freedom to be save and got cheated is not going to get our freedom back.

DON'T GIVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE NET TO ANYONE WHO IS NOT ACTUALLY KEEPING IT RUNNING!

Re:this could all be moot (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169624)

you want the rest of us to give up privacy AND take on the mantle of defending an online id that will automatically be considered legitimate by governmental bureaucracies just so you don't have a large spam folder? Wow..

Right now, any safety we have online is the fact that online ids are not taken seriously..

Re:this could all be moot (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169956)

Tell you what.

You turn in your license plates and I'll think about what I said.

Re:this could all be moot (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170120)

License plates only ID your car. Your analogy is flawed.

Re:this could all be moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170200)

"License platers only ID YOUR car." The analogy is just fine. You seem to have missed the bus though. Maybe in your country the DMV doesn't ask for your drivers license when you register a vehicle.

Re:this could all be moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170210)

Then turn in your driver's license, social security card (or whatever equivalent outside of the US), your passport, and any other government issued I.D.

Re:this could all be moot (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170692)

A government issued ID hardly violates my privacy. Mine sits at home, since I only have to show it in very specific occasions, and most aren't logged. It's completely different from having an identifiable address that everyone can see and log.

It would be like having a name plate with your SSN when you walk around.

Re:this could all be moot (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171110)

When you're out on the public roads in your 1500-lb child-smashing machine, you should be identifiable.

When you're on the public internets on your 1.5-GHz rootkit-depositing machine, you should be identifiable.

If you want to go out on the roads without ID, leave the car at home.

If you want to communicate without ID, leave the internet at home.

See how that works?

Re:this could all be moot (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170474)

great.. I'd do that instantly. also, do away with expensive taxes-disguised-as-registration-fees...

Re:this could all be moot (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171126)

Those taxes are rarely enough to pay for what you get. Road is a couple of million dollars a mile these days.

Umm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169458)

Where's the 'idiot' tag?

Who bought you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169482)

Well, it seems natural that someone who makes money from selling snake oil would welcome more security theater.

Dear Kaspersky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169484)

You will, undoubtedly lead the effort to implement this Online ID, and provide your services for a very modest sum....
On behalf of the Internet...please go be fruitful and multiply. Not in those words.

How about not? (2)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169488)

Instead of continually beating our heads on securing systems and people, let's remove the profit motive. If we fundamentally change how financial transactions are executed, security will becomes less of a problem.

Get the requirements for security out of Windows, and put it into trusted bank-issued smart cards. Separate authentication from authorization from identification. Build system that humans can manually verify without a Windows box being the portal through which this verification happens.

Re:How about not? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169586)

But then how will the rich elite know when and how the lower classes will try to change the status quo? /sarcasm

Re:How about not? (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169616)

Separate authentication from authorization from identification.

Doesn't authentication generally mean your identification is authentic? Not sure how you separate those two.

Re:How about not? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169644)

authentication verifies you are who you say you are.. authorization grants or revokes privileges.

Re:How about not? (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169826)

plover said to separate 3 things. You noted 2 that are separate; I noted 2 that are not.

Re:How about not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170190)

Identification = Username
Authentication = Password
Authorization = privileges associated with individual

Re:How about not? (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170928)

Identification = Username + ID card + chip implanted at birth

Authentication = DNA + Iris pattern + fingerprint

Authorization = none without explicit per-operation grant by competent authority

Done, I've solved it! Not the internet interpol can perfom a fine job.

Re:How about not? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170662)

yup. my bad.

Re:How about not? (2)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169688)

Nail, head hit:

This is how the IBM ZTIC works, although it essentially shows up a confirmation "you seriously want to move $25,000 of your cash from checking to Elbonia?"

Realistically, the best solution may be an app for the phone. You get a one time key from the app on the phone, use that to log in on the PC, then use the phone to confirm transactions. For a blackhat to get access to the account fully, they would need to compromise both the PC (so they can log in), as well as the cellphone (to approve and generate cards) at the same time.

Of course, there will be ways around this, but it is a heck of a lot harder to get a rogue app onto an Android or iOS device, make the app get in sync with the user's compromised PC in order to do an account theft. Not impossible, but it would make the average user's bank records attackable via malware, other than the fact that malware sitting passively with screenshots may be able to send off what lies in the account to a remote site.

Re:How about not? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169722)

Realistically, the best solution may be an app for the phone. You get a one time key from the app on the phone

All you've done is created another single point of failure ... and, presume that in order to do anything in a secure manner, I need to have a smart phone.

You might as well just decide that I need a facebook login as well.

Re:How about not? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169830)

The smart phone's task is to be a separate authentication device. A SecurID card also works, or a ZTIC-like device can handle authentication and confirmations.

The reason I was mentioning a smart phone is that they are becoming quite common, and have the functionality as a computer. So, having the ability to use that device as opposed to having a dedicated dongle for access would save money and hassle for most people.

You are right, lose the device, and lose access to the account. However, places like eBay and PayPal support multiple phones or authentication tokens.

No, this isn't a perfect solution, but in this case, something is better than nothing, and for the most part, it should be considered as preferred (though still optional) for the user. No phone, no need to set phone based authentication up. Heck, just a scratch off TAN system that they have in Europe is far better than keeping the status quo.

Re:How about not? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170880)

The problem with the phone is that it becomes a target, and it's on the network. If I want to start stealing, I just have to hack your phone. Convince you to download my "facepalm" app and it infects your payment app, or it paints a fake payment app picture. We shouldn't keep trying to trust these devices.

We're already in the boat of "something is better than nothing" and all we've got is water up to our knees making an incoherent mess.

Re:How about not? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171210)

I would say that app security on phones is light years ahead of security on general computers.

For example, Android. A malicious app can install with a lot of permissions, but if it wants to get into the banking app's files, it will require breaking out of the Dalvik VM, rooting the phone, then trying to find a way to pull the data encryption key from the context of the other application.

iOS has similar security. A malicious app would have to figure out how to get out of the BSD jail, get root, find the encryption keys used for storing the data in the context of the bank app.

Because apps are very isolated from each other on phones, it is a lot harder to make undetectable malware as it is on PCs.

Plus, smartphones are a lot more resistant to drive-by browser attacks, which install the majority of malware on PCs.

To boot, since smartphones take some doing to root/jailbreak, a dumb user will be protected from an app that tries to su to root on Android.

So, smartphones are not perfect, but dual factor authentication is better than the username/password, or username/password/"show user if this is the right goat" stuff we have now.

Re:How about not? (1)

aix tom (902140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171140)

How my Online banking now work. ( The next step up from the "hard coded" TAN system: )

1) I have to log in with a password
2) I enter the transaction I want to do
3) Then there is a flashing bar code type thing displayed on the screen. I then have to hold a "cheap" gadget from my bank up to it, with my Banking Card in it. That gadget is synchronized to only that one account and only that card, and reads the flashing bar-code.
4) The gadget then displays the destination bank account and the amount, which I have to confirm.
5) The gadget generates a one-time TAN ased on cryptography in combination with my banking card that I have to enter to authorize that transaction.

The advantage I see here:

This little gadget does NOTHING else. It's never actually "connected" electronically to the PC, there are no "apps" or anything that anyone can install on it that might contain back doors. Which I would actually see as the major disadvantage of using a smartphone to do it. And if I lose the device, my bank will just issue me another one. You of course one also needs the gadget AND the bank card. Usually the gadget is at home, and I have my banking card with me so there is little chance of both of them being stolen.

Re:How about not? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36171280)

That is similar to how the ZTIC system from IBM works. The only weakness in that is the fact that a blackhat can capture your authentication token (the cookie the bank uses, SSL state, etc.) Then while you are looking at your statements, the Web browser is actually making some bank transfers to Elbonia without showing you.

With the ZTIC, as it has a completely separate, secure connection to the bank, it will show you the transactions before allowing approving, so someone trying to pull money from the account would be stopped in their tracks, unless they are good enough with social engineering to get someone to ignore what their little keyfob says.

Re:How about not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171392)

You are not going to get rid of the profit motive on the internet if you still have it elsewhere. Fascists make more money than hippies, as long as you have money around, fascists are going to win every time.

Internet passports??? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169510)

Wow, I'm afraid I have to conclude this guys is possibly a little too full of himself.

If we ever get anywhere near a "single secure cyberspace", we're pretty much all screwed.

Governments will use this to stifle your privacy, your rights, and every other thing they can think of. They'll make sure they monitor everything you do, and ensure you don't do anything they don't approve of.

Anybody who thinks the solution to cybercrime is to more or less lock down the internet like this ... well, I think they deserve a series of well placed kicks to the groin. I can only see this as more or less fascism -- though I'm sure I'll be accused of hyperbole.

Re:Internet passports??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170802)

Governments will use this to stifle your privacy, your rights, and every other thing they can think of. They'll make sure they monitor everything you do, and ensure you don't do anything they don't approve of.

They'll stifle our rights, but they'll make that up with the improved enforcement of intellectual property rights. Things always balance out in the end.

Privacy concerns (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169520)

I understand his concern, especially after Kaspersky son's kidnapping, but this would erode online privacy to say the least.

'described himself as an “optimistic paranoid” when it came to online security'
I guess an optimistic paranoid is hoping that the next security technology is better than the one before, but never really trusting anything or anyone.

Re:Privacy concerns (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169626)

In the idiot-filled corporate world it is the job of people like Kaspersky to scare empty-headed CEOs and Congrespeople by puffing themselves up as an "expert" and making wild predictions and promises in the hope of getting some money for products that will work marginally at best. He's just doing his job... so hate the system AND the idiots behind it.

Re:Privacy concerns (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170014)

I guess an optimistic paranoid is hoping that the next security technology is better than the one before, but never really trusting anything or anyone.

There are numerous unknown enemies out there trying to get me, and my known enemies (such as the merger of govt and big business being given 1984 style tools of oppression) would of course do awful things, but its always possible to optimistically define something worse that isn't (yet) happening.

Will he accept responsibility when.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169522)

The first atrocities happen because of a having ID and Passports on the net?

If you do not belive that something bad could happen because of real ids on the net think about the recent protests in egypt and libya. Do you think that thouse dictators would not use a real id to locate protesters and make them disaper?

I wish some people would think of what the worst thing that could happen when they come up with stuff like this and not stick there head in the sand and say that it would never happen. That is was and ever will be an excuse when bad things DO happen that they didn't think it would ever happen.

Re:Will he accept responsibility when.... (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169740)

Or even worse, the dictators would have a monitoring service that just would scan for keywords. If one of their subjects states too much stuff or passes a threshold, the program sends a memo to a secret police to make the person disappear, perhaps if the threshold of "revolution speech" is high enough, the person's family disappears too.

Can you picture someone like Stalin or Pol Pot with this ability to monitor technology in their nation? Even outside their nation, they can find who dislikes their country the most and send some goons to take care of the problem.

Of course, this will do jack shit to stop hackers. They will find a way to "borrow" someone else's identity to do their dirty work.

Re:Will he accept responsibility when.... (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169852)

Will he accept responsibility when the first atrocities happen because of a having ID and Passports on the net?

No, because neither he no anyone else not directly involved in said attrocity (as either the perpetrator or the victim) will ever hear about it.

What nonsense (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169540)

That's what interpol's job is supposed to do in the first place in all forms. Coordinate police dept's and services around the world. The real problem isn't so much that police don't talk, it's that the governments don't give them the resources to deal with internet related crime. In Canada, financial crimes under $200k are done on a case by case basis, by local dept's or by the provincial police, if there's enough officers available to take them off traditional crimes. Financial crimes over $250k are looked at only by the RCMP, and the RCMP will not take any case under $200k due to the lack of manpower and resources. And financial crimes under $40k are pretty much written off unless there are officers available. That's not even touching on the training.

It's a sad state, but the problem is three fold. First people don't think you need more police. The average citizen to cop ratio is between 100:1 and 750:1, though in some parts of the US it's 4000:1. Second, while a lot of younger cops(that's under 40 as the average age here is around 45), see this as an issue but not a pressing one(too much traditional crime, and staff sgt's who have too few resources, or too few inspectors for the job and are on other cases). Third, politics and bureaucratic BS. There are either weak laws, no laws, a mishmash of laws, or politicians and chiefs stuck in 30-40 year old thinking.

Re:What nonsense (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169886)

1:452 to 1:427 for the United States on average in 2009

For big cities its 1:426 for LAPD. 1:228 for NYPD, 1:216 for Chicago, 1:219 for Philadelphia.

Where I live, its 1:724.

Re:What nonsense (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170212)

No, the big issue is that Russia, China and a handful of other nations don't prosecute those crimes unless they take place completely on their soil. As long as some nations out there don't prosecute suspected crackers, there's unlikely to ever be much changed.

On top of that, in the US we failed to prosecute the corporations that were benefiting from spam while turning a blind eye to how the messages were being sent. It would be naive to say the least of them not to put two and two together when spam messages started showing up showing their goods and services being advertised. Spammers don't provide such services without some sort of profit motive.

Re:What nonsense (2)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170514)

Anything that is "local" is going to be up to the local police with no knowledge of how to deal with an "Internet crime". That means any crime that involves use of the Internet at all - like a bank robber sending an email saying "give me all your money or I will kill people."

Anything that crosses international borders requires a great deal of cooperation and a great deal of interest. Frankly, most 2nd-world governments think they have much better things to do than prevent 1st-worlders from getting defrauded and ripped off. If someone in their country can sell fake meds to people in the USA well, more power to them. It is bringing money into their country and it isn't hurting anyone there. Maybe it is creating jobs in their little part of the world as well so it is a benefit. So (comparatively) rich Americans are losing their money? Boo hoo.

There is no way there is going to be any cooperation on an international level because of the perception that it isn't a crime and the requirement that people be trained for crimes that are a little more complicated than sticking a gun in someone's face and demanding money.

No, thank you. (2)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169558)

We were talking about that 10 years ago and almost nothing has happened. Sooner or later we will have one.

Nothing has happened because we the fucking people don't want it to happen. We the Geeks responsible for implementing these BS control-freak fantasies for Big Brother don't want it to happen. We the citizens of a planet rapidly coming to recognize the meaninglessness of national borders don't want our rights to depend on those available in the most restrictive theocratic dictatorship on the planet.

Nothing will happen because, for all its flaws, we designed the internet to survive government attempts to control it.

Re:No, thank you. (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169636)

Nothing will happen because, for all its flaws, we designed the internet to survive government attempts to control it.

But we didn't design it to survive corporate attempts to control it. And that's where it will fall apart.

Re:No, thank you. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169692)

I used to believe that latter part, but today I'm not so sure.. Unfortunately voting doesn't take into account relative intelligence and wisdom. Thus, the drooling head babbling soccer moms beat out the geeks every time. As far as implementation goes, there are always a few sellouts.

Based on a ridiculous premise (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169566)

"With cybercrime now the second largest criminal activity in the world"

I call bullshit. Anything that follows is irrelevant.

Burn in hell (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169584)

My detailed jargon filled response to this idea is "BURN IN HELL KASPERSKY!!!"

If that happens,... (1)

Inyu (919458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169622)

people will be publishing their IDs and passwords for everybody, and streaming encoded information through whoever's ID they like... and maybe we could even try that ontop of Facebook.

Needed to fight botnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169654)

I'm not fond of the online ID thing, but botnets are a huge problem and the only way we'll ever be able to do anything about them is to have better international cooperation between law enforcement agencies.

It is my view that botnets represent the single most serious threat to a healthy and stable Internet. They also cost society billions of dollars in DDoS prevention and spam filtering technology and man hours.

Re:Needed to fight botnets (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169844)

the only reason the botnets are a threat is because the organizations they attack are used to having big daddy government protect them from everyone else. they don't want to take on the time and expense of designing better systems.. they buy shitty middleware and get hacked, and they think ink on paper is going to protect them.. the single best way to mitigate the botnet problem is to take windows off the market, but of course that'll never happen.

Re:Needed to fight botnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170040)

this was a pretty good rebuttal until that last sentence

Re:Needed to fight botnets (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170446)

why? it's not that other os's don't have flaws, it's that windows is straddled with use-interface expectations that are not compatible with even basic security (user processes kept separate from base system). yes windows has the capability, but the software infrastructure that supports the os does not tolerate it well. the OOTB security configuration is a joke as well,.. all it does is annoy the user into turning them off. governments and their agencies (and banks and corporations) use windows everywhere.. that's why botnets are so effective.

ban the use of credit cards online (0)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169664)

Ban the use of credit cards for online purchases and replace then with some kind of digital currency, something like is used in Second Life. You transfer funds into this account and use it for online transactions and then transfer funds back out of it into your bank account.

"With cybercrime now the second largest criminal activity in the world, measures such as the creation of an 'Internet Interpol'

We don't need an 'Internet Interpol', what we need is computers that aren't so easily hacked ..

Re:ban the use of credit cards online (1)

marnues (906739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170258)

We don't need a secondary economy inflating online prices. Screw that.

rant-like responses to TFS (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169690)

With cybercrime now the second largest criminal activity in the world

Seriously? Way to use vague, scary words to say absolutely nothing.

better cooperation between international law enforcement agencies are needed if criminals are to be curtailed

Why do I get the feeling that large American and European corporations will be the ones to benefit most from this "international law enforcement"?

Re:rant-like responses to TFS (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169926)

Why do I get the feeling that large American and European corporations will be the ones to benefit most from this "international law enforcement"?

And the citizens of pretty much everywhere will be the ones who lose the most.

The democracies will become even more like surveillance societies. The places with questionable human rights records will be sold this stuff so they can further control their people (by companies who only care about the bottom line). And, the outright dictators will think it's just grand as they can lock down dissent.

We all lose in a scenario like this ... having everything you do on the internet tied to a single, government issued network ID won't work. And, in fact, it will probably mean that innocent people become even more targeted by cybercrime -- think how valuable of a target those ids will become, and think of how difficult it will be to fix it when they're compromised.

Not only won't this alleviate crime, it will erode our rights and freedoms. Nothing good will come of this -- this is trying to legislate a solution to a problem which legislation can't possibly hope to find a solution.

Kaspersky's History (3, Insightful)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169708)

Anytime Yevgeny Kaspersky profers his advice on how internet security should work, it should be remembered that he is a former KGB officer.

This is really allow about making it easier for States to control what people do online.

Re:Kaspersky's History (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169942)

All I can find on this is - "Kaspersky graduated from the Institute of Cryptography, Telecommunications and Computer Science, an institute co-sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence and the KGB."

And - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/15/kaspersky_profile_mixup/ [theregister.co.uk]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/feb/13/4 [guardian.co.uk]
"The Guardian has apologised to Eugene Kaspersky after mistakingly naming the anti-virus guru as a former KGB officer. Eugene Kaspersky, co-founder and chief exec of the internet security company Kaspersky Lab, was described as a "KGB man" and a lieutenant in the KGB in an otherwise accurate article (The ex-KGB man stalking the cybercriminals since renamed The Russian defence against global cybercrime)."

Re:Kaspersky's History (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170132)

Yes, clearly the guy who want to KGB funded school and then worked in a KGB funded research lab has NOTHING to do with KGB. If you even read the Guardian correction, they don't actually say what they said is wrong, just that it was a mistake to say it (compare the wishy washy wording in that correction to the far more definite wording in the following two corrections).

Re:Kaspersky's History (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170256)

If I go to a BIA school and then work for the BIA that doesn't make me an Indian Police Officer does it?

If you read the correction you'll see that the school was a joint KGB/Soviet defense ministry school and he went on to a defense ministry agency doing scientific research, not a KGB funded research laboratory.

"He got into the business by accident - he started collecting viruses as a hobby, in 1989, after his PC at the Ministry of Defence became infected with Cascade."

Soviet Ministry of Defense was not the KGB, even if he had worked in a research agency that was KGB, it wouldn't make him an officer in the KGB.

Internet regulation should be international (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169752)

While I would prefer an internet without any regulations, it is very far if ever will be possible. Until then it's better to have an international regulatory board because the current practice of suing and convicting certain businesses or people for things done on the internet in specific countries is ridiculous. Like, someone starts a website then gets sued in some random state in America because one of its users posted a link of something thats illegal there ad then loses his domain.

Don't get me wrong, Kaspersky is an asshole, 'internet passports' would defeat the purpose of INTERnet itself, and mandatory online IDs would make everything traceable what someone does, any dictator's wet dream.

I'm just saying that local regulations also fragment the internet to an extent.

papers please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169774)

haven't we heard this before from that cryptocommunist?

interpolnet (2)

islon (1864460) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169794)

their logo will be a cat

Faked 'weather' wrecks stuff, we get to watch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169800)

how cruel. still waiting? more stand-up talknician routines. more threatening now? will the FSF guys be arrested for sex crimes too? julians, adrians, everybody's at risk, of being arrested, or worse. scary? 13 year old tagged by ss.gov at school for unapproved tweeting. so we're safe from him now. the key to the bells & whistles of just one city is way too much trust to put in one human. our/our planet's fate however, is different?

same old; how many 1000 babys going up in smoke again today? how many 1000's of just folks to be killed or displaced again today? hard to put $$ on that. the cost of constant deception, to our spirit? paying to have ourselves constantly spied on & lied to by freaky self chosen neogod depopulationers? the biblically styled fatal distraction holycost is all encompassing, & never ends while we're still alive, unless we cut them/ourselves off at the wmd. good luck with that, as it's not even a topic anywhere we get to see, although in real life it's happening everywhere as our walking dead weapons peddlers are being uncontracted. you can call this weather if it makes you feel any better. no? read the teepeeleaks etchings.

so, once one lie is 'infactated', the rest becomes just more errant fatal history.

disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy with after all?

  you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.

wouldn't this be a great time to investigate the genuine native elders social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.

who has all the weapons? who is doing MOST of the damage? what are the motives? are our intentions & will as the ones who are supposed to be being represented honestly & accurately, being met? we have no reference to there being ANY public approval for the current mayhem & madness pr firm regime style self chosen neogod rulership we've allowed to develop around us, so we wouldn't have to stop having fun, & doing things that have nothing to do with having to defend from the smoke&mirrors domestic frenetics, of the unproven genocides. rockets exploding in syria fired from Libya? yikes?

  the zeus weather weapon is still being used indiscriminately against the population, our rulers' minions are fleeing under fire.

the whore of babylon has been rescued by the native elders. she has the papers of challenge authored by the hymenical council, & is cooperating wholeheartedly with the disarmament mandate.
disarm. thank you.

censorship, or convenience?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is bogus, you are right moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, (which have been maliciously edited from time to time for effect by /.censory)
which are always changing, you butthead

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36169978)

There's already an interpol, and they know how to use the internet.

Checks & Balances (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36169990)

Why would ICE & DHS give up their god given rights to pull anything they wanted off the net?

This sounds like there's way too much room for possible checks and balances...

In Soviet Russia... (2)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170102)

...we bring the Information into the Government Age!

I dunno (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170168)

Last time I checked, the majority of the criminal activity on the internet was perpetrated by Governments... what good would creating an international agency to patrol criminal activity when it would have to report to the criminals themselves?

Re:I dunno (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170794)

Nail hit head. Obviously criminals want to know what every other criminal is doing.

* citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171048)

* citation needed

Almost worth of a demotivator. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36170236)

This amounts to effectively assaulting free speech by turning the entire internet into a thoroughly badge-checked walled garden. He's a corporate type with a security spiel to sell, that's clear enough, but that alone is not justification to turn the world into a big corporate environment.

In short, the guy is painfully short-sighted for "internet scale" and beyond. Too bad the rest, from google and all the rest to just about all governments, especially the big ones, suffer from the same ailment, so it still seems this guy is making sense.

He's not. Just nailing people to their (one, official) "identity" with every step they take is neither sufficient nor necessary. As such, it's a privacy problem waiting to become so entrenched as to become unfixable. Meaning we need to do far better, and do it right quick.

The key is not to try and stamp out badness. The key is to preserve goodness by making it robust against badness. And you don't do that by "hardening" it with millstones and concrete shoes.

Turn on yer brain already, Kaspersky. So far, you're not part of the solution, and I fear you never will be. Prove me wrong please.

Interpol redundancy (1)

chicago_scott (458445) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170606)

Hmm... maybe there should be a telephone Interpol too.

The one thing worse than Cyber Crime... (2)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36170964)

... that I can certainly guarantee;

Is a system so secure and able to identify you, that it CANNOT allow for crimes to be committed.

Reasonable security is good. But we want a system that NEEDS the will of the governed. If people are treated fairly -- and there is a system in place where Identity can MANUALLY be ascertained, than real security is through the GOOD WILL of the people.

Also, you need people who react, rather than waiting for some authority to come by -- but that's another discussion.

This just in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36171132)

Person/Company with a stake in something wants the public to pay attention to them.

Seriously /. stop being an ad-whore.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?