Reno Proposes Global Anti-Cybercrime Network

Mr. T writes "According to this story, Janet Reno has proposed the formation of LawNet, a global network to fight computer crime. One major issue would involve overcoming jurisdictional questions - where do you prosecute?" Personally, I wish the government would spend less time trying to crack down on miscreants and more time educating the public. Prevention starts at the end-user, Janet!

Comments

Utterly pointless exercise

[arivanov]

At first there are things that are considered computer crime in one country and are not in another. A typical example is reverse engineering which is treated differently in almost any country. There is no single rule of thumb about it.

Also, even for things that are considered to be crime everywhere, there is no real definition of computer crime usable for prosecution. If you cut out financial crime, copyright violation, p0rn, prostitution, etc there is only cracking and hacking left.
These:
1. Are not subject to prosecution in many countries as a computer related offence (they are quite often handled as petty crime, destruction of property, etc).
2. Even in countries with explicit computer related laws the same case may be treated very differently.

So this utterly pointless exercise has:

1. Very small scope
2. Very small common ground and common interest to start with.

Its only common interest may be the attempt to gain cheap political divididends...

Cold chill on my shoulder

[Oscarfish]

Reno said LawNet would also need to focus on privacy issues...

Does this mean protecting or privacy, or doing away with it as LawNet sees fit? I'm sorry, I see this in a very strong Orwellian light. Notice how the article emphasized one (totalitarian) law enforcement agency. Integration means less choices, bar none...

I've always considered most things online to be intellectual in nature, rather than physical (barring E-Commerce sites, etc., of course) and what I'm afraid of is this huge law enforcement agency can define cybercrime any way it wants to - will this extend past what we know to be illegal into...thoughtcrime?

It *may* be a good idea...

[Future Linux-Guru]

The internet is going to be a pervasive part of human society in the coming years---and as with all things some very undesirable elements will come in.

We *will* need protection against those elements and that protection has to be global in nature as is the internet.

But who watches the watchers and what is their morality? Every human belongs to a nation first and the global community second. How do we assure ourselves that the watchers will act in the best interests of us all...and not their country? Not themselves?

We need definitive answers to those questions before anything of this nature is attempted...

Battling the symptoms and not the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the Interpol already offer this kind of coordination-between-authorities thing?

But: coordination and information exchange between authorities via a dedicated network does not cut down crime. In the modern society, wherever there's money or other goods of high value, there is crime. It just is like that, because nobody does anything to change the basic bad architechture of the whole system. Some people have a hard time staying alive, or they feel that the society they live in has not given them anything, so they resort to crime. High crime rates or very full jails are an indication that people do not feel well.

Some silly "LawNet" does not make people feel better. They can't eat it, they can't live in it, it doesn't keep them warm and it can't be drank.

They mean us, don't they?

[Paul Crowley]

They mean evil DeCSS "pirates" and reverse engineers, shrinkwrap license breakers, and crypto exporters. They mean those who provide security information that they'd rather was kept obscure. They mean software patent violators, Napster providers, Xenu $cientology mirrors, anonymous proxies and mail systems, and people who provide ways around filtering proxies. Basically, they mean to act to bolster their power against most everything that Slashdot holds dear.

I'd like to believe I'm being paranoid about this, but they've never given me a reason to feel otherwise. If they'd prefer that I was less paranoid, perhaps they should hold off legislation (eg UCITA) making things like the above more illegal. It would also help if they didn't pass legislation legitimising genuinely odious practices like spam.

I'd be happier, I think, if I could believe they were doing this to make us all safer, but I'm afraid that possibility doesn't move the meter from 0 on the credibilityometer.
--

Need a global network to fight telephone crime

[SurfsUp]

I mean, look what happens when cell phones fall into the hands of *Drug Dealers*. Plus, many men are using telephones with the intention of *getting women to have sex with them*. People *swear* on telephones, and talk about *bad things they shouldn't. Telephones are polluting the minds of our sons and daughters, something has to be done.

Hacking and Deterance

[PG13]

While we readers on slashdot feel some connection with illicit hackers, even if we personally deteste the thought of cracking into someone's box it will eventually become necessery to have serious law enforcement power to protect our machines. Sure most hackers are doing it just to see if it can be done or for the fun of it this doesn't mean there aren't malicious hackers out there. With the growth ofthe internet and the increasing commercialization *real* computer crime won't be far behind. Already we have seen examples of organized crime moving in on the action.

The easy anonimity and facelessness of the crimes opens up the doors for criminal activity on a massive scale. While it might be slightly interesting that 300,000 credit cards were recently stolen when this escalates it will become a serious problem.

Can prevention stop this problem? Experience says no. Even big companies with expert know-how get hacked not to mention the huge difficulty getting the masses to routinely upgrade their personal computers (which will probably have permanent connections within ten years).

Can current law enforcement adequatly deal with this problem? Probably not. If I route my attack through 10 countries (which would be easy enough to do) it would take reams and reams of paper work to get the necessery warrents for all ten countries to track me down. If this is happening on a widespread scale the government could not cope.

I will mourn the free-wheeling days of the internet but like the coyboys in the old west the needs of civilazation must necesserily squash the independent gunslinging culture of the internet. (Yes gun sligning...sheriffs on the net are few and far between people are left to secure their own hardware and match their skill vs. that of the hacker).

P.S. I used hacker intentionally here so please no "use cracker" posts. It is a lost cause the rest of the nation has already adopted the new vocabulary. Besides its just a word why do you care?

First we need to rethink what crime is

[Zemran]

It is great to spout on like that but nothing is really being said. This is obviously not a global thing until the global community can decide on what is legal and what is not. After that the next thing to decide is how best to safeguard ourselves from crime. And lastly, how to catch and convict criminals.

The porn issue has been discussed elsewhere, but in brief if a site is hosted in a country that has liberal censorship then no crime is being commited by the site host and America has to re-think its own attitude to these issues rather than try and tell other people how they should live.

The CD Universe issue is a red herring as extorsion is a crime in any country and as Max appears to be Russian I would think that the authorities should help the Russians catch him and let him get prosecuted and sentenced under Russian law (not nice).

The greatest problem is one of letting go. It is just like bringing up a child. When the child reaches a certain age you have to let go. It is really hard to release your control and let the child take control of its own life, but you have to do it.

If you are a good parent you will have taught your child what to look out for, and how best to protect his/her self. Has anyone seen any gov/aol/msn advice on how users should protect themselves? Can you imagine MSN telling people they should not use Win98 online as it has very weak security?

Catching the criminals is not as hard as it sounds. Remember the Melissa virus? Other techniques can be used to track traffic etc. but, as with all crime a proportion of criminals will get away with it. The biggest step here is to learn to concede jurisdiction to the relevant authority. The FBI are not going to find it easy playing a subordinate role to the Russians if they want to catch Max. So Max will probably get away with it thanks to a childish power struggle.

(h|cr)acker, dammit!

[jabber]

You know, of all the articles to post to, with such a defeatists attitude, one on civil liberties should be the last.

There is a difference between hacker and cracker. It's not just a word, any more so than nigger, faggot, heeb or any other slurr. It has a meaning, given to it a long time ago.

The definition of 'hacker' is quite elusive, but as such it gives us a sense of searching for identity - like any emerging culture. 'Cracker' OTOH is well defined and there are few who misunderstand it north of the Mason-Dixon line.

'Hacker' hails from doing things roughly, as with an axe or hack-saw. It suggests solving problems in the 'ad-hoc' style. (Contrast with 'Engineer', as few engineers see themselves as hackers and few hackers are formally schooled to be engineers) Over time, the definition evolved to imply a certain virtuosity to the method of problem solving - hence a hacker is a talented programmer.

The idea is an immortal virus. For so long as one person holds true to the definition of a word, and makes a point of educating the 'differently-informed', the idea lives, and the history of the word, and whence it came, is carried on.

'Communist' and 'socialist' are just words. Too few people stand up for what they really mean. The 'reat of the nation' has the incorrect connotation, and the misconception just gets deeper. If I were to claim to be a communist in the middle of town square, it would get the undesired sort of attention.

Freedom is a word, yet people have fought, killed and died for it over centuries. Liberty and privacy are just words. If you're so willing to give up on 'hacker', then why even take part in a discussion on 'privacy'. Let someone else (i.e. the Federal Gummint) define it for you.

I know that this is being very dramatic, but a bit of drama is needed IMO. As soon as you let someone who is uninformed define who you are, you cease to be yourself. If the general population is steered to see 'hacker' as nefarious, then they will regard hackers with fear and suspicion. Most of us don't warrant that attitude. This is why we keep on fighting for that label, for the clean reputation of the term we use to describe ourselves.

If the rest of the nation adopts the idea of abortion as a valid means of chosing the gender of a child, would that suddenly make it ok to do so?

What's more, with AOL TW in charge of the 'big picture', if it seems that the rest of the nation has accepted something, does that mean that they really did?