Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The International Cyber Cop Unit

Posted by samzenpus on from the cool-job-title dept.

coondoggie writes "A group of international cyber cops is ramping up plans to fight online crime across borders. The unit, known as the Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group, met this month in London and is made up of high-level online law enforcement representatives from the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. One of the main goals of the group is to fight cyber crime in a common way by sharing intelligence, swapping tools and best practices, and strengthening and synchronizing their respective laws."

127 comments

  1. We should sic em on the MAFIAA by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 2, Informative

    As they are patently criminal organizations. :-)

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:We should sic em on the MAFIAA by webmaster404 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We should sic em on the MAFIAA

      Chances are they are taking orders from the *AA. Only enforcing draconian laws like the DMCA and not doing any real work done, as most government agencies do, never stop the real criminals but stop the easy "crime" that everyone does.
      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    2. Re:We should sic em on the MAFIAA by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Duh. Which headline is the better PR?

      "Millions spent, no communists/terrorists/badguyofthemonth caught"
      or
      "Sting busts ring of (insert random number) illegal filesharers".

      When you run security like a profit center (i.e. compare money spent to criminals caught), which ones would you go for? The ones that are hard to catch but pose a threat, or the ones that are easy to catch even though 99% of the population don't care about their 'crime'?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:We should sic em on the MAFIAA by Bustergates · · Score: 1

      When you say "which ones would you go for? The ones hard to catch but pose a threat or the ones easy to catch even though 99% of the population don't care about it" reminds me of priorities that win battles but lose wars. I hope you remember your quote the next time you're a victim of noise pollution, a real urban issue I wouldn't wish on anyone. It sounds like the reply an unsympathetic cop or politician would make hearing you complain about an asshole neighbor with an effing boom-box and a barking dog in his car 24/7/365. Who cares, it's only you. That's how we end up reading about otherwise "nice neighbors" who go berserk on the clueless inconsiderate assholes who get no abolishment from the police for their terrible demeanor and behavior. You either enforce all the laws all the time or wait for little disasters to become big ones. Happens all the time.

    4. Re:We should sic em on the MAFIAA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, people don't care about my neighbor, but they do care about noisy neighbors. When you can say that your law enforcement managed to lower noise pollution overall by a significant level, chances are good that first of all, most of the population will somehow benefit from it (by having a noisy neighbor that's now quiet), or at least can sympathize and nod their head, since pretty much everyone wants to live quietly.

      But frankly, do you think any Joe Shmoe cares whether some filesharer gets caught? If anything, he might care about a pedo sting, since hey, it's kids. But music? Do I care or what? That pretty much cannot affect him in any way. The only ones that would care are musicians under contract with the RIAA (or other comparable organisations), which represent what? A millionth of the people? Less?

      So the difference is that in the first case, they might not care about the individual case, but they care about the matter. In the latter case, they don't even care about the matter.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Another Cyber Control Group? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just what we need, another vigilante group patrolling the intertubes. As if the americans didn't have enough of these already.

    1. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is what we need. What we don't need is a semi-legitimate government-sponsored group operating way out of their legal jurisdiction.

    2. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just another excuse to have a payed holiday at this "conference" then go back to munching donuts and playing WoW pretending to be on the lookout for child porn traders.

    3. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get that it's "edgy" and "cool" to be anti-American and all, but could you at least capitalize Americans?

      I'm not entirely sure why America has anything to do with the topic at hand, our government was only one of the ones listed.

      We also aren't the only country that's trying to regulate the net or even engaging in espionage online.

    4. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just what we need, another vigilante group patrolling the intertubes."

      Yeah, I know, NetForce was doing a good enough job if you forget about all the stuff they blow up.

    5. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North american, Central american or South american? Which ones are supposed to be capitalized?

    6. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the U.S. = American
      From Canada = Canadian
      From Argentina = Argentinian
      From Mexico = Mexican
      .
      .
      .
      Right? Wrong? Who cares - It's standard usage - We're the only country with "America" in the title so it's natural slang. Get used to it.

    7. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by sasha328 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just what we need, another vigilante group patrolling the intertubes. As if the americans didn't have enough of these already. Could you please elaborate on how you define the FBI, AFP, NZP, RCMP and the Scotland Yard as vigilantes?

      It is really frustrating the kind of responses to this kind of story. I wonder what the slashdot troll would write when or if this agency manages to arrest a nasty spammer. My guess it'll probably be in the YRO section decrying the freedom to spam.
    8. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no shit. I really hate when people try to prevent credit card fraud and spam. And those stupid Americans should totally learn their place and not try to join the international community.

      Oh, wait. You're an idiot.

    9. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Well, the RIAA is also a legitimate business. But it doesn't act fairly. I guess vigilante was the wrong word. But the result will be the same.

    10. Re:Another Cyber Control Group? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      the Americans are joining an international community, they're moved to iraq and afghanistan, and who knows where else (covertly!)

  3. Nice name for a group by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group. Sounds like a straight to DVD Jean-Claude van Damme movie.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Nice name for a group by explosivejared · · Score: 1

      Well you see... no one ever expects the Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group!! Among their many weapons are a fanatical devotion to fighting cyber injustice and an acronym that rolls sweetly off the tongue...

      You see where I'm going with this.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    2. Re:Nice name for a group by mrbluze · · Score: 3, Funny

      Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group.

      SACCWG sounds really stupid if you try to pronounce the mnemonic. How is anyone gonna remember that?

      What about "Universal Working Alliance Networking Cybercrime Knowledge", or something?

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    3. Re:Nice name for a group by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Funny

      Incidentally, I suspect at the announcement of the aforementioned committe, a counter-committee is being secretly formed as we speak:

      "Fellowship Undermining Cybercop Knowledge - You Obviously Understand"

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    4. Re:Nice name for a group by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      SACCWG rolls sweetly off your tongue? Do you speak a slavic language by any chance?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Nice name for a group by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah the first thing I thought of when I saw the countries participating was ECHELON.

      I think they're probably going to scare the people to help justify spying and dubious stuff (like the spread of nasty policies to other countries).

      I'm personally not afraid of all that malware, while there are lots of bots, there aren't that many hackers out there actually controlling those bots.

      The fact that the cops have done little is mainly because it is not a priority. After all they could always follow the _money_. I am sure that some of the money trails will lead to their jurisdiction. Then you could also do stings.

      I'm more afraid of the policies and laws that will result from this "cooperation", because they will probably try to infect other countries with the resulting mal-laws.

      --
    6. Re:Nice name for a group by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Police Against New Internet Crimes.

      Nothing too knee-jerk.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    7. Re:Nice name for a group by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Looks more Welsh to me. W as a vowel and all...

    8. Re:Nice name for a group by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      SACCWG Saxy wig?
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:Nice name for a group by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that pretty much every letter can act as the vowel in slavic languages, my first bet stays with them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Nice name for a group by Alarindris · · Score: 1

      Pronounced "you wank"

  4. Yaaawwwn! by domatic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wake me up when they send in the Navy Seals to kill spambot herders.

  5. "Cyber Cops"? by webmaster404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do we really need more laws/people trying to "protect" us online? It has already been proven with laws like the DMCA that congress has no clue how the internet/modern technology works. And adding law enforcement is just an excuse to add more laws that do nothing but annoy us law abiding citizens. And also, if white hat hackers can't get the real criminals, there is no way that these "cyber cops" are going to be able too unless they say control a botnet. This just is more excuse to block "warez" and "piracy".

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    1. Re:"Cyber Cops"? by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 2, Funny

      So long as they track and kill spammers in their 20% creative time it's cool with me.

    2. Re:"Cyber Cops"? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, I just read that "piracy" as "privacy". Now I wonder what Freud would say about that...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:"Cyber Cops"? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      What we see here isn't "The State trying to grab more control" - for one thing this is about international cooperation (ie. not "The State"), and for another, I don't think their primary focus will be on running around like headless chickens after the oh-so-evil music pirates. Some of the big problems with modern, organized crime is are 1) lack of police competence (as you have pointed out), 2) the internet, which makes it very easy for international, organized crime and 3) the fact that national legislations are too often incompatible and/or too difficult to work with.

      I can't see a problem with creating an international cooperation to solve these problems. I think this is about actually being able to do the right job, as opposed to running errands for Hollywood.

    4. Re:"Cyber Cops"? by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Legislators have the attention span of a butterfly on cocaine. Bills come, lobbyista swarm, bills are passed, bills go. DMCA, PATRIOT.. just get a good acronym and they will pass it. They don't have the time to think things through - they respond to very short term pressures. Hopefully, a group of policemen full-time committed to cyber-crime will have the time and energy to master the subject. And the resources i.e. the funds to hire a few high level geeks (not new graduates, though you probably need a few of those) to tell them how it really goes. Which, given what the real security gurus can charge, could be quite a lot.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    5. Re:"Cyber Cops"? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Problems with your statement:
      * Misuse of "proven". Try "demonstrated".
      * Inclusion Congress and DMCA, which has nothing to do with this.
      * White-hat hackers lack particular resources that are very useful in finding criminals. Most of them aren't too keen on getting arrested, whereas law enforcement doesn't really need to worry about this.
      * You can't "block piracy".

      From my experience with "cyber cops", they won't give two shits about copyright infringement (isn't that a civil matter anyway?). Current law enforcement focuses on some identity theft (usually not a lot of computer investigation involved there), child pornography, and bank theft (in its many forms). Larger criminal organizations, which make as much use out of the Internet as they can, are harder to do much about because of jurisdictional boundaries. As a result "cyber cops" have been putting together organizations to a) share useful information and techniques b) have more effective cross-jurisdictional investigations.

    6. Re:"Cyber Cops"? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      It has already been proven with laws like the DMCA that congress has no clue how the internet/modern technology works.

      Oh, I think they understand plenty well enough if they want to, they have the resources to have advisers, consultants, etc at their disposal to explain it to them in small words.

      What is lacking is the _will_ to care. They have all the special interests telling them what laws to write/pass (or not to write/pass) to receive whatever donation, perk, etc that's being offered in exchange for favorable legislation (or lack thereof). Do (or do not do) 'X' to receive 'Y'.

      Understanding doesn't enter into it in any significant way. Witness the DMCA and copyright extensions as examples.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  6. Another unPolice. by gnutoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US can't get the FBI, CIA and NSA to play nice with each other or the hundreds of state and local athorities. I'm supposed to believe that there will be real international cooperation? Yet another UN police force, what a joke.

    I'd like to see bot hearders busted but I don't have any faith in this new super team to get it done. What we will probably see is this team putting pressure on other governments to support imaginary property. At it's worst, it will be used to track dissidents and limit free speech world wide, while criminals continue to do what they always have.

    1. Re:Another unPolice. by webmaster404 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Honestly, unless these people have TONS of bandwidth (or tons of Linux install CDs) there's no way they can take down these botnets. All these people are going to do is try to stop "piracy" because that's all they probably can do, it doesn't take a genius to think that other botnet-overlords have already tried to take down rival ones with theirs and obviously failed.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    2. Re:Another unPolice. by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Why is "tons of bandwidth" the critical resourc for taking down these botnets?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    3. Re:Another unPolice. by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      Why is "tons of bandwidth" the critical resourc for taking down these botnets?

      Denial of service attacks or similar. Seeing as they probably won't be able to either be legaly threatened enough or hacked into it disables them for a bit.
      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    4. Re:Another unPolice. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, unless these people have TONS of bandwidth (or tons of Linux install CDs) there's no way they can take down these botnets.

      I've sat in on talks from several different security researchers who infiltrated botnets and reverse engineered them. That doesn't take a lot of bandwidth. It takes a few honeypots, a decompiler, and and IRC client. They could also have issued a command to redirect the entire botnet to a new control channel under their control and from there disabled the botnet, even patching the vulnerability used to gain control in many cases. People don't do that, not because it isn't possible, or they need more bandwidth. They don't do it because of the legal liability. They have no authority to take control of other people's machines (even if someone else also has control). Worse in many cases, what if they try to patch it and the patch fails? Well, then the researcher is liable for any damage than ensues. No one wants to take that risk.

      Stealing bots from other botnet herders is already common practice among crackers. It is perfectly possible for cops to steal them back, it just is a legal nightmare to do so, especially if you aren't even sure whose jurisdiction all those machines are in.

    5. Re:Another unPolice. by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      At it's worst, it will be used to track dissidents and limit free speech world wide, while criminals continue to do what they always have. Maybe. Crime is difficult to fight. They aren't doing anything stupid by comparing methods but you're right that crime requires a determination by the police to be honest and genuine, otherwise it will back-fire. Oh and the crime fighters actually have to be intelligent/educated, which is often a major problem.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    6. Re:Another unPolice. by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      It would be cheaper, more effective, and more productive to just
      outlaw the use of any software from Washington. State.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    7. Re:Another unPolice. by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 0

      In other words, preventing crime is now a crime.

      Yes, the world is that fucked up.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    8. Re:Another unPolice. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      I thought that was what "white hats" were for.Wasn't there a "virus" a few years back that cleaned up any infected pcs it found? IMHO that is what we need more of,instead of all these "I'm posting an exploit to get them to patch it!" crap. Something like this-if found virus a-z download stinger b,clean buggy pos,pop up msgbox "hey bright boy,don't click on codec.exe,okay?".


      But I have a feeling all this is is smoke and mirrors to try to get passed a more draconian international DMCA,so the *.AAs of the world can keep charging insane prices instead of pricing for the markets. Man,I miss when we in the US at least pretended to be capitalists.Now all it is is monopolies and giant mega corps using DMCA,copyrights(what is it now,like 100 years?WTH) and patents to make sure that any new idea costs the creator so damn much that they'll have to sell it to a mega corp,or be squashed like a bug. But as always,this is my 02c on the subject,YMMV.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Another unPolice. by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a "virus" a few years back that cleaned up any infected pcs it found?
      There was a demonstration a few years ago of such a system, but I don't think it was ever released because of the legal problem described by parents. This is an area in which I think the law could be improved. Just as the police are allowed to break down a door (a behaviour normally regarded as criminal) if the genuinely believe a crime is being committed behind it, it seems reasonable that they should be able to recapture and repair hi-jacked computers. But you do need a supervision system to ensure that powers thus granted are not abused. But you need a supervision system whenever you grant people special powers for any reason whatsoever.
      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    10. Re:Another unPolice. by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I would love to hear more about these meetings you say you have been apart of, I am not challenging you per say, but more so the content of those meetings, if they could have interceded in those botnets, they would have already, sending to ISPS all the clients on the list with compromised machines, or emails to each owner of each machine...hell even take over the control until they find something to do with them, legally speaking.

    11. Re:Another unPolice. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would love to hear more about these meetings you say you have been apart of, I am not challenging you per say, but more so the content of those meetings, if they could have interceded in those botnets, they would have already, sending to ISPS all the clients on the list with compromised machines, or emails to each owner of each machine...hell even take over the control until they find something to do with them, legally speaking.

      "They" in this case refers to researchers at two different, private, network security firms, one of which was my employer at the time. They provide security devices and services to pretty much every tier 1 ISP in the world. They absolutely do create lists of infected host IPs, by traffic consumption, worm, etc. They can export the data as XML (among other formats) to automatically create mailing lists to notify users that they are infected. I don't know of any major ISPs, however, who actually took that step because they had little or no financial interest in so doing.

      The security researchers had no authority to install software on any of the bots and doing so (while it might have helped a little bit) would have opened them and the company up to legal liabilities. For the most part, the researchers did not even report the bots to the authorities, except in one case where it was being used to try to DDoS a block of IP space in Sweden, in the wake of the international incident involving published images of allah. In that particular incident it was "botnet for rent" setup where malicious users were renting time controlling a botnet and the user took multiple tries to get the right commands and ended up attacking a random chunk of cable modems on a rather ineffective port. After they finished the research project, they did report that one to the Swedish authorities. The bots themselves were scattered across Europe and the US for the most part. I don't know what sort of legal background you have, but the researchers and our company's legal council claimed we had no authority to switch the control channel and takover the bots, or to try to patch security holes on those machines.

    12. Re:Another unPolice. by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Why do you say that legal threats and/or counter-hacking can't work?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    13. Re:Another unPolice. by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected, I think this way because I am a developer myself that would jump at the chance to own a botnet to fight the good fight against these criminals, using their own software against them, and I don't work for a company that would be given fines for such things.

      I guess it would be nice to have a policing system that could be able to use these botnets and gain even more botnets and even more botnets, until even the newer botnets are consumed by the bigger and more concentrated one, then after all resistance is eradicated from other botnets, just hand it over to the US gov. and call it skynet....

      oops, sorry, I guess I have been watching too much spike television lately...

          ; )

  7. alphabet soup by v1 · · Score: 1

    "saccwg" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. What happened to the awkward "searched the entire dictionary to put this together" acronym that tries to say what they do in a single word?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:alphabet soup by webmaster404 · · Score: 4, Funny

      All the F/OSS projects already took them all.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    2. Re:alphabet soup by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      It doesn't quite fit, but my brain has already started parsing it as "Sacagawea".

    3. Re:alphabet soup by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could just shorten it to "sack-wag" because of all the dicks that will be present.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:alphabet soup by v1 · · Score: 1

      ok time for me to dig around for my tinfoil hat. I was THINKING about your .sig when I made that post. you are a scary person.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:alphabet soup by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      "saccwg" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

      It does for a wookiee.
    6. Re:alphabet soup by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I was about to say the exact same thing, but luckily for everyone I searched the page for "acronym" first. I would expect this group to have a name like INTERSWAT or NETCOP, which stands for something that obviously took a long time and a lot of thought to form into a semi-coherent string of words. I call it reverse acronym formation, which seems to be how most acronyms are formed nowadays.

      Also I rarely see FOSS projects with reverse-acronym names. I do think they have silly names that elicit giggles from business types. I sometimes think that if they had more typical plain-jane names (which are often kind of silly in their own way, but that's another story), they'd be more likely to be considered by businesses. What response do you expect from a non-IT person when you tell them you want to switch from Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Server to Evolution and Open-Xchange? What look do you expect to get from the average Joe when you tell them you're swapping Internet Explorer, Adobe Reader and MSN Messenger for Firefox, Foxit Reader and Pidgin?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. Anglosphere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anglosphere cybercops. Wait, is the USA part of Latin America yet?

  9. You realize what they really mean by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is going to end up as a copyright/RIAA/MPAA task force to fight the evil copyright pirates putting women and children out of work, right?

    It's inevitable.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:You realize what they really mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Evil (non-copyright) pirates do exist. Africa & Pacific Asia are chock full of them. Human smuggling > downloading DVDs = Real Problem

    2. Re:You realize what they really mean by Melbourne+Pete · · Score: 1

      Not all police efforts world wide are there to make you pay for your music. How about the international child pornography rings that have been successfully broken up by some of these same agencies? What about international phishing/bank fraud operations? You might like to see yourselves as some sort of electronic freedom fighters but most cops couldn't give a shit about the petty stuff you consider the front line in cyber crime.

    3. Re:You realize what they really mean by Perseid · · Score: 1

      I wish I could agree with you but I can't. History has shown that most governments care much more about piracy than they do child porn rings.

    4. Re:You realize what they really mean by Cussin_IT · · Score: 1

      Silly boy.
      The MIAAFIA is from the US. The sack-wag is made up of canadians/brits/ozies/kiwis.

      Additionaly, I think this is less l33t-haxors with badges, but rather more traditional policing on an international scale with a veiw to finding bot herders.

      --
      Read my blog you know you want to
    5. Re:You realize what they really mean by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Duh. The mafiaa pays taxes, kids cost taxes. Which one do you think gets protection from governments?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:You realize what they really mean by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Indeed:

      In the US alone, the GAO said the annual loss due to computer crime was estimated to be $67.2 billion for US organizations, according to a 2005 FBI survey. The estimated losses associated with particular crimes include $49.3 billion in 2006 for identity theft and $1 billion annually due to phishing. These projected losses are based on direct and indirect costs that may include actual money stolen, estimated cost of intellectual property stolen, and recovery cost of repairing or replacing damaged networks and equipment.

      Wanna bet that this "stolen" (copied without authorization) "property" (material for which a temporary monopoly has been granted for) will be the only thing they focus on?

    7. Re:You realize what they really mean by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      This is going to end up as a copyright/RIAA/MPAA task force to fight the evil copyright pirates putting women and children out of work, right?

      (Robocop fires a round of bullets precisely at copyright infringer's hard drive in his tower unit)

      "Your move. Creep."

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  10. thinkofthechildren by agent · · Score: 0, Funny

    thinkofthechildren

  11. UKUSA intelligence sharing to become stronger? by Aaron+England · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is interesting to note that the countries named as part of this Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group, are also part of the UKUSA community. This is significant because said community forms the alliance of nations that is responsible for ECHELON, a program that collects and analyzes signals intelligence from all over the globe.

    1. Re:UKUSA intelligence sharing to become stronger? by ve3oat · · Score: 1

      UKUSA was the original intelligence agreement between USA and UK. The countries listed here are the countries of the so-called quincipartite or "5-Eyes" community, often referred to as AUSCANUKUSNZ. No vigilantes here.

    2. Re:UKUSA intelligence sharing to become stronger? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      It's just all part of the conspiracy.

      World domination, that's all they ask.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  12. Cyber crime.. by kernowyon · · Score: 1

    will be defined as they see fit. So we will see plenty of press about stopping p2p, but bugger all will be done about the other issues which are much more important to the community such as spam. The usual terrorism and kiddie pr0n swoops will be paraded to the press - and rightly so - but nothing will be done to dismantle botnets or other major headaches because they are going to be less easy to detect and bring anyone to justice. IMHO this is just another "think of the children" and "teh evil pirates" publicity gathering tool for the various governments to use as a statistic to further restrict our freedoms on the tubes. Good job I posted this as an AC....oh,wait....

    --
    Awful UID - but I have been here ages...
  13. I don't want new laws, but... by j0nb0y · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't want new laws, but we have to realize that cyber crime is a global problem.

    If law enforcement can't cooperate internationally, then law enforcement isn't going to be very effective against cyber crime.

    On a different note, didn't we move past the whole "cyber" thing a long time ago? We should call it "Internet crime" or computer crime instead. "Cyber crime" is lame.

    --
    If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    1. Re:I don't want new laws, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Computer crime is an international issue. Botnets, phishing and spam is an international problem, with the criminals sitting safely somewhere in countries that have other (read: real) problems than dealing with something like this. I mean, if you have thugs mugging people on the street in daylight, you have better things to worry about than someone sitting at home robbing people abroad.

      And this won't change. Do you really think that developing countries are going to put a lot of effort and manpower behind trying to solve crimes abroad? At best, they don't care (for the reasons outlined above). At worst, they are quite happy about someone bringing in some desperately needed foreign money. If anything, they will budge under international pressure and put some token effort into it, some kind of show but no substance.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Are these ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the same netkops that get after everyone for misspellings and top posting?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Are these ... by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      Top posting?

      "... the same netkops that get after everyone for misspellings and top posting?"

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    2. Re:Are these ... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      It's nyetcops.

      Top posting?

      "... the same netkops that get after everyone for misspellings and top posting?"

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:Are these ... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ... the same netkops that get after everyone for misspellings and top posting?
      Those are the NetGestapo, there's a difference.
      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Are these ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naked top posting...

  15. We are now safe! by definate · · Score: 1

    Cyber Cops, keeping us safe, from our selves. Finally I don't have to worry about making a bad decision!

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  16. Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by gkearney · · Score: 1

    Let's see the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Shouldn't we call it the Commonwealth Cyber Crime Working Group?

    1. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by kernowyon · · Score: 1

      I don't think our American cousins are part of the Commonwealth.

      --
      Awful UID - but I have been here ages...
    2. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Let's see the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Shouldn't we call it the Commonwealth Cyber Crime Working Group?
      It's been a while since the United States was part of the Commonwealth. There was a tea party, remember? However, you could consider it an IngSoc Cyber Crime Working Group, or an Oceania one. That would be accurate on more than one level.

      The only laws we really need relating to this are laws that protect us from our "protectors". Not likely to happen though. 2+2=5
    3. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by ThePeices · · Score: 2, Funny

      We would, if the US was part of the commonwealth, which it is thankfully not.

    4. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by memnock · · Score: 1

      commonwealth member or not, this will probably make all the other big-brother units pale in comparison, seeing as how two (three?) of the countries in that short list are doing all they can to surveil citizens of supposedly free democracies already. now, thinking they represent the elite of all law enforcement agencies and technically advanced governments, i expect they'll have no qualms with using any means they can come up with.

      --
      "To stop the terrorists."
    5. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by Armored+Ear · · Score: 0

      Rather the Commonwealth Cyber Crime Police, or the CCCP.

    6. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The US have always been part of the Commonwealth. There never was a tea party. Everyone knows that.

      Now please report to room 101 for readjustment.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Let's see the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Shouldn't we call it the Commonwealth Cyber Crime Working Group?
      Last time I checked the United States was a part of the commonwealth, but that was back in 1776.
      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      We've always been at war with cyber-criminals...

    9. Re:Shouldn't it be the CCCWG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spooks call that group "The Family"

  17. So where does the $67 billion go? by LM741N · · Score: 4, Interesting

    67 billion dollars is a lot of money. Where the hell is it going? Is Uncle Scrooge on the loose filling his money bin? Its hard to imagine that much money just sitting somewhere and never being spent. I mean, that is the purpose of money- to spend.

    1. Re:So where does the $67 billion go? by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      I imagine its going to fund the 419 emails they're going to send out to try to infiltrate the Nigerian cyber community.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    2. Re:So where does the $67 billion go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      that is the purpose of money- to spend.

      Only if you come from the lower or middle class. You've never heard of investing, eh?

  18. But do they have Tachikomas by Plazmid · · Score: 1

    They sound real official, I wonder if they have Tachikomas like Japan's Public Security Section 9.

  19. International Cyber Unit by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heh heh heh.

    --
    God spoke to me.
  20. This might even be a good idea... by david_bonn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Y'know, I'm feeling I need to play devil's advocate here.

    I'm not exactly trusting of the intentions of the fine people doing this, and I'm even less trusting of their ability to implement even good ideas. That's probably not fair but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

    If you've ever tried to actually deal with law enforcement on a computer crime, you run into pretty wicked problems both of jurisdiction and technical competence. While the latter problem has improved somewhat in recent years, the former problem still exists (and is arguably worse, twenty years ago your trail wouldn't run cold in Moldova or Pakistan or Vietnam).

    This means there is a real problem to be solved here. It also seems to me that the problem has technical, political, and legal aspects. That implies any solution is going to be ugly.

    Having the Internet be a separate jurisdiction with its own courts and its own police makes more sense than the mess we have now.

    1. Re:This might even be a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having the Internet be a separate jurisdiction with its own courts and its own police makes more sense than the mess we have now.


      Highly unlikely. While it may sound like a great idea I don't believe that a single one of those governments will willing give up it's control. As an example just notice how well the United Nations already works for things like this already.

      It may end up being somewhat effective for crimes that occur from and in these specific countries but it'll become a huge political game as soon as you start running into cyber crimes that originate in non-member countries (Nigeria scams anyone?).
  21. 24/7 chat room sit ins by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    They can pass off to others via a 2nd or 3rd person to provide 24/7 logs of a chat room.
    Cute.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. What's needed... by Scott+Kevill · · Score: 1

    What's needed is an organisation with the resources and the authority to fight terrorism wherever it flourishes. It would be composed of the best and brightest counter-terrorism experts from every country, and armed with state-of-the-art weapons and equipment. It would operate in absolute secrecy -- its existence known only to the most senior government officials. It would attack swiftly and silently, cutting off the head of the viper, before it had a chance to strike.

    Such an organisation already exists.

    Its codename is RAINBOW.

    --
    GameRanger - multiplayer gaming service for PC and Mac games
    1. Re:What's needed... by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Funny that you would show up here. I thought GameRanger was pretty cool when it first came out, but didn't really need much use of it since I didn't play online much. But whatever, it seemed like a pretty great app. I had won a free copy of QuakeFinder during a contest on a pretty popular mac gaming Hotline server, which was pretty cool (yes, with an actual purchased serial # by the server admin). Some time in the future, after I had been using KDX for some time, I started hearing on forums about how GameRanger wouldn't run if KDX was open (link for anyone who isn't aware of the sketchy-ass behaviour). Wow, what the heck? It gets even worse when people are banned from GR for even talking about KDX. As though people are somehow supposed to be okay with your hatred of KDX/Haxial, for whatever unknown reason. I'm sure you've had a lot of people pissed about it. Maybe I don't know how the story ends, but I don't see anyone saying "GameRanger no longer tries to prevent you from running KDX". Lame stuff, man.

  23. Haha! by rindeee · · Score: 1

    They're no match for the "the world's most formidable hacker posse"!!! Round 'em up ya'll! Oh bother, I'm so disenchanted with all this that I can't even make jokes any more. Just what we friggin' need, yet another l33t cyber-whatever group to keep us safe.

  24. PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First against the wall, when the revolution comes.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by houghi · · Score: 1

      http://houghi.org/Fun/h2g2_sample.mp3

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Way to advocate the murder of cops.
      Excuse me, douchebag, but before you get all exercised about the notion of poor, noble boys in blue fighting crime on the mean streets of our cities, remember, these are "cybercops" we're talking about here.

      They'll be the same ones who listen in on our phone calls and pressure ISPs to give up subscriber info. They'll be the same ones who monitor the surveillance cams and figure out ways to leverage your credit or medical records against you.

      Calling them "cybercops" gives them too much credit. They're the toadies working for Big Brother.

      And all the GP said was "first ones against the wall". He didn't say what happens next. That was your own imagination at work, son.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by AlecC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just becasue they are cybercops does not mean that they are necessarily bad guys. Cybercops, like any kind of cops, are a necessary evil: laws must be enforced, so we need law enforcers. If people would do the right thing without enforcers, you wouldn't need a law to tell them to do so. (Or course, laws which cannot or should not be enforced should be repealed; see you local legislator about this, not the police.) The problem is not the existence of cops, not (within broad limits) their powers. It is the checks and balances that need to be in place to ensure that their powers are not exceeded and that they are used in pursit of the ends for which they were allocated.

      I absolutely accept that there is a need for police to tap electronic communications at some times. But not at any time a single policeman, however senior, thinks that he would like to. It is not tapping that is bad, it is tapping without a warrant. The executive branch needs some oversight, which is usually provided by the judicial branch i.e. the policeman needs to get a warrant from a judge, whose appointment needs to be transparent enough to ensure that he is not in cahoots with the policeman.

      So I think your knee-jerk response to the concept of cybercops is excessive, and damaging. I want them bugging Osama bin Laden's phone calls. I don't want them bugging my, or my neighbours (equally innocent of major crime, though probably mostly guilty of the odd misdemeanor) phones. And i want to know who, and how, it watching to see tha this is so. But I don't want the head in the sand attitud of "they are all evil". They won't go away, and you may make them evil becasue, since you assume they are evil, they have nothing to lose by being evil. Support your local cop *if* he can show he is squeaky clean.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.

      Maybe we should just call them "The Internet SS". Short, to the point, and descriptive of what they do (spy for the government).

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    5. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by cloakable · · Score: 1

      Because you're much touted second amendment isn't there specifically so you can.
      You know, that whole freedom to bear arms so your government cannot oppress you thing?

      Well, come on. Your government is oppressing you. I expect to see some militia marching on Washington tommorrow.

      Or do you just like having guns?

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
    6. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "It is the checks and balances that need to be in place to ensure that their powers are not exceeded and that they are used in pursit of the ends for which they were allocated. I absolutely accept that there is a need for police to tap electronic communications at some times. But not at any time a single policeman, however senior, thinks that he would like to. It is not tapping that is bad, it is tapping without a warrant. The executive branch needs some oversight, which is usually provided by the judicial branch i.e. the policeman needs to get a warrant from a judge, whose appointment needs to be transparent enough to ensure that he is not in cahoots with the policeman."

      But, this is advertised as an international cybercop force. I gotta imagine that this group will only adhere to whichever countries laws are the laxest for any given need. US wants warrants, but, X country doesn't? We'll go with their laws and jurisdiction on this one. Country Y doesn't let you do something? Well, country Z doesn't mind, we'll let them do it and tell you about it. They're playing that game right now...look how the US and GB use each other to spy on each others citizens in order to bypass current laws preventing them doing the same domestically. This new force I'm sure will be taking even more advantage of ways to bypass "checks and balances".

      "So I think your knee-jerk response to the concept of cybercops is excessive, and damaging. I want them bugging Osama bin Laden's phone calls."

      Like othere said....this is probably going to be used the majority of the time after copyright infringement. It is easier to do, it satisfies the international conglomerates that pay the bills, and makes quick headlines touting progress. Unless OBL is a big user of bittorrent downloading the latest Hanna Montana DVD, I doubt he'll show up as a blip on the new cyberforce radar screen.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Why do the advocates of "small government" want a cop in every possible situation, empowered to behave with discretionary authority?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by AlecC · · Score: 1

      That, of course, depends upon the instructions given to the police by the politicians, and is a political decision not a police one. Oversight should check that the police are doing what the politicians ordered. We should also have public visibility of the orders the politicians are giving to the police - which arguably is not true at the moment.

      I concede that your cross-border seeking of the weakest rule set has validity. The same logic justifies Guantanmo, and "Special Rendition". We need a solution to this problem across the board, not just in cyberspace.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    9. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "synchronizing their respective laws"

      Common denominators?
      A race to the bottom.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by morari · · Score: 1

      Guns are pretty darn nice for personal protection as well, ya' know. I'd hate to leave that up to any aforementioned piggy. Which is really the problem with cops more so than their general abuse and harassment of average people. They create a society that feels protected and is quickly becoming less capable of protecting itself. There are plenty of fools that believe the police will keep them safe and adamantly refuse to keep any sort of efficient weapon. Furthermore, the laws that said pigs do enforce create an artificial means of survival, whereas the strongest (in whatever sense) does not necessarily survive because the ignorant are spared and protected.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    11. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Only if voters allow it - even if only by default. Again, the problem is political. We should be holding the politicians much more to account. But if you have a two party system, wealthy companies have only two targets to focus lobbying on, and persuade both to do what the companys want. This leacves the voters no way to tell the politicans to clean up their act. A system which supports only two (or othr small number) of immovable parties is inherently corruptible: the rich can seriously contemplate buying the system. If the parties ar many, and less stable, it is much harder to buy (sorry - influence) all the relevant politians. The price you pay is long coalition negotiations and, occasionally, weaker government. (Though those who praise the strength of a two-party system underestimate, IMO, the weakness when Presisent and Congress are in opposition).

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    12. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Voters can't find their US towns on the map. :-(

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    13. Re:PIGS IN CYBERSPACE! by oliderid · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should just call them "The Internet SS". Short, to the point, and descriptive of what they do (spy for the government).

      If they can tracked down those responsible for the last wave of paedophilia spams I received the last week (I did my part of the job and I send an email to the appropriate web hosting company), I won't consider them as SS. There are a lot of crimes florishing because of the current state of international laws . It all depends of the mission they will receive from their respective governments. If they fight against filesharers only...What a waste of time and energy...If they track the monsters described above, they are more than welcome.

  25. No Freedom of Speech In America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were MLK alive today, would he even have stood a chance at his voice being heard?

    I still believe Bill Hicks was poisoned by a shadow organization, I don't believe the cigs/cancer b.s., I think he was too much of a threat as he spoke to the people and for the people.

    Who exists today in America who can speak to and for the people? No one, even Rosie, when she mentioned people Google gulf of ______, was pulled from her post on the catty View show.

  26. I hear the sound of boots already... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Yeah. "... strengthening and synchronizing their respective laws..."

    You know what that has meant in recent years.

    One cyberworld order. Just what we need. Not.

  27. Good Bye Wikileaks.... by desibattousai · · Score: 1

    Good Bye Wikileaks it was nice reading ya...

  28. I'm trying to picture it... by dave562 · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Put down the zero day and come out with your hands up!"

    "Drop the assembler and nobody gets hurt!"

    "All of your bases are belong to us!!"

    ??????

  29. The russian representative ... by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    ... was sadly unable to attend due to his death in a tragic shaving accident. In a sad twist of fate his three predecessors in the role met very similar ends.

    No new delegate has yet been named.

  30. Aren't we going after the wrong people? by Hojima · · Score: 0

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make a lot more sense if we started going after the people that employ spammers? Now as for another aspect of cyber crime, is there any unit that simply creates a fake identity that is legally registered as real and give the info out galore and see who takes the bait?

    --
    Help fight spam
  31. Gives a whole new meaning by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    Gives a whole new meaning to the term "copper network".

  32. International? by WhiskyMoon · · Score: 1

    Yeah, cause cybercrime only exist in those countries... big thing. I would like to see those "commonwealth" cops go into Ukraine to knock some door down...

  33. If it's anything like those guys, I wouldn't worry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    if I was a criminal.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=8mgzkkUVoZM

    An explanation for those not speaking German: She's the big police hacker, determines that the server is "damn well secured" and writes up a quick backdoor trojan on the fly to infect him.

    Ok, it's from a TV show. But it wasn't meant to be funny.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. Turn in your geek card. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    There are huge logical and syntax errors in your algorithm there. A greater-than opeeration can only result in true or false, and you sure as hell can't assign a value to a logical operation.

    I'll fix it for you. (Consider $human_smuggling and $downloading_dvds to be pre-defined numerical variables)

    $num_errors=0;
    if ($human_smuggling>downloading_dvds)
    {
    echo "Human Smuggling is a Real Problem, Downloading DVDs is not";
    }
    if ($human_smuggling<downloading_dvds)
    {
    echo "Downloading DVDs is a Real Problem, Human Smuggling is not";
    $num_errors++;
    }
    if ($human_smuggling==downloading_dvds)
    {
    echo "Downloading DVDs is a as much of a Real Problem as Human Smuggling";
    $num_errors++;
    }
    if ($num_errors>0)
    {
    echo "Input error detected - output may contain bullshit";
    }
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  35. oblig jon stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The unit, known as the Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group, or N.A.M.B.L.A...