Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Building a Global Cyber Police Force

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-recommend-team-america dept.

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

155 comments

  1. First order of business.... by kalirion · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    1. Re:First order of business.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Finnally team america will save us! Fuck Yeah!

    2. Re:First order of business.... by sopssa · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

    3. Re:First order of business.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

      ... no, wait

    4. Re:First order of business.... by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Meh, how do you rate someone +5 Troll?

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

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    5. Re:First order of business.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    6. Re:First order of business.... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:First order of business.... by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    8. Re:First order of business.... by clone53421 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

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

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:First order of business.... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      And I'm pretty sure Russia and China don't want to introduce USA laws either, and with those countries out of it, is there any point?

      What if, in the deal, they are able to enforce some of *their* laws in other countries. Then, for example, all the pro-Tibet sites in America, Europe, and elsewhere would be forced to close down.

      --
      Similar to the upcoming US election results
    10. Re:First order of business.... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Good point, I'd not considered that. Not sure why you were modded offtopic, though; This whole conversation falls under that description.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:First order of business.... by Krneki · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      Some people should get the +5 Troll, since they are right, but in an irritating way.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  2. This sounds like wishful thinking by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by cgenman · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    2. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by realsilly · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
    3. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I predict the following:

      > Funded almost entirely by the USA

      > Staffed almost entirely by the USA

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

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by sopssa · · Score: 1

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

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

    6. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by clone53421 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by gedw99 · · Score: 1

      Please. They use trade agreement force sign up.

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

    8. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Ya, it could never happen. The majority of nations would never agree to having a law enforcement group that could operate in any of their countries.

          But, imagine if they did. they could call it something like "International Criminal Police Organization". They could establish a "National Central Bureau" in each country, where national law enforcement officers of that country would work with their peers in other nations, and help fight crime around the world.

          That name is too long though. I bet they could shorten it down. ICPO? Nah, "I see poo" just doesn't sound right. Well, they're doing police work internationally, maybe they could call it "polint". Nah, that don't have a good ring to it. How about "Interpol". Yes, I like that one. ... and yes, that was sarcasm. Interpol has been doing their job since 1923, and all but 8 nations are members. They do have a computer crimes unit, among many others. They just don't take a big interest in "Someone hacked by box". Being an international police force, they look at the bigger crimes. Hell, you'd have a hard time getting the FBI, or even the local police interested in the one-off hack.

          The matter of extradition still applies. You want them tried in your country, because they did something to you there. There are all kinds of rules regarding that, which have been ashed out between the member nations over the years.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    9. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The major "big money" cybercrime these days is eastern European mafia attacking western European banks. I don't see the USA as caring about this as much as Europe does.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    10. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by arminw · · Score: 1

      .. the world will face a new issue to tackle....

      Such as a world dictator lording it over every person on this planet. There WILL be a world government, the only question is when. Antichrist and Armageddon are inevitable.

      --
      All theory is gray
    11. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by Montezumaa · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because I give a shit what the ICJ says or does. Just as an example, I am an United States citizen. Here in this country, we have a document known as the U.S. Constitution. This document is the ultimate legal document in the United States and any laws passed by the Federal Government, or various state and local government, must pass constitutional muster. After reading over the great document, I never read once where the United States is supposed to give one shit about an international court. Of course, I did read somewhere that the United States is a sovereign land and it is beholden to no one, except the citizenry within its borders.

      Now, our current idiot president might be willing to give up control of the United States to some eurotrash group, but then the United States would end up in another civil war or have another revolutionary war. Since I doubt Obama wants that, and since I am sure he does actually respect the job he was given(I did not vote for him, but I am behind him), then the ICJ will continue to be ranter's box.

      If I do something that is legal in the United States, but illegal in country X, then what is to stop country X from trying to have me extradited under an agreement similar to the one in this article? Other countries might be willing to become slaves to the world, but not the United States. If someone commits a crime, according to the laws of this land, then we prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. From fines to death sentences, justice is found everyday here; we do not need another country's assistance.

      Another country could try to muscle its way into the United States to apprehend a "hacker", or someone else deemed a "criminal", but that would be seen as an invasion and well...the second amendment does have its uses.

    12. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      That's because murder is illegal everywhere. Countries may disagree about the specific penalties (death penalty vs. life imprisonment, for example) but everyone agrees that it's a serious crime and has to be severely punished, no matter where it happens or the nationalities of the people involved.

      Internet law is a lot more variable. Should, say, Saudi Arabia be able to deport people from the US for online blasphemy? Should the RIAA be able to deport someone from Sweden (just to pick a random example ...) to face trial in the US for making copyrighted music available for download? Most countries have laws about what you can do and say online, but relatively few countries agree on what those laws should be. And although this situation is far from perfect, it's also far preferable to having everyone in the world subject to everyone else's laws, which is pretty much what a "global cyber police force" would come down to.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    13. Re:This sounds like wishful thinking by moonshine1948 · · Score: 1

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

      I Totally aggree here, I waw about to post these words

  3. unamused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  4. Can only see that if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  5. Do not want. by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

     

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Do not want. by selven · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Do not want. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Do not want. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Hey, it worked for Mal Reynolds....

      For a while.

    4. Re:Do not want. by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    5. Re:Do not want. by Cimexus · · Score: 1

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

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

    6. Re:Do not want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

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

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

    7. Re:Do not want. by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm fine with you leaving a country not to have to be subject to the rules of that country. But if you keep interfering with that country's business, e.g. by hacking computers in that country, there's a strong argument in favor of subjecting you to their rules.

      Would it be reasonable for you to lob cars over the border into another country, and not expect that they try to stop you? In most countries, lobbing cars across the border is probably illegal, but even if your country doesn't stop you, I'm pretty sure the country you're pestering would do something about it.

      Someone please fix my car analogy.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    8. Re:Do not want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      %s/car/bomb/g

    9. Re:Do not want. by Storchei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I consider the concept of an organization with world jurisdiction intrinsically dangerous and unacceptable. It's like a monopoly(...)

      I fully and strongly agree with you!
      WHO would be the head of such an organization? WHO/Which country will decide what to do and which are the rules? (of course the answer to that is implicit nowadays..)

      Such an organization could be the first step, being the second to suppress the rights to privacy (of course, in order to find who are breaking the law among many other things..). Because if that organization is created, WHO will be able to stand against them if they decide to override the right to privacy? The answer is quite straightforward: NO-BO-DY.
      It's simply UNACCEPTABLE!
      A Global Cyber Police Force would be a Dictatorship.

    10. Re:Do not want. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...if you don't like their rules....

      like Sharia Law, such as they have in some Muslim countries and what radical Moslems want to force on the entire world. The word "Islam" means submission. You either submit to their law and way of life, or you die.

      --
      All theory is gray
    11. Re:Do not want. by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

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

      What do you sugest then? And no, i'm not trying to flame. and no, I am also not talking about piracy?

      Cyber crime in my book.
      - Web sites are taken off line due to denial of service attacks.
      - identifies are stolen and sold. Costing people their credit and sometimes their homes, their lives

      Something has to be done, and at least this(as bad as it is) is a united(least it sounds like it) front. All countries need to be part of the solution for us to win this, which no matter how you look at it. Will be a solution like is described here.

      Again, not trying to flame. Just trying to point out the stakes involved require a solution like this.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    12. Re:Do not want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so called 'fraud' is just one force in a network of forces that runs the world.. I don't want fraudsters having too much power, but I don't want a decentralized world government either.

    13. Re:Do not want. by selven · · Score: 1

      I would prefer a solution that involves securing what we have control over (ie. banks, individuals), not random people in Ukraine and the like.

  6. No... by ZenDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World government means that instead of a bunch of dodgy people running different nations and who will spend time battling each other and have a good chance of getting toppled, we would have one group of dodgy people ruling until some sort of major disaster happens.

      Look at the Middle Ages. Feuding lords, but essentially the top royalty is stable. Everyone but the nobility were less than cockroaches. This went on until the plague swept throughout Europe, removing the backs that their kingdoms set upon. This depopulation did cause problems as the death throes of the dukedoms tried to scramble to retain their grip on power, but ultimately that collapsed.

      I'm sure we are heading to that point. One global government would have nothing to conquer, so it would continue to find ways of increasing taxation and reducing rights for all but a select few. This will keep on going until some type of disease epidemic causes a mass die off, and perhaps another Renaissance.

  7. The hackers are not the real problem by prgrmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:The hackers are not the real problem by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    2. Re:The hackers are not the real problem by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    3. Re:The hackers are not the real problem by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So your proposed solution is international cooperation and extradition treaties to cover all crimes?

      No, not all crime, that would be extreme and unnecessary. My point is dealing with any specific crime perpetrated on country A while in or having relocated to country B is better dealt with via treaty that has been negotiated and ratified by both country A's and B's due process for doing so rather than either or both countries conceding their sovereignty to a police force that will ultimately be under the complete control of neither country.

  8. Interpol by medv4380 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Interpol by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

    2. Re:Interpol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Wait, what?

    3. Re:Interpol by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Interpol is a way for local police forces to cooperate so as not to duplicate work and to streamline the process of fighting international crime

      They do not have jurisdiction anywhere and have no power of arrest anywhere ... not a global trans-governmental police force

      The local police do all the arresting and charging, and people still have to be extradited between countries

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  9. Once the arrests are made... by Interoperable · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    1. Re:Once the arrests are made... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Or, we can use them for medical experiments.

    2. Re:Once the arrests are made... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

    3. Re:Once the arrests are made... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

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

  10. The teamamerica tag by Borommakot_15 · · Score: 0

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

    "Matt Damon..."

    1. Re:The teamamerica tag by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Hah! Everytime I see or hear Matt Damon now that's the first thing that pops into my mind... LOL

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  11. That's great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  12. Interpol? by manyxcxi · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Interpol? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

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

  13. In principle... by allcaps · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    1. Re:In principle... by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

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

    2. Re:In principle... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?

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

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

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

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:In principle... by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

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

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

    4. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

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

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

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

    5. Re:In principle... by jimwelch · · Score: 1
      • UN - The UN is a joke to many. It is consider a super-congress. Politicians only looking out for themselves. Full of corruption, greed, and power grabbing.
      • none of the responsibilities - What about France, China, etc. taking responsibilities for spreading conventional & nuclear weapons to out of control countries?
      • Convention on the Rights of the Child - creates the UN as a one world government, conflicts with US constitution. The US has signed and ratified both (military and sale/prostitution) of the optional protocols to the Convention.
      • Why provide the facilities for all these other countries to come in and make agreements, and not participate yourself? - The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it.

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

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

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    6. Re:In principle... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    7. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

    8. Re:In principle... by Cimexus · · Score: 1

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

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

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

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

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

    9. Re:In principle... by Cimexus · · Score: 1

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

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

    10. Re:In principle... by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    12. Re:In principle... by Terwin · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    13. Re:In principle... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (d) To diminish infant and child mortality; (b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care; (c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal

    14. Re:In principle... by jimwelch · · Score: 1

      I forgot the sarcasm tags around the Olympics portion. My comment is calling attention to the hypocrisy of child labor laws not applying to sports. I consider gymnastics specifically, as well as any other mostly under 18 Olympic competition to be child abuse.

      "one set of rules for us, one for everyone else" is a very simplified look at reality. As most models do, they simplify by throw out the details, to make it understandable, but then lose accuracy.

      The real question is: "What do we want out of the UN?" There is no simple answer to this question. One World Government vs National Sovereignty, again is a simplification. Making the UN a world police organization?

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    15. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we would never allow some damn eurocrat to come and arrest someone on our shores. It is fundamentally against the American way to surrender our sovereignty to other nations, especially when most of the world hates us because they ain't us. If I ever see a damn blue helmet on our soil it will get fired upon.

    16. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well one reason I can think of is because of the child kidnapping that Dyncorp and Halliburton are involved in.

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/010106sexslavescandal.htm

      Kind of like all of the US torture camps spread out through the world.

    17. Re:In principle... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think it has something to do with the fact that we have a lot of xenophobic paranoid people here who don't think much of our own government and think even less of other world governments. They see the UN at best as a useless organization and at worst a way for "evildoers" to usurp our independence. Some probably think it has something to do with jealousy over our "freedom," some think it's communists/atheists trying to destroy america.

      Keep in mind we don't ALL think that way, and not ALL of the opposition to the UN is based off of crap like this, but I think your average American opposed to the UN has reasons along these lines.

      Anyway, I'm not exactly well informed on international matters, but I've gotten the impression that we don't shirk our responsibilities on international peacekeeping missions... although a lot of that is actually cleaning up our own messes...

    18. Re:In principle... by arminw · · Score: 1

      ... But it's very often the US that stands almost completely alone....

      You mean just like the US stands alone in helping the tiny nation Israel, a free democratic people?

      --
      All theory is gray
    19. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... But it's very often the US that stands almost completely alone....

      You mean just like the US stands alone in helping the tiny nation Israel, a free democratic people?

      Apart from the 2 million euros that that the EU gave you mean?

      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2009-0900&language=EN

      Tiny compared to what the US gives, but the US doesn't stand entirely alone.

    20. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      When the 'responsibilities' include ratifying law decided by the governments of other countries, even if they violate the US constitution. Keep your socialist feel-goodism propaganda the hell out of here, thanks.

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

      Because 'save the children' laws are almost ALWAYS suspect. The instincts surrounding children are just too strong to be controlled rationally by most people, so often they are used as a vector to get otheriwse unjustified law passed.

    21. Re:In principle... by lxs · · Score: 1

      even though we never seem to annex any of those places we have 'conquered,

      Tell that to the Mexicans.

    22. Re:In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      And yet you (as a country) show next to no respect for the liberty and sovereignty of other countries.

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

      And there is nothing odd with sharing that view-point with only Somalia? The rest of the world is just completely wrong?

      I really, really loathe the USA as a country. I feel very sorry for the great many nice people living there.

  14. I can see... by runyonave · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    1. Re:I can see... by allcaps · · Score: 1

      You can't spell scumbags without cumbags...

    2. Re:I can see... by maxume · · Score: 1

      So Big-Porn is behind is all?

      Who knew.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  16. Outrageous by The+Bringer · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Outrageous by lxs · · Score: 1

      I was going to read your comment, but you used the word "usurp" which indicates that you're bloviating.

  17. Would you trust someone this stupid? by thethibs · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    1. Re:Would you trust someone this stupid? by dcollins · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      That's SuperCyberPol, mister!

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  18. the internet has been called the wild west by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

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

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

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

    "sure did"

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

    "sometimes i wonder myself son"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the internet has been called the wild west by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

    2. Re:the internet has been called the wild west by thethibs · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

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

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    3. Re:the internet has been called the wild west by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps you should make a Low Budget HDV American Wild West Movie in NYC

  19. United Nation for Geeks by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

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

    --
    -kgj
  20. That is just so wrong by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  21. Team America World Police by jfalcon · · Score: 1

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

    --
    boom goes the dynamite....
  22. 1st action by gmuslera · · Score: 1

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

  23. I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Yours In Yasnogorsk,
    Kilgore Trout

    1. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disregard that, I suck cocks.

      Yours In Yasnogorsk,
      Kilgore Trout

  24. this is an AWESOME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:this is an AWESOME... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:this is an AWESOME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will you settle for a twitter feed

    3. Re:this is an AWESOME... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Only if it has pictures.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  25. We have already laws for that. by Tei · · Score: 1

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

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

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  26. Mission Priority by rlp · · Score: 1

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

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  27. Send in the drones? by wytcld · · Score: 1

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

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  28. Exactly What We Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

  29. And so it begins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

    1. Re:And so it begins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:And so it begins... by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...the realization of a one world government is coming to fruition...

      Just as it is predicted that in the last book and other places of the Bible, there will be a world dictator, a leader, whom the Bible calls the antichrist. The Bible also predicts that there will once again be a nation Israel and that has already happened.

      --
      All theory is gray
  30. Woot! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Thunderbirds are go!

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

  31. The U.S. has no problem doing this when they want by cenc · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

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

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

    --
    Living in Chile
  32. Highly unlikely by Gudeldar · · Score: 1

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

  33. I, for one, by gitoffmylawn! · · Score: 1

    do NOT welcome our global police overlords!

  34. Sounds like... by fructose · · Score: 1

    Team America.

    Seriously.

    We all know how well that went...

  35. duh by dropadrop · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  36. you're logically incoherent by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you're logically incoherent by thethibs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Pretty quiet place", not "crime-free utopia."

      These towns had councils, reeves and sheriffs and all the machinery of law. They were also armed against the threats of the contemporary version of biker gangs who, as a consequence, behaved themselves in town. As I said, pretty quiet places.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    2. Re:you're logically incoherent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you're insane depiction of the wild west as crime free utopia...

      ...doesn't exist. Straw man arguments are lies.

    3. Re:you're logically incoherent by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      The "minority of police will always do bad things..."

      And you think he's the one that's fed into some weird mythology? Ha!

  37. A good read... by Temujin_12 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
  38. Security Vendors Want It! by KlomDark · · Score: 1

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

    *Harrumph* on that shit.

  39. Why re-create the wheel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a global police force: interpol.

  40. First order of business....clear out Redmond by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

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

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

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  41. Ummm, InterPol by jvillain · · Score: 1

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

  42. Accountable to whom? by gedrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who will write the laws that this orginization enforces?

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

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

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

    These seem like rational questions.

    --
    Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
  43. The next awesome novel... by JayPee · · Score: 1

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

  44. Just shut off their Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  45. The problem with anything "global": by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  46. Cyber crime and corrupt governments by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

  47. Sounds Like A Line Of Action Figures by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

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

  48. Apperances are deceiving. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Apperances are deceiving. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....without them malicious hackers we would have never known....

      About those crooked, socialistic global warming mongers, so-called scientists, who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar, red-handed. They are among the advocates of world control, using the climate excuse to get their hands into our pockets and control our lives.

      --
      All theory is gray
  49. And with a global cyber police force... by ScientiaPotentiaEst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... the global DMCA can be better enforced.

  50. A House of Cards made up of the pseudo-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This whole government thing is a house of cards, held up by weak-minded followers, greedy leaders, and a clueless and apathetic populace. I wonder, really wonder, what a truly free human, who takes on obligations of his own free will and exercises his rights conscientiously, looks like. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a planet full of them one day?

  51. Global police force? by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Informative

    Global police force?

    The last time someone tried that, the Schutzstaffel endured much resistance and ultimately failed.

    I suspect they would have as much difficulty today as then.

    (It even starts the same with way, with some media moron(Berchtold) leading the Crusade)

    Who the fuck needs the History Channel? Wait long enough and you get to see it all play out again, live...

    1. Re:Global police force? by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have to tell you... the worst thing about the Nazi regime is that it's convinced everyone in the "civilized world" that things are peachy because they're not the Nazis. It's worse in the US where we "beat them and destroyed fascism because we're the red, white and blue and blah, blah, blah."

      So, even as the USA and UK become more draconian and controlling in ways that would have made Hilter nut himself, we keep looking back saying, "We're nothing like those guys. None of our police wear skull."

  52. This is perfect by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Get them a couple of these to travel around in, the pilot might be named "Virgil", a secret base on an island, maybe someone named Penelope to head it all up.

    That's a go!

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  53. Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this insightful? Look I hate the MPAA and RIAA more than anyone. But let's face facts:

    Internationally the real piracy threat is people who are printing up fake CDs and DVDs with real-looking cases and everything.

    On top of that, these organizations employ the same computer penetration techniques that would be policed by such a law enforcement agency.

    Let's get real: When the MPAA or RIAA entertain such delusions of grandiosity that they explore avenues of international copyright enforcement, it has nothing to do with the Internet.

  54. No good can come of this. by kheldan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once upon a time I used to think that having separate countries was the problem with this world. I see now that national borders are the only thing keeping us safe from tyranny on a global scale. I see now that we cannot be ruled by one single governmental entity and expect everyone to be treated fairly.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  55. bullshit by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    vigilante justice is vigilante justice: no accountability. compromised positions (your brother owns the saloon that was shot up/ it was your head of cattle that was stolen/ etc). petty nepotism. corruption. a posse of yahoos acting as cop, judge, jury, and executioner is not justice

    yeah, sure an improperly identified/ untried/ hastily executed cattle rustler may make for a quiet town, but its also an evil town

    such that the imperfect but impartial imposition of federal justice is far, far superior. the level of injustice far, far reduced

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:bullshit by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      And our current system lacks petty nepotism and corruption... how?

      A posse of yahoos? You mean like municipal court judges who work WITH the city attorneys and local police?

  56. Good news! USA finally acknowledging the ICJ? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    I think this is great news.

    Since the USA is a safe harbor for war criminals they don't want to prosecute, and we have an ICJ for dealing with that, my question is: when are they going to agree to having the International Court of Justice as a court of law for the warcriminals they don't want to prosecute?

    Or would it be that if the USA doesn't prosecute for some reason, it's the due course of law, but if another country does not prosecute for some reason (like, people doing things not being punishable in their country) it is because the country is a "safe harbor"?

    Naaaah...

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  57. MOD PARENT UP by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    Use the "clear thinking" tag.

  58. Self-enforcing protocols by skeeto · · Score: 1

    Here's what you do instead of creating abusive "cyberpolice": you set up the system so that cheating is very difficult to impossible in the first place, through self-enforcing protocols and smart contracts. Distributed systems, like DHT and P2P, already apply this to some extent.

  59. NO by s13g3 · · Score: 1

    There is no need for yet another global police force of any sort. I neither need nor want anybody not of my nation having the authority to investigate me at the whim of... whomever. There is nothing wrong with having other countries' own police, on noticing a crime, contacting the police through established channels where the crime took place, and asking them to investigate and prosecute according to THEIR OWN LAWS.

    No, the answer here is very simple. Those countries who refuse to co-operate and continually and knowingly shelter criminals using the internet to perpetrate their crimes (e.g., China, Russia, Brazil, Moldova) should simply be cut off from the global public internet, and not allowed back on until they can prove they are willing to behave. In most countries, we do nothing less when we proscribe a "cyber-criminal" from using computers for a period of time after being found guilty, and I don't see why we shouldn't do the same to countries who seek to profit off of other nations by blatantly sheltering criminal activity. Seems to me that would be a lot cheaper and more effective (much less safer to the rights of the citizens of each nation), as it would be a highly effective embargo and liable to have a major impact on commerce for both the smallest and largest of nations - exactly the thing needed to get them to take responsibility for themselves, rather than create another vector for legalistic abuse.

    Can you really tell me that with such an international organization in place that it wouldn't be long before we start seeing criminal charges being placed in China and enforced by these cyber-cops because someone in Norway said something on a forum or IRC contrary to some official government party line? I don't favor the idea of being dragged to Iran for posting a picture on IRC that is a part of my guaranteed free speech here but proscribed there. You (and your nation) connect to the internet voluntarily. If you don't like what is on the internet, don't look at it or disconnect. Same with TV: at least in places where our media isn't state run, you have the option to change the channel or turn it off. As a result, if China or Iran doesn't like what's on the internet, they can get off it, and by the same token, if some nations can't at the very least comply with what the rest of the internet see as minimum basic acceptable behavior, they should be forced to deal with their own people in their own little walled garden until they realize how obnoxious those people are and do something about it. The value of neutrality and anonymity only go so far as they don't cause active, real, provable harm to others, at which point it becomes necessary to lift that veil and deal with such people - no one REQUESTS or knowingly volunteers to have their bank account hacked or to be packeted, and it's precisely when one's interaction with the internet ceases to be voluntarily that neutrality ceases to be a concern. This doesn't require people with badges who have no national boundaries and are subject to their own laws to go do something about it, simply the same thing that network operators have been doing VERY SUCCESSFULLY from day one: disconnect and ban the offending user. If that user is an entire nation, oh well. If the internet matters enough to the people of that nation, then perhaps those people will demand their government get their shit together and do something about it. If not, then obviously that country wasn't an important, useful or desirable addition to the global public internet in the first place.

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  60. It's the Kemp-Kasten Ammendment by tlambert · · Score: 1

    It's the Kemp-Kasten Ammendment:

    http://www.nchla.org/datasource/idocuments/KempK8503.pdf

    I imagine that this portion of the document might have something to do with it not being adopted, since it seems to contravene Roe v. Wade:

    Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",

    Of course, if you're the type who thinks that women should not have rights over their own bodies, and would force them into slavery as incubators, your view might differ from that of the U.S. Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade.

    China has signed onto that and onto other human rights conventions, yet still practices coercive abortion and sterilization. Peru also carried out a similar program under Alberto Fujimori's administration, which is why they've been trying to extradite him from Japan; Mexico continues a similar policy: http://www.libertadlatina.org/Crisis_Forced_Sterilization.htm

    It's not politically correct to point out that this type of document isn't worth spit if it's adopted but not enforced, but it's nevertheless true.

    -- Terry

  61. In principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Because the US politicians want a supply of playmates for their afternoon naps between voting on legislation they never read.

  62. Reeks of trying to control or tame the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats happens when the trace reveals the origin of the hack as the pla or the nsa ... thats right Rules dont apply in some cases .....

  63. ACTA! by hicksw · · Score: 1

    I imagine the people cooking up ACTA would love this idea.

  64. Re:A good read... It is! apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "For a good read on the difficulties of tracking criminals through a global internet read The Cuckoo's Egg. It reads like a suspenseful spy novel but is entirely non-fiction." - by Temujin_12 (832986) on Monday December 14, @11:11AM (#30431982)

    Excellent suggestion: I read it a few years back myself, & it was a DAMNED good read!

    It struck me "personally", in a way. I state that, because I have a family member in the U.S. Military, as an officer & a gentleman, who was stationed @ (not @ the time of the novel though) @ Ft. Stewart near Richmond Hill Ga. (by Savannah GA.)...

    (That was one of the compromised sites that this German/KGB group of hacker/cracker types invaded...)

    That kept me reading, @ first - &, the rest of it later did, bigtime!

    (Especially since it showed that no matter how much asking for assist that Cliff Stoll went thru, nobody was willing to help (well, @ least NOT until the U.S. Gov't. was shown that their military systems were compromised) & everyone from local, to state, to federal law enforcement agencies treated it all like a "big joke" & a bunch of b.s., largely).

    AND?

    Thank goodness for CSC/CIS students, in academia: I state that, because it was their "alternate/supplementary" logging system that was done as a summer project iirc @ the educational institution where C. Stoll worked that "saved the day" (or, rather, clued Stoll into SOMETHING FISHY going on) pretty much...

    Without it?

    The hacker/cracker types would probably still be @ it (students' alternate logging system wasn't "mirroring" the std. system that came with the OS' compromised (*NIX rigs iirc), & that started the ball rolling + was "Clue #1"). Pretty nifty trick w/ printer I-O was also used to track them as well... pretty "nifty" I felt @ least. Good book - should be MANDATORY READING for anyone interested in information security!

    APK

    P.S.=> Truth IS stranger than fiction, & this novel? Is pretty good proof of that much, imo @ least... apk