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."

9 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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

  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: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.

  4. 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...