Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Legislation Would Crack Down On Online Criminal Havens

Posted by timothy on from the have-in-my-hand-a-list dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Hill reports that Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have introduced a bill that would penalize foreign countries that fail to crack down on cyber criminals operating within their borders. Under the bill the White House would have the responsibility of identifying countries that pose cyber threats and the president would have to present to Congress in an annual report. Countries identified as 'hacker havens' would then have to develop plans of action to combat cybercrimes or risk cuts to their US export dollars, foreign-direct investment funds and trade assistance grants. Numerous American employers, including Cisco, HP, Microsoft, Symantec, PayPal, eBay, McAfee, American Express, Mastercard and Visa, as well as Facebook, are supporting the Senators' legislation."

26 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. What could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This legislation is just going to blow up in our face as soon as other countries start demanding that we rat out our citizens for "criminal" activity (e.g. dissent, political freedom, etc.)

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong by OldHawk777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, looks like, it could be another corporate-welfare fuckUS bill that protects bigbiz and ignores threats to the US Nation and People.

      The fiat sales pitch is usually flag, god, fear, homeland defense, evil, security... and indicates more [BigBrother] fuckUS bigbiz by biggov laws.

      Biggov (law) is all about bigbiz (economics), never about freedom from threat and welfare (QoL) for US People.

      GodBless the biggies from US buggies, and keep the biggies from controlling/oppressing our life any more.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  2. Welcome to the Empire by tpstigers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow. "Obey our laws or else!" Imperialist America strikes again!

    1. Re:Welcome to the Empire by Jenming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, how about: Don't let criminals strike at the US from within your borders if you want us to give you free money.

      I guess there are a multiple ways to think of the same actions.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    2. Re:Welcome to the Empire by tpstigers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're confused about who the criminals are and who has the money.

    3. Re:Welcome to the Empire by DeadRat4life · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i dont really think you understand how American foreign policy really works. We are not the cops of the world despite what the people in power seem to think. If you want a good understanding on what US foreign policy really is, read/listen to some Noam Chomsky.

    4. Re:Welcome to the Empire by Jenming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Limiting trading with a country that commits crimes against you isn't an abuse of foreign policy. This isn't being "cops of the world" this is being cops of the US and interacting less with countries that won't play nice.

      And yes, it is the US definition of nice, but so what? Each country is free to choose who they want to trade with and it is usually based upon the countries following each other's laws when dealing with each other.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    5. Re:Welcome to the Empire by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism

      Main Entry: imperialism
      Function: noun
      Date: 1800

      1 : imperial government, authority, or system
      2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

      If you don't think forcing another country to obey our laws by violating their national sovereignty through political and military influence isn't imperialism, you're fucking stupid.

    6. Re:Welcome to the Empire by zondag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Limiting trading with a country that commits crimes against you isn't an abuse of foreign policy. This isn't being "cops of the world" this is being cops of the US and interacting less with countries that won't play nice.

      And yes, it is the US definition of nice, but so what? Each country is free to choose who they want to trade with and it is usually based upon the countries following each other's laws when dealing with each other.

      A bit rich coming from the country that, at least until recently, was only sabotaging international law. Being Dutch I particularly remember the Hague Invasion Act.

      But hey, you have a different president now. So if we were to accept that a country that is an origin of cybercrime is, as a country, committing a crime: Who specifically do you advocate starting a trade war with? Europe, China, Brazil, India, Russia? All of them?

    7. Re:Welcome to the Empire by Rogerborg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm tired of the assumption that your sort keeps making that you can bash America and love it at the same time. How many times do you think America will keep crawling back to you, hoping that you'll change?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:Welcome to the Empire by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but every nation with a record like this which has also covertly overthrown dozens of governments and also has a history of ignoring international law and suppressing international opinion absolutely qualifies as an imperial power. Forcing sovereign nations to capitulate to giving up sovereignty through financial pressure falls well within the bounds of imperial behavior.

      Embracing ignorance, or in less polite terms, being fucking stupid, cannot change reality.

    9. Re:Welcome to the Empire by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If some countries had the political and military leverage, the US would be in deep shit if that catches on...

      See it in whatever way you want, the US are (ab)using its dominant position in global politics to cram their laws down the throats of other nations. Imagine Iran having the upper military and economic hand and being able to force their views on decency on the rest of the globe and you see what the rest of the world thinks of this.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Welcome to the Empire by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So all trade sanctions, even those related to human rights violations, are "imperialism" in your opinion?

      In a pretend world, there could be sanctions related to human rights violations that were based on moral values. You're welcome to provide me with a real world example from the United States.

      Keep in mind we have supported governments of Iraq, Indonesia, Iran, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China, and others while they violated human rights. We even supported apartheid South Africa and we still support apartheid in Israel/Palestine. Some support was financial aid, or trade deals, or even with direct military support. In places like Guatemala we were directly involved in torture, murder, and violence, like the raping of an American nun, who was also burned with cigarettes and lowered into a pit full of rats and dead bodies.

      So, what I don't think should count is sanctions against Iraq, for instance, since our political goals changed our policy. Not even the facade of something I would call a moral value system had anything to do with it. You are still welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gscKnNAxBpE

    11. Re:Welcome to the Empire by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that is part of the reason why Libertarians are so misunderstood; both here on Slashdot and elsewhere.

      I don't think Libertarians are misunderstood; it's just that most people have little faith in capitalist/individualist systems to address every issue.

      Libertarians think they are misunderstood, the reality is that others do understand the philosophy but reject it as cold and heartless.

  3. Well by CSFFlame · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And by Cyber-Threats, they mean that they fail to encforce the DMCA.

    1. Re:Well by Jenming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt any of those things would result in less trade with Canada. I am sure NAFTA would over rule it for one.

      How about Botnet command centers that have been located, the IPs they are using have been found, the ISPs providing the internet connection have been found and asked to take them offline. However the ISPs and the country will not take them offline.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
  4. Quoting a James Cameron flick... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Gee, I feel safer already" A lot of huff and puff, and not much else.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  5. Pointless by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is pointless legislation because they very country it's targeting (*coughpeople'srepubliccough*), we refuse to recognize for their already existing undeclared "warfare" against the US, such as their currency manipulation.

    "Cyber warfare" will just be one more thing we ignore for economic/political reasons.

  6. Here we go again... by whitespiral · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just like child porn, cybercrime is another excuse to go after their real goal: Dictate who does what on the web. Soon after, they'll say file sharing is cybercrime, and they will twist another country's arm to impose their ACTA crap.

  7. Not want to be bitching... by santax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But as a non-american I really really really DO NOT want US laws. If I would, I would move to the US. The arrogance is striking. Btw, ca

    1. Re:Not want to be bitching... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considering the companies supporting the bill, I imagine they'll regret it once they realize the people they wish to reduce trade with are going to be their biggest customers.

      Paypal? I bet at least a bit of their cashflow is generated by fraudulent companies...
      Cisco? I wonder if a couple of those co-lo companies use Cisco gear for their multi-homed connections.
      HP? I wonder if they also use HP servers...they are among the cheapest.

    2. Re:Not want to be bitching... by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm fine if the legislation is only about shutting down botnet command centers, spammers and malware.

      Not fine if it includes stuff like "if you don't have DMCA laws, you're a criminal haven - since criminals (from the US POV) can reverse engineer and break DRM, even if your country says that is not a criminal act". Same if those countries just happen to have different copyright laws (e.g. Canada).

      A lot of legislation has very nice titles, e.g. "No Child Left Behind Act", but the details are what count.

      You pick a good name and enough people might believe what they want about it and thus support it without looking too closely at the details.

      Same like those "investment" funds - "High-Grade Structured Credit Fund" or "High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund" ;).

      --
  8. This is not about hacker havens by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a future backdoor for enforcing upcoming ACTA, and for cracking down on file sharing/other perceived piracy/copyright infringements. And ultimately for imposing global internet censorship (controls on perceived indecent or perceived dangerous content).

    This isn't about hacker havens or real bad guys. Lobbyists aren't handling billions of bucks wanting representatives to shut down 'hacker havens'.

    The big bucks are coming down from the **AA

    Not that stopping crime is a bad thing. But this sort of thing is going to be abused going forward.

    It's contrary to free trade. And while the current intent may be great, the future consequences could be dire, if some agreement can't be reached early to limit its scope.

  9. exactly by DeadRat4life · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i bet all the people defending this, and the general foreign policy of acting like the cops of the world, would be outraged at the thought of having to follow canadian, french, russian, ect. law. They would probably call for a military strike of London if the shoe was on the other foot. Fucking hypocrites.

  10. No Disney? by fyoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Numerous American employers, including Cisco, HP, Microsoft, Symantec, PayPal, eBay, McAfee, American Express, Mastercard and Visa, as well as Facebook, are supporting the Senators' legislation."

    What, no Disney? No Sony? No RIAA and MPAA members? Did the others tell them to hide in the back and not to come out until the law is passed?

    I'm all for going after the spammers and shit, but I sure as hell don't trust the US Gov't to use a very narrow definition of "cyber criminal" when big media pull out their cheque books.

    --
    Loose lips lose spit.
  11. Re:More like the Pot calling the kettle black by jabuzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Screw that for years the USA harbored Irish terrorists. That is people convicted of blowing things up and murder. They did the same with north African terrorists that blew things up and murdered in France. Of course as soon as USA suffered a major foreign terrorist attack on it's own soil their tune changed.

    This double standard is why the USA has such a bad perception in most of the rest of the World.