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."

27 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 russ1337 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.)

      i'd guess it's more targeted at illegal activity such as 'piracy' and 'copyright infringement'. This smacks of RIAA/MPAA and leverage against countries such as Sweden for their lack of ability to close down The Pirate Bay.

  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 tpstigers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I started this thread and I'm tired of one assumption you all keep making: You all keep talking about my hatred of America. Well, let me spell this out for you - I LOVE AMERICA. I have done so my entire life. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't love my country, neither does it mean I love my country less than you. Th truth is that I just hold my country to a higher standard than you do.

    5. Re:Welcome to the Empire by copponex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh goody! Let me guess, we get to define who the criminals are, right? Let's see, we need to exclude:

      1) wars of aggression (Vietnam, Lebanon, Phillippines, Iraq, etc)
      2) trade wars (Iraq, Cuba, pretty much all of central and south america)
      3) covert coup d'etat (Iran, Iraq, pretty much all of central and south america)
      4) aiding and abetting known terrorists (the CIA in Iraq, Iran, and pretty much all of central and south america)

      And remember, if you so much as allow a single credit card to be stolen from an IP address from within your country, we reserve the right to use any of the above methods to exact justice.

    6. Re:Welcome to the Empire by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. Take a look at the two pushing this bill: Hatch in particular has a history of supporting idiotic things like allowing copyright holders to destroy property of suspected infringers and Gillibrand has a hostory of taking large campaign contributions from parties directly related to legislation she was involved in. It therefore shouldn't be terribly surprising that these two were involved.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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?

    10. Re:Welcome to the Empire by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You forgot weapons of mass destruction: the US remains the only nation in the world ever to have dropped a nuclear weapon on a civilian-populated area.

      I do wonder how much further the US can push its luck before the rest of the world just starts telling them to shove it, though. As I have noted before, they are no longer the world's "superpower" by any meaningful standard, though plenty of people in the US government don't seem to have realised that yet. These repeated attempts to promote US business interests abroad might carry some weight in the US where they recently officially legalised buying the government, but it's not really in anyone else's interests. For the rest of the world, sucking up to a major foreign government is only worth it if the rewards are commensurate, and no-one really believes that about the US any more, and there is a lot of political competition today in many states with traditionally close ties to the US making it harder to do things quietly behind closed doors than it used to be (see: SWIFT, ACTA).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    11. 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.
    12. 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. This is a bad legislation by Kitkoan · · Score: 4, Informative

    As shown with the Special 301 list which stated the Canada was needing to update copyright laws (which could label Canada a criminal haven since it doesn't have a DMCA). After it was issued about Canada being in the wrong, many companies publicly stated otherwise.

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
  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. 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 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" ;).

      --
  7. ...and what about Tax Havens? by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are we likely to see legislation against tax havens that allow people to secrete money away from legitimate taxation and policing enquiries?

    Oh silly me - that's where the politicians and their rich friends put their money...

  8. Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercrime by zondag · · Score: 5, Informative
    Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercrime

    So apparently, if you add up all of Europe we'd match the US as the largest source of cybercrime. But the hypocrisy aside, Europe won't be the target of US sanctions.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.