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."

19 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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?

  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. 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

  6. ...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...

  7. 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.

  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.