Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Security IT

Building a Global Cyber Police Force 155

Posted by CmdrTaco
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Building a Global Cyber Police Force

Comments Filter:
  • by kalirion (728907) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:23AM (#30431286)

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

  • by Cimexus (1355033) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:23AM (#30431288)

    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.

  • Do not want. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wcrowe (94389) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:24AM (#30431314)

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


  • No... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZenDragon (1205104) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:25AM (#30431324)
    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.
  • by prgrmr (568806) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:25AM (#30431332) Journal
    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.
  • Re:Do not want. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by selven (1556643) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:26AM (#30431336)

    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?

  • Interpol (Score:4, Insightful)

    by medv4380 (1604309) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:26AM (#30431344)
    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?
  • Re:Interpol (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:30AM (#30431386) Journal

    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.

  • I can see... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by runyonave (1482739) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:34AM (#30431438)

    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.

  • by thethibs (882667) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:39AM (#30431522) Homepage

    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.

  • by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:41AM (#30431564) 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:48AM (#30431666)
    So lick my butt and suck on my balls...

    ... no, wait
  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:51AM (#30431722)

    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.

  • Re:No... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:54AM (#30431776)

    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".

  • Re:In principle... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shakrai (717556) on Monday December 14, 2009 @10:54AM (#30431778) Journal

    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?

  • duh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dropadrop (1057046) on Monday December 14, 2009 @11:01AM (#30431870)
    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.
  • by thethibs (882667) on Monday December 14, 2009 @11:01AM (#30431880) Homepage

    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.

  • by gedrin (1423917) on Monday December 14, 2009 @11:31AM (#30432220)
    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.
  • Re:In principle... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Shakrai (717556) on Monday December 14, 2009 @11:44AM (#30432356) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14, 2009 @12:00PM (#30432630)

    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.

  • by ScientiaPotentiaEst (1635927) on Monday December 14, 2009 @12:06PM (#30432686)
    ... the global DMCA can be better enforced.
  • by thethibs (882667) on Monday December 14, 2009 @12:16PM (#30432852) Homepage

    "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.

  • by prgrmr (568806) on Monday December 14, 2009 @12:18PM (#30432880) Journal
    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.
  • Re:Do not want. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Storchei (723338) on Monday December 14, 2009 @01:26PM (#30433660) Homepage

    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.

  • by kheldan (1460303) on Monday December 14, 2009 @01:31PM (#30433738) Journal
    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.

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.