New Legislation Would Crack Down On Online Criminal Havens 208
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."
What could possibly go wrong (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.)
Quoting a James Cameron flick... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Gee, I feel safer already" A lot of huff and puff, and not much else.
Re:What could possibly go wrong (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd guess it's more targeted at illegal activity such as 'piracy' and 'copyright infringement'.
And you'd probably be right, given that it's Orrin Hatch that's sponsoring the bill. Orrin has very strong RIAA ties and is a very strong supporter of them.
Re: (Score:2)
This smacks of RIAA/MPAA and leverage against countries such as Sweden for their lack of ability to close down The Pirate Bay.
I doubt that the Scandinavian countries, which are self sufficient and reasonably wealthy by themselves, receive much foreign direct investment funds or trade assistance grants. I suppose that sanctions against their exports are possible (i.e. more expensive Ikea furniture or some such), but that would be counter-productive given the realities of the European Union and cross border European commerce and trade.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Orrin Hatch is famous for sucking
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that they want something other than that to happen?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I dunno about that, I can see penalties against Nigeria happening. It would be interesting to see how tough they get with China and Russia which seem to be the biggest cybercrime havens. I'm sooooo f*ckin sure man.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno.
The US owns a really massive portion of the webs criminals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And how is that supposed to happen? The US is by far the biggest exporter of money in the world. The reason this legislation would work is because the US can withhold that money to coerce other countries to comply. It doesn't work the other way around, because the other countries don't have leverage against the US.
One could argue that China (and Japan, actually) has leverage in the form of all the US debt they hold. But if China leveraging that debt against the US was a good thing for them, they'd have
Welcome to the Empire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
TFA summarized: "If people from your country attack us, and you won't do anything about it, we won't trade with you so much."
How horribly fascist.
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not like Europe or Canada told the US that they have to adopt that model. We offer an example. Follow or do your own thing, not like we treat you any different if you don't.
Did anyone tell the US "Get your health care act together or we'll stop trading with you"? Did I miss something?
Yes, I think it's a good idea that the US get a health care system that I deem superior. But it's not like I, or any country I know of, makes that a requirement to consider the US a "good" country. There are other qualitie
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nations routinely "attack" each-other economically over trade-related issues in the form of tariffs, duties, quotas, et al. Has nothing to do imperialism or your hatred for America.
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Haha, America as a battered wife; I love it.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
How does one crawl back to himself?
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism [merriam-webster.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If making decisions about whether or not to trade with different countries is imperialism, then all countries are empires. I'm not thrilled about this legislation, but you're just crying wolf here.
Re: (Score:2)
So then every nation to ever raise a trade dispute is an empire. If you believe that, you're a fucking douchebag.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but every nation with a record like this [wikipedia.org] which has also covertly overthrown dozens of governments [wikipedia.org] and also has a history of ignoring international law [wikipedia.org] and suppressing international opinion [globalpolicy.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
So all trade sanctions, even those related to human rights violations, are "imperialism" in your opinion?
Re: (Score:3, 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 su
Re: (Score:2)
So, again, all trade sanctions are "imperialism" in your opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should be more clear. I don't think there have been trade sanctions in the last sixty years by the United States based on moral grounds. You are welcome to provide me with a real world example, but it seems like you don't have any that you're willing to present. North Korea is probably the best case you could make. So, make a case, or you can reply with vague implications of begging the question in imaginary scenarios that do little to prove any point.
All trade sanctions are out of self-interest,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to provide shit. I asked a question, you made the claim. That's how it works. Understand?
Here's something for you to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid [wikipedia.org]
You cheapen the word "imperialism" by using it in the way you do.
Internet blowhard.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1980s, both the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, in the USA and UK respectively, followed a 'constructive engagement' policy with the apartheid government, vetoing the imposition of UN economic sanctions on South Africa, justified by a belief in free trade and a vision of South Africa as a bastion against Marxist forces in Southern Africa. Thatcher declared the ANC a terrorist organisation, and in 1987 her spokesman, Bernard Ingham, famously said that anyone who believed that the ANC would ever form the government of South Africa was "living in cloud cuckoo land".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid [wikipedia.org]
Strike three. You're out.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! I can never proof read enough.
Re: (Score:2)
So, even moderation in moderation... That's meta-moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
s/et\sal\./etc\./
Don't use regular expressions with special characters you don't escape.
More like the Pot calling the kettle black (Score:2)
Scads of cyber criminals and spies here in the good ole USA? Say it ain't so!
Re: (Score:2)
there are scads of cybercriminals right here on slashdot.
How many posters in this thread are posting using a neighbors WiFi without permission?
how many of us posted the illegal DeCSS code in posts?
how many people here have downloaded a MP3?
how many people here have discussed baseball without the express written consent....
well, you get the point. We're all criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
What? I need written consent now from someone to post that Baseball is about the most boring sport in existance? Gee, talk 'bout free speech... or is that banned now too?
Ok, snideness aside. When you look at laws, not only in the US, it's a general trend, you'll see a damn lot of laws that are essentially unenforcable and only detectable if something else already allows the feds to raid you. It's almost like they're trying to construct something that allows them to tack any crazy, arbitrary fine or punishme
Re:More like the Pot calling the kettle black (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Imperialist America strikes again!
Aw, someone's mad because -their- empire's evil plans aren't making it onto slashdot...
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Imperialist America strikes again!
We outsourced imperialism awhile ago. We're mostly consultants now for other countries. Didn't you get the memo? /not joking
Re: (Score:2)
It's still imperialism. We just noticed that it's cheaper and more profitable to install a local government instead of sending our troops and our bureaucracy there, which costs money and manpower. That has been outsourced. We allow countries now to govern themselves, but by virtue of WTO and other organisations that ensure these countries cannot act against our interests we keep them at the leash.
Imperialism didn't end last century. It's still going on, we are just more subtle about it now. Instead of direc
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's due to us consuming and consuming without producing.
What made the British imperialism superior was that they robbed the resources, produced at home and exported it back to the occupied territories, making them dependent on the imperial country.
Hmm... looking at it that way, we became a Chinese colony.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. "Obey our laws or else!" Imperialist America strikes again!
You mean "Crack down on people ripping us off or we'll stop sending you shit"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 'cause ripping off is something that's only allowed if we profit from it. Like, say, when we dictate the terms you may trade with us and you can't complain or we'll simply destroy that figment of imagination you call your economy.
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:5, 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.
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the Empire (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.
Re:Welcome to the Empire (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 [hrw.org].
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I think this would be used as a stick to threaten U.S. Allies to try and force the adoption of draconian U.S. style copyright laws. It would most certainly combine in an unpleasant way with ACTA. I have strong doubts that it will have much, if any, legitimate use.
That wouldn't be so bad if the U.S. wasn't already using so many other sticks to bludgeon it's allies. The U.S. needs to consider the consequences of making it less profitable and less palatable for other countries to trade with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about waging war against countries that aren't on board with our petrodollar cartel? Or waging war to line the pockets of the military industrial complex? Is that an abuse of foreign policy? Is that being "cops of the world"?
I think you're very confused on who the very worst offenders on the planet in that regard is.
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:5, 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.
Re:Welcome to the Empire (Score:4, 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).
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing too, because The Pirate Bay is from Sweden.
And you wonder why the rest of the world sees you as ignorant fools. Unless I just have benn trolled successfully. Damn you internet!
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Are you sure they don't mean botnet command centers?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This could be dicey.
So what is an online criminal?
What situations would involve reduced trade with, say, Canada...
1) Botnet initiated in Canada, with participants all over the world
2) Botnet initiated in another country or the US, with Canadian participants
3) Someone who downloaded the latest Metallica song in Canada
4) Someone who posted a copyrighted Fox News report on their Canadian blog
5) Hackers! from Canada
6) A website that is infected with malware, with the company or server residing in Canada
A few ar
Re:Well (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. doesn't obey NAFTA rulings or WTC rulings. I think it's been almost a decade now that since the U.S. decided to unilaterally disobey the terms of trade treaties it's signed whenever it was more convenient to not follow them.
The treaties haven't been scrapped because it's worth more to keep it and to ignore the U.S. transgressions, for now.
But we often get U.S. politicians up here threatening us over completely false and made up allegations that the Repbulican party seems to invent. In the waning
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure the UK will be on the right side of that law once our politicians completely ignore the Digital Economy Bill and end up accepting ACTA...
Re: (Score:2)
Not just the DMCA, but ACTA, which makes the DMCA look tame, especially the fact that ISPs have to record *every* packet you send out for data mining reasons for 7 years.
Every packet?
nmap -n -iR 0 -sL | cut -d" " -f 2 | while read IP
do
dd if=/dev/random count=512 | netcat -u -r $IP
done
I'm trying to figure out a way to use xargs instead of the while loop, but I can't quite get it done. Any ideas?
This is a bad legislation (Score:5, Informative)
Pointless (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.
Here we go again... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not want to be bitching... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that you should not have to follow US laws.
However it also seems fair that we (the US) should cut back on foreign aid to a country that say won't shut down the Botnet command centers operating in their borders.
Re:Not want to be bitching... (Score:4, Insightful)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
> neither should Canadian citizens receive immunity when facing international copyright charges
Depends on what those "international copyright" charges are, and what laws they are based on.
If they are not actually international copyright laws, but just some stuff that the USA is trying to push to Canada, but Canada hasn't accepted it, then I don't see why Canadian citizens should have to follow those. Especially laws like the DMCA.
The Canadian citizens already pay a levy. And strangely enough the Media Co
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you think it is fair for Iranians to pirate U.S. property?
It's not fair if they are pirating it according to "pirating" as defined by Iranian laws and laws applicable to the whole world.
"International" laws that the USA comes up with and tries to push to the whole world don't count till the countries agree to them.
Other than that, if a country's law says what a citizen does is "fair use" and the USA disagrees and uses this legislation to label that country a criminal haven, this is a bad thing and _
exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
so will the WTO give Antigua even more free IP ove (Score:3, Interesting)
so will the WTO give Antigua even more free IP over this as the US may try to push the Online gambling ban?
...and what about Tax Havens? (Score:5, 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...
Top 20 Countries Found to Have the Most Cybercrime (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Each country lists 6 contributing factors, share of malicious computer activity, malicious code rank, spam zombies rank, phishing web site hosts rank, bot rank and attack origin, to substantiate its cybercrime ranking.
So in otherwords being a victim-- having a hijacked computer-- gets you ranked up on that chart. Thats real clever. I thought the point of all this was C&C servers that the ISPs refused to disconnect, not mom and pop having a zombified computer that they are
This is not about hacker havens (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.
Re: (Score:2)
If we (the earth) ever end up with global internet censorship its not going to be coming from the US and its not going to come until after someone pries our (Americans) First Amendment from our cold dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have more faith in the sheeple than I do.
If You Knew Orrin (Score:2)
No Disney? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I sure as hell don't trust the US Gov't to use a very narrow definition of "cyber criminal"
And this is exactly the problem, no one trusts the US government (more specifically, 76% of Americans only trust the government to do the right thing only some of the time, or never). Not just with defining cyber criminal, with anything.
Unfortunately it is with good reason. After a decade of Bush (and not just Bush, the incompetent congress that was with him), followed up with bailouts for incompetent banks and Obama pushing a lousy healthcare bill, there isn't a lot to trust.
There isn't a good solution
The US has the right (Score:2)
s/Reactive/Proactive (Score:2)
I'd like to see "Don't click on that .exe attachment" PSA's on TV.
Hmmm. Export DOllars? (Score:2)
"Countries of Cyber Concern" (Score:2)
When you point a finger at someone else, three are pointing back at you.
US Federal Guvmint - ACTA, DMCA, NSA wiretaps, full laundry list available online.
Cisco - Great Firewall of China [wired.com], 'nuff said.
Visa/Mastercard/Amex - Insecure [csoonline.com] data practices [slashdot.org] while raping their customers with fees.
Facebook - In bed with Zynga, whose CEO has admitted he's a scammer [escapistmagazine.com] and that his games are rife with malware.
Google - Censorship in China (until they got pwned).
Microsoft - No comment needed (with a CEO that looks like Satan [winandmac.com], it
Being as this IS Hatch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Threaten anyone and every one to fall in line like the tyrants citizen citizens and encroach on others sovereignty.
Sounds an awful lot like you're talking about China there except for the last gasp and dying empire parts.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about the buying of our debt.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd consider it, then they'd realize that Spain is part of the EU and making trade sanctions against the EU is like shooting yourself in the foot with a shotgun, so instead they'll probably rattle their sabers meaninglessly at countries like Serbia and Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think American Express, Paypall, Visa and Mastercard are worried about people ignoring their EULA and pirating their IP. I suspect they rather hope to catch all the people stealing credit card details.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think American Express, Paypall, Visa and Mastercard are worried about people ignoring their EULA and pirating their IP. I suspect they rather hope to catch all the people stealing credit card details.
If Visa, Mastercard, et al were -really- serious about cutting down credit fraud, they would push for higher security within credit transactions and cards. But lower security results in more transactions which results in more revenue for them, so they focus instead on punishing people who abuse an insecure service while ignoring the security holes that allow such fiascoes to occur in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
the RIAA are not part of the list of supporters and traditionally everything that can be abused has been abused, see every law in the history of mankind.
Anyhow there's nothing wrong with the concept behind this bill, just questionable if it'll be effective or not. Usually in the case of countries with very high crime the government will keep saying "Yes, yes, we're working as hard as we can to crack down on it!" but in the end they're powerless and trying to sanction the country just leads to even more crim
Re: (Score:2)
Just 'cause something has the potential to be abused you can't assume it will.
If a government has passed a law which can be abused and hasn't abused it, that just means they haven't got around to it yet.
For example, I remember when British anti-terrorist laws were only going to be used against, like, terrorists, and not Icelandic banks and people who over-fill their garbage bins. Or when speed cameras were only going to be installed at accident blackspots. And the 1920 Firearms Act was not going to be used to ban gun ownership, merely ensure that they would only be in the hands of de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just 'cause something has the potential to be abused you can't assume it will.
Sure you do. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Several large media-related bills (and non-media related bills for that matter) have been abused in ways the original authors didn't necessarily intend, or at least that many supporters didn't think would happen. Overreaching sections of the DMCA making it impossible to sample works for critique or personal use. The PATRIOT Act being used to get ISP records for a Stargate SG-1 fansite webmaster suspected of copyright infringement. It's also been invoked
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think so - it contains huge botnets, lots of spammers, and I'm sure there are more crimes committed online from within its borders than it generally admits. It'll be interesting to see how it trades less with itself or imposes sanctions on itself to make it behave better towards itself!
Re: (Score:2)
The US only gives aid to countries who are in extreme need anyway like Haiti.
Yes, it's nice to know that the US ONLY gives aid to countries in extreme need [washington-report.org].
It's also nice to know that you probably represent the average US citizen, ie. full of shit. ABS used to mean something here in Canada before "anti-lock braking system" was invented... we're used to your type.