[governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]

Sun Dec 2 08:23:45 EST 2007

All,

I'd like to ask some questions, perhaps naive, regarding the 
international (cyber)crime landscape.  perhaps the collective 
intelligence of the group can provide answers.

When viewing the Internet Governance landscape, some of have pointed 
out that for many issues that are truly international, there exist 
international organizations that focus on them in one way or another. 
Examples include WTO, WHO, WMO, OECD, ISO, etc.  We may not all agree 
with what these organizations are doing or how or how well they do 
it, but they have staked out their area of focus and are not severely 
challenged in doing so.

Cybercrime is clearly one of the major issues that Internet 
Governance needs to address.  It strikes at the heart of the 
reliability, security and effectiveness of the Internet.  It is truly 
international in sscope; lthere needs to be a concerted and coherent 
effort on the art of all nations to render it impotent.

So where is the international organization that claims (cyber)crime 
as its target?  IMHO the obvious target is Interpol.  Yet I don't see 
strong evidence of Interpol's involvement in cybercrime.  why not? 
Some possible reasons:

(1) It's happening, but I don't see it because I'm not looking in the 
right places

(2) It's happening, but purposely being kept secret for the purposes 
of effective operations

(3) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't see it as a high 
priority or doesn't see it as a part of its mandate

(4) It's not happening because Interpol doesn't have the resources to 
address the issue effectively  --  technical, legal, or financial.

(5) None of the above.

Seriously, I would like to understand if our existing international 
organizations are capable or could be made capable of really 
assisting in this area, or not.  This would give us some evidence 
regarding in which directions it would be most effective to proceed.

What do we collectively know about Interpol, and possibly other 
similar organizations that could provide a basis for a concerted 
attack on cybercrime?

Regards,

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 2:02 AM +0000 12/2/07, Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
>Hi,
>
>on the strand on cybercrime:
>
>a useful way to approach this would be to make a quick list of 
>stakeholders (the four WSIS stakeholder groups, then a more 
>fine-grained segmentation of these), and their present and possible 
>future roles.
>
>Thus, you can recognize governments as you are already doing. 
>Governments in many countries (certainly the once you are mentioning 
>here) have three main branches, executive, legislative, and 
>judiciary. Each plays or can play a vital, differentiated role. Then 
>e.g. within the executive you have differentiated functions - crime 
>prosecution is in the executive in many countries, crime prevention, 
>education, telecoms regulator (or other setting and policing rules 
>for ISP operation), and so on.
>
>The cooperation described in previous emails in this strand is 
>mainly among law-enforcement agencies, which aid each other 
>cross-border in investigating crimes and prosecuting criminals.
>
>Not much of this can be done with cooperation form other parts of 
>the governments. It is well known that a person that has committed a 
>crime under the laws of country A but is in country B cannot be 
>captured in country B and lawfully extradited to country A unless 
>his actions are also a crime in country B. And then of course you 
>have to have compatible rules for evidence, country A has to 
>recognize the evidence obtained in country B, the rules for the 
>control of the custody of the chain of evidence in country B have to 
>satisfy country A, and so on.
>
>Lawyers and other experts will be happy to dwell in the details.
>
>The business (what we call the private sector outside the US and UK) 
>to business cooperation is often easier to meet. Phishing is 
>recognized by banks in most countries, and though competition issues 
>(banks compete with each other by being safer, among other factors) 
>may make them want to not cooperate, once the environment is toxic 
>enough they will not only cooperate with each other in-country but 
>also cross-border. This gets complicated by the huge level of 
>consolidation among banks that exists transnationally.
>
>Other private-sector victims or co-victims to cybercrime (strictly 
>speaking the bank is not the victim of phishing; the client is the 
>victim; so I use "co-victim" because banks are shouldering some of 
>the burden for many reasons) such as small and medium enterprises 
>which are swindled by criminals (e.g. in fake purchases) may find it 
>more difficult to cooperate with their peers cross-border directly, 
>preferring their governments to act on their behalf instead, unless 
>they are very cyber-savvy.
>
>(And, ah, many of us are of the opinion that there is actually no 
>cybercrime, only crime committed by cyber means.)
>
>I'll stop here for a moment and ask, what is the role of civil 
>society in this picture? (exercise left to the readers.)
>
>Yours,
>
>Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
>UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
>http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
>*
>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
>  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>
>On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>
>>Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:34:54 -0400
>>From: Jacqueline A. Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
>>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,
>>     Jacqueline A. Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, 'Ian Peter' <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>,
>>     'Suresh Ramasubramanian' <suresh at hserus.net>
>>Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]
>>
>>There is some cross-boundary cooperation, but it isn't easy. There are some
>>bilateral agreements (for example between Trinidad and Tobago and the UK and
>>also with the US ) that allow for co-ordination and cooperation in certain
>>instances, but some in the local Police complain that the processes are
>>unwieldy.
>>I do agree that there needs to be more than simple government to government
>>cooperation. But governments are vital, in that they are the ones who can
>>sign agreements that are binding, they can amend laws that allow for
>>cooperation (and that is important with regard to evidence, with regard to
>>what is allowed in different jurisdictions, such as methods of data
>>gathering).
>>Jacqueline
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
>>>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 23:03
>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'
>>>Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was:
>>>Irony]
>>>
>>>Nice concept Suresh, but at Rio a number of govt reps complained at the
>>>almost total lack of international co-operation in this area and the
>>>ineffectiveness of current efforts because there is no way to get
>>>cross-boundary co-operation currently.
>>>
>>>That's a structural problem IMHO. And one not likely to be solved
>>>solely by
>>>governments co-operating among themselves. In addition technical
>>>co-operation is necessary as they readily admit - that takes two forms
>>>at
>>>least which I outlined. Finally the public policy issues are
>>>substantial of
>>>course.
>>>.
>>>
>>>Ian Peter
>>>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
>>>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
>>>Australia
>>>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>>>www.ianpeter.com
>>>www.internetmark2.org
>>>www.nethistory.info
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
>>>Sent: 01 December 2007 14:00
>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
>>>Cc: 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Milton L Mueller'
>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was:
>>>Irony]
>>>
>>>Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]:
>>>
>>>>A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following
>>>inputs
>>>>1. Governmental
>>>>2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc)
>>>>3. Technical innovators and standards groups
>>>>4. Public interest groups
>>>>Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue.
>>>
>>>Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on
>>>interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or
>>>stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to
>>>other
>>>civ soc, agency talking to agency etc)
>>>
>>>Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask
>>>for.
>>>
>>>CoE convention on cybercrime -
>>>http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm
>>>
>>>ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying
>>>them practically, instead of as a thought experiment -
>>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html
>>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-
>>>toolki
>>>t-background.pdf
>>>
>>>And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess
>>>how
>>>ready it is to deal with cybersecurity.
>>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html
>>>
>>>>Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each
>>>group
>>>
>>>At an international level?  What you would get at that level is again
>>>coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each
>>>others
>>>initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all
>>>the
>>>citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public
>>>toilet
>>>or how much to spend to improve a local park.
>>>
>>>	srs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071202/d38b33bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071202/d38b33bd/attachment.txt>