[governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]
George Sadowsky
george.sadowsky at attglobal.net
Sun Dec 2 09:13:31 EST 2007
Suresh,
Thank you very much. This is quite interesting.
It's worth listening to Ron Noble's interview. He is the head of
Interpol. He pleads emotionally, to the point of breaking down and
crying, for governments to understand that he has a billion dollar
program, not a million dollar program. He cites budgets of
comparable international institutions and shows what a pittance
Interpol gets compared to them.
If the world believes (whatever that means) that Interpol is part of
the solution against cybercrime and not part of the problem. it is
certainly not putting its money where its mouth is.
Is there any evidence that Interpol is not a worthwhile investment?
I haven't seen any.
George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 8:38 PM +0700 12/2/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Well, there is a multitude of organizations.
>
>ITU is the UN agency that handles WSIS action line C5 - which covers
>cybersecurity
>
>Interpol certainly does quite a lot on coordinating between law
>enforcement agencies on cybercrime issues. In fact, see this
>interview with their secretary general Ronald Noble - on ABC 60
>minutes.
>
><http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news>http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5007247&ch=4227541&src=news
>
>A lot of additional cooperation also goes on through MLATs -
>bilateral "mutual legal assistance treaties" between national police
>agencies (such as the US DoJ).
>
>Other organizations that do work to some extent in this area are
>ENISA (http://enisa.europa.eu) and the CoE (through their
>convention on cybercrime, and a network of 24x7 hotline PoCs that
>works with / extends the G8's similar hotline). The international
>organizations that deal specifically with this are more than capable.
>
>Then, there's international cooperation on child porn - public
>private, this one -
><http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com>http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com
>
>
>As I said though, several individual countries' law enforcement
>agencies may range all the way down the spectrum from "don't know"
>to "don't care". And individual countries may not have
>extradiation treaties as well .. so that issues of rather more
>significance than cybercrime (such as seeking the arrest of someone
>who put plutonium in a guy's sushi not too long back) may run into
>these very same issues.
>
> srs
>
>
>From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net]
>Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:24 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Alejandro Pisanty; Jacqueline A. Morris
>Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'
>Subject: RE: [governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]
>
>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/20071202/4988d05c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071202/4988d05c/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list