|
FBI agent attacks ISPs
An FBI special agent has hit out at the regulation of the UK-based units of large global ISPs and the role they play in allowing the perpetuation of cybercrime through a lack of co-operation with law enforcement.
Speaking at the Computer and Internet Crime Conference in London, Special Agent Ed Gibson, who is the assistant legal attaché to the US Embassy, expressed concerns that national boundaries are still too much of an obstacle to law enforcement.
Gibson said such obstacles can delay law enforcement efforts by months at a time and singled out the ISPs and their regulation for doing too little to ease the process.
Many of the large US-based ISPs are hiding behind domestic laws and distancing themselves from their UK responsibilities, he said.
"Why on earth do we not require that ISPs conform with the laws of this country?" asked Gibson, who said UK law enforcement are unable to go into businesses registered in the US and make use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to access information that could aid an investigation.
According to Gibson, 80 per cent of global email traffic, including the majority of the spam scams which circulate, comes via the webmail services of providers such as AOL, MSN and Yahoo! so finding a way to tap into the relevant data they could provide would prove invaluable.
But he said law enforcement often hit a brick wall when dealing with such companies. The firms can insist on due judicial process - the equivalent of an online search warrant, which can take four to six months - before they will comply with providing data for investigations.
Gibson said the regulation of web hosting companies is also to blame for high levels of online crime.
"Why do we allow hosting companies to take credit card details from an individual and let that person put up a website without knowing who they are or what they are doing?"
The FBI's Gibson urged companies to adopt a "know your customer" policy and said such an approach would eliminate a lot of the anonymity which facilitates many forms of cybercrime and likely prove an important move in combating it.
http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39127306,00.htm
A reply to the above: "in the physical world they call these proposed measures "mail fraud" and "mail tampering" among others, these are private communications.. we dont subpoena highway construction firms and make them fork over personal info on everyone who drives on their highways..
same principal.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
napstersghost
|
Date: January 26, 2005 @ 11:05 PM
And the FBI should have a "know your al-qaeda members" policy specially when they're inside the U.S. But Ed Gibson is right, the music/movie industry is more important. |
|
wet1
|
Date: January 26, 2005 @ 11:37 PM
You know how it is, the music/movie industry is the harbor of the terrorists. Don't believe me? Look at a movie sometime. How much do you see blown up, right before your eyes? Shouldn't your eyes (or your ears) be believed? After all, you saw it yourself (or heard it).
More of these folks that believe nearly every internet user is a criminal they just haven't caught yet. |
|
cyouseiii
|
Date: January 27, 2005 @ 4:35 AM
We know privacy on the net means nothing here in the states, so why don't we forces ourselves elsewhere. |
|
goldenpi
|
Date: January 27, 2005 @ 7:15 AM
You think its bad now? The police here have just created a new pedophile-fighting webpage, where students are free to tell the police about the latest Evil Child Molester (or teacher they want fired), anonymously. The police can then do a full wiretap on the suspect and collect as much evidence as they want. Of course, this is clearly a measure to protect children, and thus anyone who attempts to criticise this further loss of privicy is just dismissed as not careing about the welfare of children.
Its not as bad as the cleanfeed incident, in which BT blocked a large number of websites they claimed contained child-porn, but refused to say which websites, then overstated the number of blocked viewers. They recieved great praise from various authorities for this ineffective and destructive measure.
|
|
goldenpi
|
Date: January 27, 2005 @ 7:16 AM
While our excuse for overriding any privict concerns is suspected pedophiles, in the US equivilent effects can be achieved by mentioning terrorists (publicly) or copyright-infringement (lobbying). |
|
wet1
|
Date: January 27, 2005 @ 3:20 PM
"...FBI special agent has hit out at the regulation of the UK-based units..."
Prehaps that is why they call it the UK and not the USA. Has to do with this thing called sovereign nations. Each national entity has its own laws and until such time as a world conqueror comes along and pulls it off, each nation can and will have its own laws. Those laws don't have to be in conjuntion with ours. Just because our nation is on a terrorist witch hunt, abandoning those rights given citizens as fast as they can come up with a good sounding reason, doesn't mean other nations are in the hunt of the same (thank heavens some nations still have a bit of common sense).
"Why on earth do we not require that ISPs conform with the laws of this country?"
Prehaps it is the agents wish that we conform our laws to theirs? Then he could bitch about his home country's privacy laws and how they hinder his job. Geeze, what does this guy get paid to do, bitch?
"Gibson said the regulation of web hosting companies is also to blame for high levels of online crime.
"Why do we allow hosting companies to take credit card details from an individual and let that person put up a website without knowing who they are or what they are doing?"
Prehaps the agent doing this questioning should ask his political leaders to make a few laws in his favor. I think we have had enough already of where that leads. It is the most likely suspect as to why those laws are the way they are. |
|
JustASquirrel
|
Date: January 27, 2005 @ 4:54 PM
These guys still haven't caught the anthrax mailer that hit the NJ postal center a few years ago, and that supposedly came from a few miles away. Why do these pinheads think that they will be any more successful in fighting crime abroad?
You can just smell the synapses burning on this guy. Maybe we should get all nations to abide by our postal laws while were at it, huh? Or maybe we should force them all to be republicans? What a twit. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: January 27, 2005 @ 10:33 PM
"Why do we allow hosting companies to take credit card details from an individual and let that person put up a website without knowing who they are or what they are doing?"
Because in the UK, you still apparently are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
We have abandoned that notion in favor of imprisoning people for unspecified periods of time (years) without trial, access to an attorney or even an actual charge filed. Oh yeah, torture is back, too.
It's the only way we can deal with people who don't respect human rights. |
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: January 29, 2005 @ 3:22 PM
Yeah, that's what our framework for dealing with tare-rism is. Based on pointing out how tare-rism is so terrible in not respecting human rights, our government has to deny human rights in order to fight it.
Sink down to their level (the gutter level).
Individual liberties and basic rights are in the way!
So, sacrifice freedoms for 'security', uh-huh.
Operative principle: Sacrificing our freedom is the only way to PRESERVE our freedom.
Makes good sense to me.
|
|
Diogenes2
|
Date: January 30, 2005 @ 4:18 AM
I mean, we're supposed to be attacking nations in the Middle East so, that way, surviving Islamic radicals won't get mad and attack us with tare-rism. Such sound logic like that deserves to prevail, don't you think?
(What? You're asking how will we know if they wouldn't have attacked us anyway? Let's not get side-tracked with burning questions like that. After all, if we don't suffer another act of tare-rism stateside, we should be happy. And if we do have another one, well, then, our policy of pre-emptive military attack(s) certainly couldn't have had anything to do with it. Logic, dear friend, logic.)
[Someone once remarked that one of most amazing things he became aware of while growing up was how little wisdom the world's affairs are governed by.
Our current President has simply taken that concept to a whole new level and perfected it to an art form, that's all.]
Well, I guess people are talking about the state of the nation.
My mind wandered off to Dubya, starting out there at his place in Crawford, Texas.
First he was in charge of the state of the ranch.
Next he became governor and was in charge of the state (of Texas).
Now he's President and in charge of the state of the nation.
But, really, isn't he (essentially) in charge of the global campaign against tare-rism? So, when are we going to have a candid official report on the state of the world? After all, the future of the planet is in his hands, isn't it? If he can't make the world safe against tare-rism, all mankind is doomed (aren't they)?
I mean, wasn't/isn't that the rationale for all this administration's talk and crusade of pre-emptive military strikes?
Come on, now.
Bottom line: The more we attack radical Islamic nations, the more we prevent the surviving radicals in those nations (and sympathetic radicals in neighboring nations) from becoming angry. The more we can prevent them from becoming angry, the less likely they will act out their tare-rist inclinations. So, in keeping with that impeccable rationale, why is it that everybody can't get on the same page as Dubya and pull together with him? I just don't understand all this dissension over his foreign policy. It all seems so cut and dry to me. Iran, Syria, whoever -- onward Christian soldiers . . . oops, wrong battle song.
|
|
|
Navigation
