Is it Time to Crack Down on Internet Crime?

It's inevitable that when any useful new technology becomes available, it will be used by people with criminal intent to harm others and/or garner unlawful gains for themselves. This was true of fire, hand tools, the Postal Service, the automobile, and of course, computers and the Internet. The latter is different in that the crimes committed with it often span great distances. Thanks to the Internet, a bad guy can steal from a victim in Los Angeles without leaving his chair in Singapore.

Of course, long distance crime has been with us since long before the 'Net came to be. The infamous Nigerian scam started out as regular (snail) mail fraud. But the global network greatly expanded the ability of the bad guys to perpetrate criminal behavior by "remote control." And that makes it far easier for them to get away with their nefarious deeds, because even if the authorities manage to track them down, prosecution can be a jurisdictional nightmare.

Back in 2002, I gave a presentation at the Dallas Conference on Cyberterrorism, specifically addressing the jurisdictional issues faced by those who seek to enforce laws against Internet crime. You can download the slideshow here:
http://www.wxpnews.com/MLVRY3/081028...point-Download

You'll need PowerPoint or the PowerPoint Viewer installed on your computer to view the presentation. You can download the PowerPoint Viewer 2007 here:
Download details: PowerPoint Viewer 2007

To summarize for those who can't or don't want to view the presentation: Local, state and national law enforcement agencies are limited by the scope of authority given to them by their respective governments. There are different types of jurisdiction, but the one that's relevant here is geographic jurisdiction. Just like in the real estate business, it's all about "location, location, location."

In general, a Los Angeles police officer can't write a traffic ticket to a driver he or she sees speeding in Sacramento. A member of the Illinois State Police can't arrest a shoplifter he or she observes stealing from a store during a vacation to Texas. An FBI agent can't arrest a French national just because he or she sees that person assault another person in Paris.

Oh, there are exceptions. Some jurisdictions have laws that allow anyone who observes a serious crime to make a "citizen's arrest" and hold the perpetrator until those with jurisdictional authority arrive. And governments sometimes sign cross-jurisdictional agreements or form multi-jurisdictional tasks forces in which they mutually agree to give law enforcement officers from outside jurisdictions certain powers within their own.

However, it's especially difficult to investigate and prosecute crimes that cross not just city/county or state boundaries but international ones. Not only may an act that's illegal in one country be legal in another, but the entire legal systems themselves may be completely different in regard to concepts such as presumption of innocence, burden of proof, level of proof required to arrest or convict, and so forth.

Way back in 1923, an organization was formed to help further cooperation between police agencies in different countries. It's called the International Criminal Police Organization, or Interpol for short. It's headquartered in France and almost 200 nations participate. Recently Mikko Hypponen, the Chief Research Officer for F-Secure (a leading vendor of Internet security products) called for the establishment of a similarly structured global organization dedicated to Internet crime, an "Internetpol":
Q3 Security Summary

Is it a good idea or a bad one? Hypponen makes the case that serious online crime is almost always international and argues that "Antivirus and security companies are not law enforcement, nor should they be. They are protecting their customers' computers but little can be done directly by non-governmental organizations to fight the criminals at the heart of the matter. We should consider the creation of an online version of Interpol - 'Internetpol' - that is specifically tasked with targeting and investigating the top of the crimeware food chain."

Certainly, it's frustrating to see criminals half a world away cause thousands or millions of dollars of damage and loss to businesses and individual computer users and get away with it. The desire to "do something" is understandable, but is the creation of a brand new global bureaucracy the answer? Is it necessary? Would it be effective? Is the certain cost worth the potential benefits?

The organization after which Hypponen would model his international Internet police force hasn't always enjoyed a sterling reputation. Its former president, Jackie Selebi of the South African Police Service, was charged in his own country with three counts of corruption shortly after his resignation from the top spot at Interpol. The organization has more than 500 paid employees and member countries pay almost $60 million per year to maintain it.

Now, there's no implication that Interpol itself is corrupt, and it does a lot of good. The organization's own web site lists their top areas of priority: fighting corruption, drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism, tracking fugitives and ... financial and high tech crime.
INTERPOL

That leads to the logical question: if Interpol is already serving the role of coordinating international law enforcement agencies to fight high tech, intellectual property and cybercrime, why do we need to finance a whole new "Internetpol" to duplicate that effort? With so many nations showing large budget deficits and high levels of national debt, it's not as if taxpayers the world over really need something else to pay for. But it's not just the monetary cost of setting up such an organization that's worrisome.

What about the legal issues? One of the biggest obstacles to prosecuting purveyors of Internet crime is the fact that they often operate out of countries where their actions aren't against the law. Would an international Internet policing organization be given the authority to override a country's own laws in going after one of their residents?

Maybe so. In 1999, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was quoted as saying that "state sovereignty is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation." It might sound good on its face, but is a world government really what we, as free people, want and need? As a former law enforcement officer, I understand very well how standardization of laws would make it much easier on the police. But as a citizen of the U.S. and the state of Texas, I am less convinced that such standardization is good for "us, the people."

A free society makes and enforces laws according to the wishes, beliefs and value systems of the members of that society. The thing I like most about my country is that states are still able, at least in many respects, to have different laws that are appropriate for the people who live there. Some of the laws with which the people of Massachusetts or California are comfortable would not fly at all here in the Lone Star State. And that's okay; that's a good thing. One size doesn't fit all - but the trend toward global standardization wants to put us all into the same mold. Is an Internetpol just another step in that process?

You tell me. Am I all wrong about the potential dangers of establishing more and more law enforcement organizations with global power? What about the monetary cost? Is there a compelling reason that Interpol itself can't serve this purpose? Or is cybercrime such a huge and overarching problem that it requires more drastic measures? Let us know your opinions.