Cyber Crime and Junk Mail International Treaties

Extradition & Block–at–source international treaties for cyber crime and junk emailers to protect the integrity of the public internet.

Benefit: we aren't forced into private splinternet domains with private e–police

Comments

infzy — 2010–05–11 17:46:31 EDT wrote

I'm not sure…. I want the government to engage in as little filtering as possible so that the Internet stays a fair, open communication channel. Once you've got them filtering for junk email, then governments and/or "rights holders" can block freedom of speech. It's a fine line.

kaplanmyrth — 2010–05–13 11:12:29 EDT wrote

Hi dsanden — Just a thought, but I think this may fit better under the "Innovation Using Digital Technologies" topic. That's where the questions about protecting the online marketplace are (which requires dealing with cybercrime and junk mail).

Unfortunately, ideas in the Idea Forum can only be under one theme, but maybe you can move it to the other theme? If not, you could probably duplicate it there to get comments from people watching that theme…

Russell McOrmond — 2010–07–08 10:20:10 EDT wrote

We do not globally agree what constitutes "Cyber Crime". As an example, nearly all governments have speech/communications which they wish to regulate and filter. What individual citizens in each country considers appropriate and inappropriate censorship, and what it considers law and order, has become hotly debated.

For instance, in China they wish to monitor and filter communications, including mandating communications intermediaries like ISPs be involved, based on communications which they believe will destabilise the government. We in the west call this censorship.

Some western countries wish to monitor and filter communications, including mandating communications intermediaries like ISPss be involved, based on communications which they believe will destabilise specific business models (primarily, but not exclusively, entertainment/content industry).

While Western countries are pushing for global enforcement rules through treaties like ACTA, I fully expect to have some of the larger countries (India and China together represent 1/3 of the worlds populations) to push back and demand that their filtering rules also become part of the international content filtering system. While India and China would have very different filtering rules they would want implemented, they are still quite different than what Canada, the USA and some European countries have been pushing in ACTA.

I would love to believe there will be a time of global unity when we can globalise things such as this. But the more I look at current debates at places like WIPO and ACTA I recognise just how far from that place we are today. At WIPO we have the countries that represent the global majority (BRIC = Brazil, Russia, India, China) pushing for rules very different than what is seen in the global rich/minority (USA, Canada, Europe, etc).

Russell McOrmond — 2010–07–08 10:21:56 EDT wrote

kaplanmyrth,

As a side note, I have put all my ideas relating to the law under "infrastructure" as I consider the law to be infrastructure upon which these other things are built. I'm gathering people saw things differently. This is similar to other consultations where the groupings were not clear to many of the participants.