Fraud: which offence to go for?

The adventures (?) of a hacker/insider trader in the US: would be funny if at stake were not so much money and many a lack of thinking from authorities "Hacker May Get To Keep Insider Trading Windfall -- Because He Obtained Info Illegally" (18 February 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080217/190615270.shtml

Tackling cybercrime in the UK and in the US

Need of ressources

The House of Lords tries to put pressure on UK Government, with limited success though. Nothing serious has been done since August 2007, and to wait until next August, knowing the timing of legislation, just means more delays... "Lords inquiry looks again at internet security "(21 February 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39327039,00.htm


Use of ressources: charging for the right crime!!
use of insider trading laws in the US instead of computer fraud! (18 February 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080217/190615270.shtml

Censorship and control of the internet by many

The article is clear enougthand echoes Goldsmith's and Wu's book on Who controls the internet?
"China To Disable Great Firewall For The Olympics?" (21 February 2008)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml

And see Pakistan's attitude "Pakistan Joins The Axis Of NoTube; Screws Up The Internet" (25 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080224/165013332.shtml

Contrast it with Australian attempt to control the internet over child porn "That Didn't Take Long At All: $89 Million Australian Internet Filters Called A Failure" (21 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080218/031316280.shtml

and the issue with Finland: "Finland Censoring Sites Police Don't Like, Falsely Claiming They Contain Child Porn" (19 February 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080218/234332286.shtml

On the ISPs front, always the same issue "Did Yahoo Delete The Pirate Bay From Search Results?" (18 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080218/143649283.shtml

(08 February 2008) "Chinese Professor Suing Google And Yahoo For Making Him Disappear From Chinese Search" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/142142203.shtml

and the use of tracking system for ads... and maybe one day for other purposes? "UK ISPs To Start Tracking Your Surfing To Serve You Ads" (18 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080218/024203278.shtml

Cybercrime: what is free information?

we've seen it with the theory of post-scarcity economy; but what about academic research? I always maintained research should be available for free but with acknowledgement of authors. It is thus interesting that Harvard takes that path. "Harvard Faculty Agrees To Free Up Its Research" (13 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/003344243.shtml


If the EU goes that way, what about theft of IP address? Think about what stealing a postal address is and compare: same issues at stake; not so much, actually IP is worse.
"Is Your IP Address Your Personal Information?" (23 January 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080121/19520029.shtml

Investigation: police forces and the internet

The negative (and recurrent) view about the need for special forces and more money to tackle cybercrime: (15 February 2008)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292863,00.htm?r=1

and more specific problems of investigations: "German Government Struggles To Tap Encrypted Skype Calls" (28 January 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080127/10382079.shtml

with a US case that could well apply in the future to the UK: "Police Officers Can Search Your iPhone Following Arrest For A Traffic Violation" (22 January 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080122/005904.shtml

and an unusual turn to investigatigatory powers related to piracy laws (21 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/151032309.shtml

But finally for the positive side of the internet!!! "One Other Thing The Internet Is Useful For: Highlighting Dumb Criminals" (28 January 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/16063695.shtml

and for the use of YouTube (21 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080221/094928313.shtml

Social networking - privacy and crime

"Deleting Your Facebook Profile Isn't So Easy": if you can only deactivate, but details still seen by others, how can ID theft be avoided? TechDirt (11 February 2008)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/024809220.shtml

"Cop Gets Investigated Because MySpace Friend Links To Porn" TechDirt (29 January 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/195457100.shtml

ISPs/hosting liability - noticing - Comparative law

A translated decision from a French law court on December 12, 2007 (Court of appeal from Paris, i.e. an important court because of its location, it gets interesting cases to deal with). Google's liability is at stake as it did not remove promptly the litigious posting:

"That it results from all the above that it is by communicating to the appellants, after having issued a writ against them, the evidences proving [i] their rights in the trademarks of BENETTON group, [ii] the fact that no "Angela Brozzi" worked for this group, [iii] the fact that her face appeared on the Internet under another name, [iv] the fact that the pictures reproduced on the litigious blog were those of a catalogue belonging to BENETTON group, [v] the fact that the non-professional editor hiding himself behind the name "Angela Brozzi" requested to young women, by wrongfully claiming a professional reason, pictures showing them in swimsuit or underwear, THAT the respondents provided the justifications which enabled GOOGLE INC to take knowledge of the manifestly illicit nature of the denounced content;

That GOOGLE INC does not deny the fact that the manifestly illicit nature was established and known, since it had these evidences; that, therefore, it should then have acted promptly to withdraw this information or to render it inaccessible, without awaiting the decision of the first judge; "

For the full decision, see http://www.juriscom.net/jpt/visu.php?ID=1023


And for Canada's view on ISPs' liability, see TechDirt 22 January 2008 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080121/13395424.shtml

Post-scarcity and virtual worlds

a November post already looked at this economic theory of post-scarcity the founder of TechDirt often explains and discusses. Another article quite interesting for the implications it could have on cybercrime "Kevin Kelly's Eight Key Scarcities" (4 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080202/210638158.shtml

may not seem related, but I think they are: "More Evidence Of Why Virtual World Economies Are Risky" (6 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080204/220026172.shtml

Cyber investigation and anonymity

Been a long time since I last heard of anonymity; I nearly thought it was a buried issue, but US Government policy seems to stir the matter again. The approach is definitely threatening liberties, plus technically and financially I wonder if it is really viable. Can't police forces be used differently? "Gov't Says Second Life + Online Anonymity = Terrorism" (7 February 2008)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/050559194.shtml

not sure to agree with the comments that other jurisdictions are less protective, unless by jurisdictions the author thought of some particularly problematic countries... "California Appeals Court Supports Right To Anonymous Posting" (7 February 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080206/214912193.shtml

and "One Way To Reveal Anonymous Posters: Subpoena The Sites They Read" (30 January 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080128/02263889.shtml

Censorship and ISPs liability

Not a cybercrime problem as such, there is no criminal offence here, but rather a question of liability of ISPs in protecting fundamental rights. Only one person really talks about the Great Wall of China in technology, isolating very effectively the country and questioning fundamental assumptions of the West about the link between economic development and democracy: Goldsmith and Wu in their book of "Who controls the internet?". Note that newspapers tend to keep silent on that issue and yet they should be at the forefront the battle, no?
(7 February 2008)
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25318 and http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25318

Fraud and cybercrime

An timely article for our next class will be on fraud: "Tech helps UK fraud reach a 12-year high" (5 February 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292629,00.htm

Idem for this one on identity fraud and Facebook. The social network really is not my cup of tea and I found it more problematic than enhancing communications. "Forget Identity Fraud, What About Facebook Identity Fraud?" (7 Februrary 2008) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080206/170004191.shtml

Fighting cybercrime: police forces

whereas the UK seems to take the opposite option with the dismantlement of the cybercrime special force, India wakes up to the challenge with training specialised police officers. Obviously 4000 persons is an insignificant number compared to the indian population, but on the other hand, it is not that bad because not even 50% of the country is computer literature. "India to train thousands more cyberpolice" (7 February 2008)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292697,00.htm

Hi-jacking and wi-fi

Just to see new avenues to cybercrime: the problems of wi-fi and its current lack of security features rendering it an easy target for criminals. Apart from using the internet for free, there is the obvious danger of accessing important information, manipulating it or using it for fraudulent purposes. "Home workers' online mischief puts employers at risk" (7 February 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292704,00.htm

Investigations and privacy: possible issues?

Here is the Statewatch newsletter of 22 January 2008 (01/08)Home page: http://www.statewatch.org - Enlightening if applied to cybercrime... Note also the old partnership bewteen UK and USA

"6. UK-USA: 1948 UKUSA agreement and ECHELON states behind "Server inthe Sky" project: Press coverage reporting that the FBI is seeking toset up a global alliance to target suspected terrorists and criminalshas not so far noted the historical origins of "Server in the Sky"project to collect and exchange personal biometrics and data. Thegroup behind the initiative is the "International InformationConsortium" comprised of the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and NewZealand. The same five states started intelligence gathering in theCold War era under the 1948 UKUSA agreement which set up a globalmonitoring system led by the NSA (USA) and Government CommunicationsHQ in the UK (GCHQ).And the very same five states set up the ECHELON surveillance systemin the 1980s which extended communications gathering on a huge scalefrom military objectives to political and economic targets bytrawling the ether for keywords, phrases and groups.Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:"The USA and the UK have been running global surveillance systemssince the start of the Cold War through the NSA and GCHQ and theirscope was extended by the ECHELON system in the 1980s. For nearly 60years, since 1948, these hidden systems have been beyond democraticcontrol and now we see this alliance extending its tentacles to covernot just suspected terrorists but criminals as well. Its activitiesare likely to be as unaccountable as ever, by-passing standards ofprivacy and data protection."

Background
- European Parliament: Echelon report:http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/sep/echelon.pdf

- Appraisal of technologies of political control (for the EP STOA Committee):http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/may/steve-wright-stoa-rep.pdf

- European Union and the FBI launch global surveillance system: AStatewatch report, 10 February 1997:http://www.statewatch.org/NEWS4A.HTM

- News report: FBI wants instant access to British identity data -Americans seek international database to carry iris, palm and fingerprints (Guardian, link):http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C%2C332065468-103690%2C00.html

Spamming: money, money, money..

Like hacking and the like, spamming is very profitable an activity, especially when linked with stock trading. According to this article, £1.5m in one summer, more than the salary in one's life time for most of us; and guess where they are coming from, sadly? Russia, HK and Canada, highlighting a constant feature of cybercrime, i.e. it is global crime.
The article does not hint on how the investigation has been done, but i'll be curious to know if the stock exchanges internal police were involved...

"US indicts pump-and-dump 'spam king' " (4 January 2008)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39291884,00.htm

Hacking, extorsion, espionage...: money and political motives

Nothing new; most hacks aim at money.

Extorsion (or blackmail) is very profitable. see Tom Espiner, "Schneier: Cyber-extersion on the increase" ZDNet (23 january 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292357,00.htm

as well as corporate espionage, ZDNet (7 january 2008) http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/0,1000001991,39291900,00.htm
and ZDNet (28 January 2008) where Greek Police arrested a hacker selling the corporate secrets of Dassault (French military company) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292445,00.htm


and in general, about profits made by selling hack services and other tools: "Cracking open the cybercrime economy" (14 December 2007)
http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,39291463,00.htm

And when it is not hacking, it is modifying data, for revenge... An employee in the US was found guilty of computer damage and got 30 months imprisonment, a particularly harsh sentence comparing to customary sanctions applied (9 January 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292027,00.htm

And from time to time, political motives are not forgotten: "Hackers crash Panama's National Assembly website" (22 January 2008) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292320,00.htm

Hacking: anatomy of an attack

Several comments sprung to mind when I read the article:
1) the liability of the hacker, what if he was employed by security firm?
2) why goverment as a target? government is not the only institution to have information. Tesco has probably more about us that government.
3) the IT team seems doing its work; how efficient is technology to counterattack technology?
4) the key role IT team plays in safeguarding evidence which for criminal investigation purposes can only be crucial...
Sally Whittle, "Anatomy of an attack", ZDNet (7 January 2008)
http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/0,1000001991,39291953,00.htm

Preventing crime: internet, a help to police forces

Often, internet is viewed as a threat by police forces because of its elusive character and the challenges it creates in relation to criminal procedure. But sometimes new technologies can be for the better: see the FBI thinking of using it to list all crimes having recently occured, a bit like the TV series Crimewatch... with the same dangers? " Crowdsourcing Law Enforcement" (28 December 2007) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/145343.shtml


and for a similar theme, but with a real case of a Japanese criminal wanted for 25 years who indicated on his blog his travel to US territory and obviously got! (29 February 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080229/080250385.shtml

Criminal procedure: intercepting and posting

Intercepting communications is not new (remember the old days where post mail was opened and retained...) and the requirement to do it openly or at least within a framework where effective control exists has never been well accepted by investigatory forces. So it should not come as a surprise that the FBI does not particularly appreciate to follow court orders "FBI Apparently Believes That Court Orders Are For Suckers" (21 December 2007)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071221/141358.shtml

A bit more problematic, but among similar lines because of conflicting interests, the possibility nowadays for anybody to post videos about other people including when they behave badly. Should it be allowed? or should we be a bit more responsible? TechDirt made a stark comment about students not being allowed to post bad behaviour of their teachers; but is it their job to do so? Are there not other means to deal with problematic behaviour? My concern moreover is the effect on potentially disciplinary proceedings to be started on the teacher on the basis of the video without any regulation about it. And what if the video is a fake? At least, regulations for videos in criminal procedure are there to ensure the media's reliability... "Student Films Principal Fighting Another Student... School Board Bans Mobile Phones" (21 December 2007) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071218/224449.shtml

Cybercrime, copyrights: what is free information?

Identity theft presupposes that the information is confidential because it is private or because of its commercial value or its intellectual value. But what about data that informs readers of the news of the world?
Newspapers struggle between two avenues: asking for payment to view contents (news of the day or/and archives), making the data available for free and finding new means to cover costs, notably to pay journalist.
Two articles shed light on the debate and can possibly help understanding when there is theft of information.
The first article, at TechDirt, gives a historical perspective to the debate by reminding us that news were usually given for free and adverts cover the most costs. "Why Journalists Demanding Newspapers Charge For News Need To Check Up On Newspaper History" 2 January 2008 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071231/002429.shtml

The second article, also at TechDirt, looks at a specific issue, the struggle to hire sport journalists, and put it in perspective. Maybe the difficulties newspapers have do no relate to the internet, but the evolution of society as a whole, internet being part of this evolution, but only a part of it. " The Journalism Business Is Dying? Someone Forgot To Tell Sports Reporters..." 26 December 2007 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071226/020326.shtml

I can't stop myself making a link with something apparently different but ultimately very close to the issue. Apparently a MIT professor was so unhappy somebody used 2 lines of his work he sued them, the money went to charities. All is well apparently because he did not get the money; but what is the value and purpose of suing for one person having used 2 lines of work? Can he not content himself with a reference to his name? I personally would not dream to ask people to pay to use my work, as long as my name is visible somewhere, and there is no commercial exploitation of my work (i.e. the idea is the fundamental basis of a new machine or service). "Professor Uses Copyright Threats After Joke Commercial Uses Some Of His Lecture" 26 December 2007 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071226/014929.shtml