The organization already exists as Interpol. US IT!

Michael, my understanding is that Interpol is more of a international crime intelligence service that has the power to investigate and share information. However, Interpol doesn't have the power to cross borders and make arrests. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, globally we need much better cooperation between enforcement agencies. However the McKinnon case is perhaps the worst example you could have chosen to illustrate your point.

This is the case of a slightly impaired man, clearly fixated on UFOs, embarrassing the US government (and military in particular) by meandering around some insignificant systems looking for the great X-files conspiracy.

The measure of damage done to these systems has been blown out of proportion in order to justify the punitive sentence the US courts would seek to impose. The difficulty in apprehending McKinnon almost negligible.

Leaving aside the poor choice of example (why not Eastern European bot-herders or African phishermen ? Surely these represent more of a clear and present danger than McKinnon) the notion of an international organisation that could easily interface with national law enforcement bodies is a good idea but has proved difficult to establish to confront drug smuggling or terrorism.

The world will also not tolerate the US deciding that it will be the policeman of the internet, which may appeal to a future administration. Of course the US may press ahead with it's own plans and establish such an initiative but by that time the US will have significant influence over about a third (at best) of the global network, making it a pointless and potentially antagonistic action to wards the rest of the online world.

A global agreement to pursue wrongdoers is welcome but about as easy as any other worldwide initiative one can think of, such as climate change, terrorism, drugs, people smuggling etc.

Interesting that Kaspersky should suggest this, having lived most of his life in a police-state.

You're right; there are many more examples of more serious hackers than McKinnon. I used McKinnon to illustrate the problem because he just lost his latest appeal for extradition. While that's good news to U.S. prosecutors, it's taken nearly six years to get the extradition order from a country that is supposedly friendly to our cause. Eastern European and African states would be a far more difficult challenge; depending on the severity of the hacker, extradition from those regions would probably require a "black bag" op.

Won't happen until we have a one world govt.
Wich i hope is NEVER.

Bad idea.

Cooperation between departments/nations is not really bad but creating "global" police is just inviting abuse.
This leads to interference with a country's right/ability to enforce THEIR OWN laws and punishments.

I think a global police force is a misleading definition. The thing is, there's safe havens for these criminals because their countries won't/can't investigate such crimes. Then, let's make such a global police force operative only where it's needed (so that countries that don't have such a thing can have it for free -or almost free) and keep only a collaboration relationship with law enforcement in first world countries where cybercrime is effectively punished.

Now that's not a bad idea. The U.S. government already sends "support" teams to foreign countries to investigate crimes and major incidents that result in the loss of life (terrorist attacks, plane crashes, etc.). An international cyber-SWAT team could serve the same purpose for prosecuting hackers.

This is a terrible idea.

Look at the globalization efforts and how this has caused bad financial decisions in one area to propagate due to common financial instruments. The same will happen here as well, it will start out in one particular area and then grow to another. FinCEN.gov is another example of real-time financial monitoring.

This is all fine and good as long as two things happen: clear limits on authority and justification of same, and clear and provably workable method of punishing those who abuse the system. Neither of these will get put on the table.

It's nothing more than another attempt to use one threat to build a data collection system to manipulate the masses. The cure is worse than the disease.

If they create a cyber police state, I will [EXPLETIVE OMITTED] up all their computer networks and will defeat ALL of them in a cyber war. I can take down an entire government using only my laptop. If they try to take control of the internet, I will declare a cyber war against them and win!

I've commented elsewhere that the situation we find ourselves in is a mongrel combination of warfare and crime. Whether we want to be deputized into the struggle with the cybercriminals out there or not, we're part of it.

If we're not part of the solution, I see no alternative but to admit to being part of the problem. Ignorant people responding to spam, venal people responding to get-rich-quick schemes, clueless people opening attachments, or careless people not keeping their systems updated put all the rest of us at risk. There are plenty of opportunities to get side-swiped even without being in one of these groups. Until there are real teeth in international law, and real cooperation between countries in going after these criminals, nothing substantial will happen.

If all this takes a new international police regime, so be it. I'm tired of having the criminals have the upper hand at this point. Put 'em away for life; we'll all be the better for it.

Good idea or bad idea aside, where would the money come from to fund such a force? And if the money were available would government or private security providers be better suited to act as the Internet cops? Would a privatized global Internet police force represent a new managed services opportunity for VARs?

LMAO. So Joe, are you suggesting a "Blackwater" operation by VARs as NGO law enforcement for governments who can't or won't get their hands dirt or don't want to get their hands dirty with a "black bag" op?

My answer to the question is an emphatic YES!!!

If the crimes are being perpetrated electronically then I don't see they can't be stopped electronically. We have been self-policing for years, why not establish virtual laws and form a virtual law enforcement agency. No guns, no armies, and no violence. When someone breaks the virtual law, they get cut off from the rest of virtual society (prison).

Just like SETI used the power of distributed processing (over 3 million strong) to search for life out in the heavens, why not harness all that power for our virtual law enforcement agency to stop those who prey on others. Think of the possibilities.

I propose forming a consortium to "serve and protect" the honest members of the virtual community from those with a misguided mission of mischief and mayhem.

It's time for us to ACT as a community and take back the Internet and make it a tool for the advancement of humankind.

Such a global law enforcement task force already exists for certain crimes. See:

http://www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com/

The Internet was not invented as a way to communicate in case of a nuclear war, it was a way for college students (at MIT I believe it was) to transfer data and such over a network so there wasn't a mess of disks lying around.

Mike, you are correct, if you're excluding the current Internet that started as CERN's World Wide Web project. But the forerunning of the modern Internet started as a DARPA project that resulted in ARPANET, a packet-switching network, that was developed as an adjunct to military projects.

Rather interesting blog you've got here. Thank you for it. I like such themes and anything that is connected to them. I would like to read more soon.