Reference no: EM131489366

(411 ada) "As is the case with all things international law there is no one-size fits all answer among sovereign nations. While the debate continues, it is apparent that some form of Internet governance is required. Handing power to the governments of the world at the exclusion of the companies and private agencies seems exclusive; yet withholding sovereign authority from nations seems to contradict the role and purpose of government." I agree with the statement above 200 word please list references reply to this post:

While there are many cyber-attacks that target individuals and organizations with the purpose stealing money or disrupting infrastructure, the negative effects of these incidents are often limited in scope and damage; the individual or the organization. In the case of cyber-spying, damage can be so far reaching that an entire nation (or multiple) could be affected. According to the 2013 Cybersecurity Overview for Congress, cyber-spying is when "individuals...steal classified or proprietary information used by governments or private corporations to gain a competitive strategic, security, financial, or political advantage." (Fischer, 2013) In previous times, obtaining classified information from an adversary was extremely difficult. Involving either conducting surveillance, recruitment of insiders, or physically accessing the location containing the information, historical spying techniques were extremely cumbersome and risky compared to cyber-spying. As an example of how damaging cyber-attacks can be, in 2011 the FBI reported that a private company was attacked via cyber means, and as a result lost 10 years' worth of development data which was valued at $1 billion; all within a single day. (Fischer, 2013) The risk to classified information and U.S. military dominance cannot be understated. In high profile cases such as Edward Snowden, thousands of documents stolen from insiders on removable media can cause irreparable damage to national security. (BBC, 2014) When compared to historical espionage, this amount of data extraction in such a short period of time is mind blowing. Our national policy makers understand this threat, and as a result have initiated the Cybersecurity National Action Plan, as well as other initiative to strengthen of nations' cybersecurity for individuals, industry, and the government. (White House, 2016) One suggestion to increase overall cybersecurity would be to improve or increase encryption standards for private, commercial and government use beyond what is already in place.

2) Jurisdictional Boundaries

In criminal justice, law enforcement can investigate and arrest within their physical jurisdiction. In the case of cybercrime, the jurisdictional boundaries of nations become a difficult barrier in investigations, apprehension and ultimately prosecutions. As technology has advanced, so has criminal activities and more often than ever, cybercrime is a growing avenue that international criminals use to commit fraud, identity theft, money laundering, etc. (Finklea, 2013) If a cybercrime has been committed and the perpetrators are either in a foreign country or they evade law enforcement and go to a foreign country, the United States is limited in what they can do to bring these criminals to justice. If an extradition treaty exists, the U.S. may request that the government of that country and its law enforcement take up the investigation and track down and arrest these criminals with the eventual extradition to the U.S. (Finklea, 2013) If an extradition treaty does not exist, then the U.S. is left with very limited options, and international criminals involved in cybercrime targeting the U.S. may remain at large indefinitely. (Finklea, 2013) Additionally, laws among nations vary, and in the case of cybercrime there may be a wide variety of laws between nations involved in alleged crimes. In the case of distributing child pornography for example, there are 95 countries with no laws criminalizing the possession or distribution, and as a result the U.S. could find it difficult to completely stop the influx of these illegal materials into its borders from these nations with no law prohibiting it. (Finklea, 2013) In order to improve the situation of jurisdictional boundaries being a roadblock in cybercrime, the U.S. could seek extradition treaties with nations it currently does not so that criminals in foreign countries could still face justice in the U.S.

3) Internet Governance Debate

In the last few decades, the Internet has become a major utility and method of communication in the lives of billions of people around the world. While the internet is vast and seemly everywhere, it is not controlled or governed by one single entity. (Kruger, 2016) There have been many attempts to define what internet governance is, and who should govern it, and while no singular definition exists there is a general consensus that internet governance is the collective decision-making by those who own and operate the networks connected to it. (Kruger, 2016) As time has progressed and the internet has evolved, two main debates have surfaced on who should govern the internet. On one side, the United States and its supporters view the current multistakeholder model that is used today as the best institution of internet governance. On the other side of the conversation, governments of nations seek to have an evenly distributed role in overseeing the Internet, and many nations have pushed to form an agency within the United Nations that oversees the internet. During the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in December 2012, many nations submitted and signed Resolution 3 to the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) of the International Telecommunications Union ( an agency within the U.N.) which places a non-binding resolution that "all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance." (Kruger, 2016) In total, out of the 144 members of the ITU there were 89 nations that signed the treaty, and 55 nations that did not sign. The U.S. did not sign, citing the need for the multistakeholder model to remain. (Kruger, 2016) As it seems the world is divided on the topic of internet governance, the only true solution to the debate is continued discourse. As is the case with all things international law there is no one-size fits all answer among sovereign nations. While the debate continues, it is apparent that some form of Internet governance is required. Handing power to the governments of the world at the exclusion of the companies and private agencies seems exclusive; yet withholding sovereign authority from nations seems to contradict the role and purpose of government.

References

Fischer, E. A., Liu, E. C., Rollins, J. W., Theohary, C. A. (2013). The 2013 Cybersecurity Executive Order: Overview and Considerations for Congress. CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service.

BBC News. (2014). Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme. BBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964

The White House. (2016) FACTSHEET: Cybersecurity National Action Plan. Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/09/fact-sheet-cybersecurity-national-action-plan

Finklea, K.K. (2013). The Interplay of Borders, Turf, Cyberspace, and Jurisdiction: Issues Confronting U.S. Law Enforcement. CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service.

Kruger, L.G. (2016). Internet Governance and the Domain Name System: Issues for Congress. CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service.