Hi,

I don't think anyone disagrees with the use of due process and transparent legal methods of law enforcement.  The problem is that often, government and the non-govertnmental defenders of property rights find loopholes and ways around appropriate law enforcement.   

avri

On 20 Oct 2011, at 11:45, Alain Berranger wrote:

> Thanks Milton,
> 
> Yes, but the reverse is true also: while suspected cyber criminals are given the presumption of innocence during the unavoidable due diligence process, innocent victims are or may have been damaged !... sometimes that damage is "irréparable" or permanent!..given the interconnectedness nature of the internet, much if not most cybercrime is cross-border...in fact criminal schemes are most often designed around cross-border faults or gaps... between countries with opposing ends of the privacy-law enforcement spectrum...  They are a few rogue states today where due diligence and lack of inter-agency collaboration leave no doubt with most about the protection cybercriminals get from rogue politicians, to their mutual benefit... We should use available international law enforcement approaches against the obvious and evidence-based crimes in those cases... I refrain from naming countries for obvious reasons...
> 
> See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/exploring-the-growing-threat-of-cyber-crime/article2205621/ for a Canadian overview...
> 
> What chagrines me to no end is that cybercrime benefits are "fungeable" and contribute to other cross-border crimes like human trafficking, child pornography,... 
> 
> Alain
> 
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Alain,
> 
> The problem is rarely one of deciding how much privacy a criminal should have. Most often, the problem is determining whether the person being taken down, disrupted or exposed IS IN FACT A CRIMINAL. That’s the problem typically with conservative approaches to law enforcement: they assume that we already know who is guilty, and structure their procedures accordingly. But the procedures are in place to protect the innocent, and to make sure(r) that we actually have strong reason to believe that the person being affected is a wrongdoer and not an innocent bystander.   
> 
> 
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:44 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] for Debbie: Explaining votes made while representing NCSG while on GNSO Council
> 
> 
> 
> Can we all agree that there is malfeasance on the Web and that it should be brought down as often and as much as possible? The raft of cybersecurity legislation around the world's legislations is probably a confirmation of the seriousness and extent of the problem. However it is accepted widely that we must strike a balance between fighting cybercrime and ensuring data protection/privacy. How much privacy should a criminal have in the accomplishment of the crime?... so whatever our personal views on that, please let's allow for all positions along that spectrum and allow for debate. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
> Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>