International Cybersecurity Agreement

10 PRoCEES oF A woRkSHoP on deEtERRing CYBERAttACkS Gillibrand joined Senator Orin Hatch to propose a more comprehensive bill to coordinate global cybersecurity efforts. In a statement of support for the legislation, Senator Hatch announced that cybercrime is a tangible threat to the security of the global economy, which is why we must coordinate our fight around the world. Until countries take the necessary steps to combat criminals in their country, cybercrime ports will continue to thrive. We do not have the luxury of resting on our laurels and doing nothing, and the International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act will not only serve as a deterrent to cybercrime, but will prove to be an essential tool necessary to keep the internet open to business. Coun – is knowingly trying to allow cybercriminals within their borders to allow cybercriminals to know now that the United States is watching the global community, and there will be consequences for not acting. 38 Senators have announced that their bill has the support of U.S. companies such as Cisco, HP, Micro- soft, Symantec, PayPal, eBay, McAfee and major financial institutions. 39 IV. FASHIONINg EFFETIVE INTERNATIONAL INITIATIvES The potential benefits of safeguarding agreements on international cybersecurity standards and standards stem from the view that by adopting and implementing such measures, states could create a culture and practices that are more conducive to cybersecurity than they currently are. The important awareness that the internet and other computer systems (such as other transnational activities) are subject to state control 40 implies that state assistance is needed to achieve effective safety standards and appropriate technological standards.

Only states can limit their own destabilizing activities, and their cooperation is essential to curb patriotic hackers and cybercrime. The harmonization of legislation and practices cannot guarantee effective cooperation, particularly with regard to the application of rules or practices that do not accurately reflect – leading to policy differences. However, harmonization has not taken place and is essential to ensure the benefits of repressive measures through extradition and mlAT contracts and to ensure the interoperability of security systems. Harmonization, which is effectively applied, implies the existence of national plans and practices – policies that enable the implementation of common international policies. Improving the capacity to implement standards, practices and standards is another potential benefit of an international agreement. Assuming that the current process, controlled by individuals and professionals, to create common technological positions on cyber activity is valuable and deserves to be preserved, a mechanism in which national governments could comply with such positions through an international structure could lead to faster and more consistent acceptance, which could lead to safer and more robust cyber-networks. Finally, an international agreement could be used to resolve some, if not all, of the current political maneuvers on agencies, states or other agencies that should play an important transnational role in ICT development and security. The current de facto distribution of power seems to have exploded a competition for influence that could disrupt cybersecurity rather than improve it. A redistribution of responsibilities acceptable to all parties involved could ensure constructive cooperation in a very complex undertaking.

However, the negotiation of agreements that effectively exploit these potential benefits must respond satisfactorily to the difficulties and objections that the United States has encountered to date.

Comments are closed.