IGF 2010 Workshop Report

 
 172
 
 Public-private cooperation on Internet safety/cybercrime
 
 Sophie Veraart, ECP-EPN
 
 

Workshop Program # 172 16.30 hr Welcome by moderator Liesyl Franz, Vice President for Information Security and Global Public Policy, TechAmerica Remote moderator: Sophie Veraart, ECP-EPN, Dutch Platform for the Information Society Information exchange between public and private parties on cybercrime threats and best practices fighting cybercrime 16.40 hr Fighting cybercrime in the UK Alun Michael, British Labour Co-operative politician and Member of Parliament 16.55 hr National Infrastructure against Cybercrime (NICC), the Dutch model Annemarie Zielstra, NICC, The Netherlands 17.10 hr The Georgian model Mrs. Rusudan Mikhelidze, Deputy head of analytical department, Head of research and analysis unit, Ministry of Justice, Georgia 17.25 hr Discussion Building trust and cooperation by creating national and international alliances 17.35 hr The importance of cooperative fight against cybercrime Marietje Schaake, European Parliament 17.45 hr Platform Internet Safety: a Dutch public private initiative Thomas de Haan, Ministry of Economic Affairs The Netherlands Roelof Meijer, SIDN 18.00 hr Cyber Crime Working Party: the international fight against cybercrime Jochem de Ruig,CFO of RIPE NCC Laurent Masson, Microsoft Wout de Natris, chair CCWP, De Natris Consult 18.20 hr Discussion What is the role and the responsibility of local/...

 

Information exchange between public and private parties on cybercrime threats and best practices fighting cybercrime In the first part of the workshop we discussed the importance of public private cooperation in the fight against cybercrime illustrated by best practices from the UK, The Netherlands, and the most recent model from Georgia. Alun Michael, British Labour Co-operative politician and Member of Parliament UK, said that it is important that public and private parties work together on solutions to combat and prevent cybercrime through cooperation and self regulation, thus avoiding the need for new regulation; “laws rarely prevent what they forbid”. In his view local and national governments should therefore be involved but the industry must be in the lead in this. But they cannot be left to do it alone and you can't leave the private sector and government to do things on their own, parliamentarians should also be involved as well as governments, he stated. According to Alun Michael public-private partnerships can be successful in this if we get industry to accept the importance of this approach and to recognize that engagement with preventing crime is the price for avoiding the traditional approach of excessive legislation which inhibits the proper exploitation of the internet, in other words, the exploitation by the good guys not just by the criminals. Tracking down and prosecuting cybercrime? Annemarie Zielstra, National Infrastructure against Cybercrime (NICC), The Netherlands, asked. She found it extremely important but not the real solution for the problem. According to her prevention is better. That is why the NICC program has brought together public and private organizations in the Nationa...

 

National Infrastructure against Cybercrime (NICC), The Netherlands. Their brochure can be downloaded below. nicc@ictu.nl Dutch Independent platform for the information society ECP-EPN: info@ecp-epn.nl

 

In workshop 172 we discussed the importance of public private cooperation in the fight against cybercrime illustrated by good practices from the UK, The Netherlands and the most recent model from Georgia. • It is important that public en private parties work together on solutions to combat and prevent cybercrime through cooperation and self regulation, thus avoiding the need of new regulation, which seldom solves the problems. • The experience shows that starting small and learning by doing works best. Do not try to solve everything at once but see what is working and what not. Think big, act small. During the debate some issues were raised, which are useful for further discussion - Everyone sees the need for public private cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. But how does this public private cooperation refer to the democratic oversight? How is dealt with transparency, accountability and democracy? - ISP´s have engaged in the fight of cybercrime but sometimes authorities tend to stretch the definition of what is illegal to what is ´unwanted´ - It is important to all stakeholders to invest in building trust and demonstrate added value in the cooperation between all parties involved such as industry, government, parliament and civil society

 

It is important that public en private parties work together on solutions to combat and prevent cybercrime through cooperation and self regulation, thus avoiding the need of new regulation, which seldom solves the problems.