More and more, it becomes obvious that cybercrime has lots of real-world effects that even the casual inspection cannot ignore. That’s been obvious to most of us who pay attention for years, but now it’s become enough of a problem that in the U.K., people at the tops of industry are starting to clamor for a e-crime chief position to be created, presumably somewhere in Scotland Yard.
The article points out the basic problem, which is as much ours as it is Brittan’s:
IT chiefs demand centralised e-crime unit | The Register
Instead of reporting cybercrime to the police, the public is encouraged to report fraud to their banks, a policy criticised by a House of Lords select committee and security researchers. Soca itself only takes reports of cybercrime indirectly, and tackles only the largest cases.
If you were to inform the police, it’s doubtful that many of them would understand, let alone have the tools and wherewithall to act in an appropriate manner. You’re forced to seek out the help of your financial institution. As much as they have a stake in settling such matters, your bank is going to have roughly the same problem, getting the FBI involved when it really isn’t always necessary.
Something like a cybercrime chief is certainly called for, here as well as in the UK. Trouble in this country would be: does this become a national position in the FBI (which we actually already have), or does this mean that states need to get more involved? States would have a tough time of it, since most cybercrime is going to of necessity happen inter-state and out of their jurisdiction. At the same time, forensic evidence could be collected much more efficiently if only states had better tools to work with.
And of course, in this state, having a first line of defense would be critical to places like Wall Street.
