1 / 12

No Cop on the Beat: Underenforcement in E-Commerce and Cybercrime

No Cop on the Beat: Underenforcement in E-Commerce and Cybercrime. Peter P. Swire Ohio State University & Center for American Progress Silicon Flatirons February 11, 2008 . The Puzzle. Policy for the next Administration

sauda
Download Presentation

No Cop on the Beat: Underenforcement in E-Commerce and Cybercrime

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. No Cop on the Beat:Underenforcement in E-Commerce and Cybercrime Peter P. Swire Ohio State University & Center for American Progress Silicon Flatirons February 11, 2008

  2. The Puzzle • Policy for the next Administration • Today grows from ongoing research about the Internet and consumer protection • Old paradigm of mostly local enforcement: • Local enforcement, county & state – a cop on the beat • Information is local • Punishment & deterrent effects are local • Evidence is local

  3. What Changes on the Internet? • Information problem • Commons problem • Forensic problem • Basic answer: non-local answers needed for non-local problems • More federal – FTC (Cmmr. Leibowitz yesterday) • More federated – networks of state AGs

  4. The Information Problem • Physical world: a cop on the beat • A consumer complaint comes in • Honest Amy’s Used Cars & Shady Sam’s Used Cars • Local enforcers have insight/expertise from previous complaints & use discretion

  5. The Information Problem • For online commerce, a complaint comes in to the county consumer protection office • Web site typically far away • The county has a tiny fraction of all consumer problems with the site • The county has weak information for exercising discretion • Likely result is underenforcement • “Underenforcement” means less enforcement than we would expect/prefer if purely local

  6. The Commons Problem • No commons problem where bad action and victim are local • Enforcers get credit for stopping local bad guys • Local victims are protected • Deterrent effects are local

  7. The Commons Problem • Online, enforcement incentives change • “Why should I spend my scarce prosecutorial resources when most of the protection goes to victims outside of my jurisdiction?” • Deterrence – I’d rather prosecute where strong deterrence locally • Public choice – I’d rather prosecute where mostly local people are protected • “Let someone else go after them” – a classic commons problem -- underenforcement

  8. Forensics Problem • This problem has been recognized in the literature • It’s harder to enforce where the evidence is outside of the locality • Harder to get cooperation from distant officials • Harder to trace where you don’t have compulsory process or other sources • Result is underenforcement

  9. Responses to Underenforcement • Information problem • Information sharing: Consumer Sentinel • Commons problem • Cross-border task forces • Organize around subject matter – ID theft, spam, etc. • Forensic problem • COE Cybercrime Convention for criminal • US SAFE WEB Act for FTC

  10. Responses to the Problem • More generally, recognize the need to match solutions to the scale of the problems • National (and international), so have national solutions • FTC role for spam, spyware, and other consumer protection • FTC staffing still far below 1980 levels • Federated – NAAG and other efforts to match geography with the problems

  11. Some Objections • “The Internet hasn’t really changed anything” • “Enforcement works better on the Internet” • “We don’t really want to enforce the law” • “States need to be laboratories of experimentation” • “The Feds don’t do small potatoes”

  12. Conclusion • The paper highlights the information and commons problems that exist for local enforcement and non-local fraud & crime • Likely need to shift to federal or federated enforcement • For whatever level of enforcement we want for each type of law, the next Administration should design strategies that address these problems

More Related