I think both me and Julien can happily note that after I made an intervention to the effect that cybercrimes must be perceived by the public as legitimate in order for measures against them to be perceived as legitimate, many individuals approached during the coffee break to express their support. I also had the feeling many of the participants were well aware that these conferences often have a political, rather than academic, interest and felt that it is a small problem that a multitude of views are often not heard on these topics.
In my opinion, because these conferences are very close-minded in their approaches to topics like cybercrime, measures developed inside the framework of each participants' home organisation end up of low quality. It was truly spectacular to note how one experienced participant with long experience from Interpol could readily start talking about how global justice requires an international court of cybercrime, while not being able to appropriately specify what types of crimes that would actually entail(!) Instead, there was a generally vague definition to "cyberattacks", the likes of which (as far as I'm aware of from the technical community) either aren't much of a threat or even much of a problem presently, at least not one that wouldn't better be solved by increasing technical capacity to address them rather than judiciary.
In general, prosecutors and attorneys tasked with upholding the law should be considering themselves much more responsible with respect to the general framework of society than they appear to be doing. It is after all not a small task to be responsible for the maintenance of our co-existence.
I think both me and Julien can happily note that after I made an intervention to the effect that cybercrimes must be perceived by the public as legitimate in order for measures against them to be perceived as legitimate, many individuals approached during the coffee break to express their support. I also had the feeling many of the participants were well aware that these conferences often have a political, rather than academic, interest and felt that it is a small problem that a multitude of views are often not heard on these topics.
In my opinion, because these conferences are very close-minded in their approaches to topics like cybercrime, measures developed inside the framework of each participants' home organisation end up of low quality. It was truly spectacular to note how one experienced participant with long experience from Interpol could readily start talking about how global justice requires an international court of cybercrime, while not being able to appropriately specify what types of crimes that would actually entail(!) Instead, there was a generally vague definition to "cyberattacks", the likes of which (as far as I'm aware of from the technical community) either aren't much of a threat or even much of a problem presently, at least not one that wouldn't better be solved by increasing technical capacity to address them rather than judiciary.
In general, prosecutors and attorneys tasked with upholding the law should be considering themselves much more responsible with respect to the general framework of society than they appear to be doing. It is after all not a small task to be responsible for the maintenance of our co-existence.