[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Cybercrime treaty
> Russ wrote: > > > > IMO, we should do nothing but prepare for a demonstration > case where one (or > > more of us) are the defendants. > > Russ - this is a treaty. That means every country will come up with > their own legal implementation. When they prosecute you in > Canada, for > example, the resulting precedent will do nothing for us in the U.S. > (It's actually a council of Europe treaty, but apparently the > US DOJ has > taken a strong role in drafting it). And if the treaty > starts out with > dumb provisions, it will be very hard not to end up with dumb > provisions > in all the implementing legislations in individual countries. I agree 100% with Stuart. It is a lot easier to change things like this in the early stages, and a well-reasoned response from a respected group could have some strong effects. We're also not without some political resources among our own group - for example, Sen. Nunn is on ISS' board. > > If we shot this down what will come afterwards? If we're > listened to, what > > would prefer it to say? > How about making it a crime to distribute an exploit script without > first giving two weeks notice to affected vendors? > > Think of this: if it was in an international treaty, you wouldn't have > to defend your policy on NTBugtraq :-) ROTFL. OK, let's get serious about this - what ought it say? Why shouldn't it say what it does? Let's come up with a reasoned response that the people who are doing this will listen to.