[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cybercrime treaty
I think I'll wade in here ... I agree that the idea is silly. It's also very chilling -- I think Stuart struck the right note when he said that it hobbles us without affecting the malevolent ones. I'll leave it at that, in order to spare you all my diatribes against those with power deciding what is an "illegal access" (Article 2 itself is quite chilling -- what does "other dishonest intent" mean?) And by the way, if you think 6a1 is bad, check out 6a2. -- kiss crack, johntheripper, etc. goodbye. And merely POSSESSING these seems to be illegal, under 6b (they mislabeled it a; it's the second a). Example: my classes in computer security regularly do penetration exercises on systems I control (they are having fun with a Windows 2000 box now :-)). As part of the exercise, they need to determine if particular vulnerabilities exist, and the use of attack tools is one way to do this. (There are others, and they try other means first; we spend a fair amount of time hammering on ethics, too.) But as I read what should be 6b, this means if they do write these tools, they become criminals. Am I being to apocalyptic here? Someone, please tell me I am! That old 70's radical, Matt PS: One thing, David -- if I remember my political science class taken umptiddy-ump years ago, treaties in the US are at the same level as the Constitution, so I'm not sure that the US federal courts would accept an argument that restricting this technology (break-in programs) is unconsititutional -- the issue arose during the court cases about the seizure of Iranian assets in the 1980s, and the US Government's efforts to return (some of) the assets. The leinholders hollared bloody murder, but -- if I remember correctly -- the US Supreme Court said too bad. Any lawyers (or computer scientists who play lawyers on the web :-)) know if I'm completely off base here?