RE: Cybercrime treaty
So did I Craig.....interested in seeing how this goes as well as far as AV
vendors sharing such things as virus information!
I do believe it becomes a matter of "intent" but this treaty seems to be
couched in the usual vague "legalese" that allows various issues that arise
later to potentially be covered without having to rewrite and
recoordinate(is that a word?) the document.
From: Craig Ozancin [mailto:cozancin@AXENT.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: Cybercrime treaty
I have passed the treaty on to our legal people. I am interested in what
they might make of it.
From: Steven M. Christey [mailto:coley@LINUS.MITRE.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Cybercrime treaty
If we want to write up a draft, I nominate Adam and Scott, who started
this in the first place :-)
Some non-US Board members haven't commented in on this, including some
from Europe. I'd like to invite them to participate so that any
statement will be international in scope.
David LeBlanc, when is that computer crime summit you mentioned?
Finally, we have discussed the possibility of making a statement in
past Editorial Board meetings. Now that we are concretely pursuing
it, we must consider a few issues. First of all, there are about 25
Board members, but about half of them haven't commented yet. At
various times, some Board members may not be paying close attention to
the Board list because of other work they need to do. Should we have
all Board members approve any statement, or at least each
organization? Do we go so far as to vote on it (and allow for a
NOOP). And what do we do if the statement isn't unanimously agreed
to, and/or not all people have responded? Does the statement then
come from "Members of the CVE Editorial Board?" instead of the Board
as a whole?