RE: CyberCrime Treaty Statement - draft text
Good first draft. Andre does make a point, at least for some of us,
concerning the impact on the marketing/sales side of business, especially
internationally if some countries should elect to impose stiffer
restrictions under this Treaty.
Also agree with Spaf's arguments/insights. Unless we get our concerns in
front of those who are in positions to have the desired impact on this
treaty and champion our issues, we would be just another disgruntled group
with limited clout.
I have been keeping my company aware of the board's concerns as well. I see
similar impact on the way the AV side of security could be impacted since
the exchange of virii/mobile code stands to be adversly affected as well.
I would like to get a company position rather than just a Mike's position.
From: Frech, Andre (ISSAtlanta) [mailto:AFrech@ISS.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:46 AM
To: 'Steven M. Christey'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: CyberCrime Treaty Statement - draft text
Steve and Stuart,
Excellent work. I appreciate your efforts in developing this draft.
One suggestion: has anyone considered how Article 6 could impact the *sales*
of programs that contain exploit code? I know that we don't think a lot
about Marketing issues (sorry about the double meaning :-) ), but this issue
should be important to one or more of us on the board.
I've placed a few comments in Steve's markup below to indicate areas where
we could insert something about the sale of programs that contain exploit
code. It'd be great if with minimal effort we could include the fiscal
activities that make most of our research possible.
Thanks for listening.
Andre Frech | email@example.com | 678-443-6241
Internet Security Systems, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Christey [mailto:coley@LINUS.MITRE.ORG]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 8:59 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: CyberCrime Treaty Statement - draft text
> Below is an adaptation of the draft text that Stuart Staniford wrote
> up. Stuart, great job on the first draft - it looks almost exactly
> like the discussion summary I just wrote up :-)
> We cannot resolve the issue of whether the Board should make a unified
> statement within this week. At MITRE, we believe that we should
> ensure that the Board represents all opinions, and/or be certain that
> there is a clear way to disassociate Board opinions from a member's
> organization's opinions. That's especially important given that only
> about half of the Board members have directly expressed support for
> such a statement, and a third of the Board hasn't even acknowledged to
> me that they are aware of the issue. It will take more than this week
> to decide how to handle non-unanimous statements properly.