Re: Summary of CyberCrime treaty discussions
Gene brings up an important point. Let's sign and move on.
We could continue to deliberate the pros and cons of signing in various
ways with some of us representing our organizations and others not.
That debate could rage for another week...plus add a week or longer to
get organizational coordination (and all the associated "happy" to
"glad" changes and approvals through our organizational structures...and
this board again). Representing the US Department of Defense...that
coordination will never happen in a timely manner.
In the interest of time, I recommend we all sign with a common
disclaimer that these are our "professional opinions and may or may not
represent the official position of our organizations" and leave it at
that. If we use the 2-column method, it may distract the readers into
wondering why we did that. It would make me think there was
disagreement on the content. I would prefer the reader focus on the
content and not the signature pages.
Let's sign and move on.
SCOTT A. LAWLER, CISSP
Gene Spafford wrote:
> I think we need to sign the letter and get it out soon.
> >*** Nations team up to fight cybercrime
> >(AP) - In an age when cybercriminals can reach across borders with
> >the click of a mouse, the world's leaders are realizing they will
> >have to work together to crack down on Internet attacks. Starting
> >Monday, leaders from Group of Eight countries will be in Paris for a
> >three-day discussion of Internet crime. Separately, the 41-nation
> >Council of Europe, working with the United States, Canada, Japan and
> >South Africa, is drafting a treaty to standardize cyber crime laws.
> >Though their efforts preceded the appearance of the "Love Bug" virus,
> >the attack that crippled corporate and government networks around the
> >globe earlier this month may have boosted the sense of urgency among
> >government leaders to implement Internet safeguards and create ways
> >to fight crime in cyberspace. See