Re: [BOARD] Status of CyberCrime treaty statement
* Scott Blake (blake@BOS.BINDVIEW.COM) [000626 22:10]:
> Do I understand correctly that MITRE is no longer willing to host the
> website, even if the Board wishes to proceed with the statement? Also,
> will MITRE personnel no longer endorse the statement?
> I have to disagree with the DoJ's assessment. Our position was not that
> the treaty would lead directly to the criminalization of our jobs.
> Rather, we (as I understand it) are raising a concern about the potential
> for misinterpretation. Some staffer at DoJ assuring MITRE's corporate
> counsel that that's not the intent changes exactly nothing in my mind.
> I'm also more than a little concerned about this response being discussed
> with DoJ by MITRE. But I'll leave that for another rant.
I am also disappointed by this response. I think its also a glimpse at
future problems with the CVE. Although the folks at Mitre talked of
the CVE possibly being spun off as an independent organization in the
future (ala the WildList) and that Mitre will simply nurture it in
its early stages that is obviously not the case currently.
I think we need a better statement as to what the future governing body
of the CVE will look like and who has ultimate control over the decision
make process: the board, Mitre or something else.
> Scott Blake firstname.lastname@example.org
> Security Program Manager +1-508-485-7737 x218
> BindView Corporation Cell: +1-508-353-0269
Si vis pacem, para bellum