Slashdot Mirror
Cybercrime Treaty Fight Begins
Deskpoet writes "This article on ZDnet details how the Global Internet Liberty Campaign, based in Europe, is rising up to create awareness of this perfidy-in-action. There's also info about how it's really US law enforcement that's driving this thing. Your tax dollars at work."
Where Your Vote Should Go
great comedy company.
If government agencies feel they have the need to ignore the population they serve and try to draft domestic legislation through an international treaty, something that supercedes the constitution, it's time the government be replaced.
Anyone But Gore in 2000!
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
hangt er van af hou oud je bent. Tussen de 12 en 16 mag je prima met je leeftijdsgenoten 'vozen'.
Blaargh! One learns more each day.
Elgon
'the government' barely has the resources to chase after the genuinely criminal characters out there. This paranoid notion that they will come after you if you have any kind of subversive tendencies is just plain ridiculous.
The Black Panther party tried to claim things like that, back when they were running criminal drug rings and killing people with impunity. It turns out to have been a plain lie on their part. They weren't being 'persecuted', they were being busted for running a criminal operation.
There have and will be isolated cases of abuse of authority. Those need to be clearly identified and dealt with properly, from within the system.
Paint with too broad of a brush, and nobody will take you seriously at all.
the full text of the draft convention is here conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/projets/cybercrime.h tm
I wonder just what chance DeCSS would have against this. Infact I wonder what chance a useful tool liek john would have against this.
Don't be ridiculous.
We need laws because without them, any troublemaker out there can take it down. Are you ready for rogue nations to set up warehouses full of DDOS machines and start slamming the net? How will you resolve it? With a bazooka? No, with laws.
ya and our military should be equipted with the lastest technology of cute fuzzy creatures like geribals and the hamster. In times of war they just duct tape them to their bodies so that if someone tries to hurt them they will have to live with their conscense that they hurt a cute and fuzzy animal of nature. Why wouldn't it work! Ban guns all over the world totally. We will just have pillow fights in the summer and snowball fights in the winter. I think computers should be totally banned too... and the world should be rubber padded so we can never hurt our little selves. God forbid driving in a vehicle that goes faster than walking speed. Or better yet how about we all just submit ourselves into little rubber rooms that way we don't hurt anyone or our selves. We will deffently need a isolation chamber after we all lose our minds from the lack of being able to interact with anything. Hmmm.... screw it! Why doesn't the president just press the fucking little red button and end all this insanity once and for all. Complete human genocide would mean that no one can get hurt or do bad things to each other ever again.
hats just like saying that they are outlawing hammers if the hammer is used illegaly. stupid and pointless. how about making the illegal USE of these tools and hardware illegal.
Most of the time illegal use is already illegal anyway. The only people who will be thankful for redundant laws are lawyers...
Indeed it might be ammusing for proposed laws to be given a slashdot moderation. Maybe with criteria like "good", "troll", "redundant", "special interest lobbied".
My reasoning is, otherwise it would state essentially, "This Constitution... shall be the supreme law of the land... anything in [this] Constitution notwithstanding." I don't think it's intended to be this self-referential...?
The first interpretation on the other hand simply affirms the constitution's primacy over state law.
Also note the qualification, "...all treaties made... under the authority of the United States..." (read: as a country, rather than treaties made by individual states) - again emphasizing the relationship between federal and state government.
On the other hand yours is a good point and I don't think I've refuted it after all. Just thinking about it.
Also, question: Isn't there some other place in the constitution that states that no US treaty can violate the provisions of the constitution? This is where the heart of the matter lies.
Thoughts, anyone?
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
Why are they trying to invent new laws where existing ones already suffice: is this just another case of bureaucrats trying to justify their existence?
Also must prevent any lawyers from starving...
This is also an attempt to look good on fighting crime, pushing up the number of arrests and convictions makes things look like a better job is being done.
Hate crime? Isn't that redundant? People don't assault, kill, or vandalize (or, for that matter, break into computer systems and wreak havoc) out of love.
The real point of laws like this is to allow politicans to look good ("See, I'm OPPOSED to assaulting minorities", or "Look how OPPOSED I am to computer crime") without actually doing anything.
Especially to have them look good in the eyes of those who lobbied for the special laws in the first place.
That's already illegal in canada. if you write down a piece of erotic fiction for your own pleasure, and it involves children, you could be prosecuted if anyone cares...
Good news for anyone in Canada who hates the plays of a certain Mr Shakesphere. One of them, "Romeo and Juliet" is now illegal...
Yet it is considered the highest moral sin (often worse than murder) to consider them sexual beings until the magic age of 18. It's like.. happy 18th birthday. Now you can be sexual. Have fun.
Except that there are many places where there are ages of consent far younger than 18.
Indeed there appears to be little corrolation between ages of consent and age of majority. (As well as bizare situations, such as the USA, where 18 is in theory the age of majority, but people of that age are forbidden from drinking alcoholic beverages. Or places where there is no age of consent...)
Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications;
Lets see there go keyboards, mice, any display device, printer and a whole lot more.
What makes you think a rogue nation will respect *your* laws?
idiot.
No, I don't think they are going to prosecute anyone for running an FTP client. However, wording is very important to the viability of a law. If the wording is vague enough, it will get thrown out.
What about sniffers? They are starting to bridge the gap between obvious throw outs like telnet clients (used for accessing computer systems) and the intention of the treaty (malicious access of computer systems).
Let's hope the real treaty is not worded as poorly as the article. The person writing the article also had some grammar problems, so maybe it is just a comprehension issue on the author's part.
The Constitution states "Congress will enact no law..." - doesn't say anything about an international governing body enacting a law that our treaties require us to enfore/obey.
Why do you think so many are upset with these types of organizations - and "globalization" in general?
I AM, therefore I THINK!
How about this picture? Should it be illegal?
Click on the link...don't worry, it is nothing gross, but it could be cosidered child pornography by some people.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
b) do you think they're going to prosecute you for running an FTP client anyway?
Well, in some cases, yes, I think you might get prosecuted for running an ftp client.
If your a normal, boring person, you watch TV, buy an SUV, encourage sprawl by moving to the suburbs, vote for one of the two acceptable candidates, use ftp all you want, the government isn't worried, it considers you a sheeple.
On the other hand, if you have any kind of subversive tendencies, this is just one more thing for the government to get you on, the government likes a stockpile of easy to break rules to keep you in line.
"Do you have a manufacturer's receipt for the 30 round magazine for your semi-automatic assault rifle, proving it was made pre-ban, and not post-ban by terrorists?"
No, well, if you're lucky prison, if not, an FBI sniper will kill you and your family.
I feel for the Europeans though, at least we Americans have the constitutional right to revolt.
As John Adams said 225 years ago, the tree of Liberty needs to watered in the blood of patriots every 20 years.
"Until the mainstream stops associating hacking/cracking with criminal behavior"
Won't happen. Hell, I think even the mainstream hacker community by now probably associates hacking with criminal behavior at this point. Too much illegal hacking and bragging, not enough white hat activities being noticed. Probably because white hats don't do any actual damage.
Let's face it, the old style good person hacker of honor died in the 80s.
"Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications."
This also means many other tools will be illegal, including telnet, ftp, ssh, tcpdump...
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly all right for me to hack into an account of yours online, find out your personal details and then use, say, your credit card to make a series of purchases? That's fine by you?
Why should this be treated any differently from a waiter writing down someone's card details, someone using a stolen card, a bank employee using someone's details to order an additional card, etc, etc. What about the hacking makes a difference to the action of credit card fraud.
Or maybe I could get a photo of you and make some pornographic fakes up and post them around the net? That may not bother you, but I'm sure there would be thousands of people who would be mortified by that.
What would be the fundermental difference between that and someone taking the original picture with a chemical camera or getting an artist to draw a likeness. Then printing it up on fliers?
Should the definition of a crime really hinge on the minute details of tools used in performing it? Except when it is only possible to commit a crime using a specific tool. Which is in reality very, very few crimes.
I did know that bit about the Trenchcoat Mafia, though.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
"Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer program who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications."
take out a few words:
"Criminalize the production... of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access computer systems or communications." WHAT!? so web browsers, ftp clients, and anything of that nature is illegal now!? UH OH!
maybe they should have thought this through a little, no?
It's not for everybody
It is. And of course you have the standard problem of trusting sources -- but a good web search on Columbine (include slashdot and salon if they don't show up on a regular web search) brings up a heck of a lot of information to trawl through and come up with conclusions on.
Besides, the wave of terrorist attacks that hit the country (including Columbine) recently were mostly prompted by White Supremacist rhetoric. I worry about that, because random attacks on non-whites could impact me and my family (my wife is Thai, and I have a cousin whose husband is Korean).
Of course, the best way to handle this would be to say:
1. Yes, there is a problem with our prison system. The fact that rape is a part of the experience is a disgrace.
2. I don't think Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists or other religions are particularly likely to be spared this particular indignity, despite Baldreson's assertions.
We should clean up our corrupt American government, but it seems to me that it is run by white, protestant males (look at the two presidential candidates.).
The H1-B system is a problem because it prevents full citizenship for visa holders and full participation in the rights of citizenship, not because it allows them into the country.
The prison system is a disgrace, and something ought to be done about it.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications;
Outlaw the fraud and forgery of computer data as well as copyright infringement;
Now programs like Nmap, Nessus (and what others) are 'illegal'? IP Loggers, what about traceroute? That is a very popular tool of crackers you know - soon pinging will be crime because "this person was doing something to our machine other than what we specifically say is permissible in our TOS (subject to change at any time)." Forged Email? Custom packets (of any kind)? Who will determine 'what forged data' looks like? Obviously it will look much like 'non-forged' except whoever has the Biggest Lawyer(TM) will be the one with the 'official' data. And Copyright? Don't these people understand IP is a red-herring?
I am in utter amazement that an armed revolution hasn't started yet - are these people serious?
Are citizens and normal people going to possibly/remotely benefit from any of this? It is so goddamned obviously another piece of corporate-purchased law. Except the kiddie-porn stuff - that gets the support of the SoccerMoms(TM) , Religious Nutballs, and the rest of mindless sheeple onside everytime.
Enforcing monopoly in order to reduce supply and extort profits is an artifical construct, I once felt that allowing 'some copyright' and 'patents' were necessary, much like their designers it would give the inventor some due reward - protection from being stole from. But now I believe all IP should be abolished. The bad is far outweighing the good now. Far Far outweighing
So, think this 'treaty' is a good thing? Somehow you think you should NOT vote for someone who will end the corporate domination of the world? Wake up America! Do the world a favour! Tell your friends/neighbours/coworkers/relatives to:
Let me get this straight. The treaty makes things that are illegal... illegal?
Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications
Sniffers are extremely useful networking tools. They serve a valuable, productive purpose. Apparently, no effort was made in thinking this treaty up.
No, I'm saying that FTP, telnet, etc are not programs for illegal access (as opposed to a script kiddy's rootkit).
The treaty itself doesn't talk about programs designed to access other systems being illegal per se: that is ZDNet's precis, and an incorrect one IMHO. The treaty explictly qualifies all references to illegal interception, access, etc as being "without right".
Anyway, read it yourself, decide for yourself.
Until the mainstream stops associating hacking/cracking with criminal behavior we'll still have to live in fear of helping people by trying to tell them how to plug their holes.
Hopefully those couple of white hats in the news stories we've seen lately will help push the movement forward but until then every time you tell someone that you comprimised their system you're running the risk of being cavity searched by the FBI for the PDA that you did it on.
BOSTON SUCKS!
Here's a lengthy discussion of the whole question of whether treaties have supremacy over the constitution.
Time to leave Europe I think...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
WOOHOO!!! There goes the information age, as well as the industrial age as all cars made within the past 15 years or so have computer chips in them! ANARCHY!!!
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Here's a lengthy discussion of the whole question of whether treaties have supremacy over the constitution.
Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications;
So, any program that is designed to access a computer system is illegal? Like:
They better rethink that one.
I imagine they will try to outlaw SA security tools too, like SAINT, COPS, TIGER and crack, just because a cracker can use these too.
Of course, I can think of a lot of Slashdotter's who wouldn't object to these tools being outlawed, because they're dangerous and can be misused by uneducated persons, no wait, that's guns that should be outlawed because they're dangerous, not security tools.
No, there certainly is no analogy between security tools like SAINT that can be misused and guns that can protect you or be misused, none at all.
I think that *everyone* should be able to eavesdrop on the government, but not the other way around. Radical proposal? Sure, but doing things the other way hasn't worked out, has it?
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
If you actually read the draft legilastion (cybercrime.doc) it only makes software/hardware illegal if it used illegally so from reading we can all keep using our cracking tools, sniffers etc providing we don't do anything illegal with them.
Where Zdnet dragged that 'access' up from I don't know but if we want to be taken seriously by non-computer literate people then maybe we need to have something like this to build trust (though sod the interception and recoding keeping parts of the act...)
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Well, no there's not. It simply says that a group with 28 members "believe[s] that U.S. law enforcement is attempting to gain international support for modifications to its country's laws -- support that it has not been able to gain domestically. " It wouldn't surprise me if they're right but I don't see a single fact supporting their belief.
As long as I'm courting flames, know what I think is funny? For decades the most strident voice against ceding control of US law to international bodies and treaties has been Jesse Helms. Of course, all good liberals and leftists denounced him as a jingoistic Neanderthal for resisting globalization and internationalization. Now that internationalization has become politically incorrect, you don't see anyone saying, "Gee, Jesse may be a bigot but he was right all along about the WTO and IMF."
---------
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Now while you could argue that this means treaties only preempt "anything in the { Constitution or laws } of any State"...
Neither interpretation is gramatically incorrect. This leaves a serious hole in the US Constitution, IMO, that NEEDS AN AMENDMENT NOW to correct. Lest creatives Supreme Court judges rule that Kofi Annan and the UN (and its special councils like ICANN, WIPO, etc.) outrank the rights granted to Americans by the Constitution. We are not safe until an amendment patches this bug.
Any country that adopts the legislation will be required to:
* Make illegal access, interception, and interference of computer systems or communications a criminal offense;
I assume this is poorly worded and the wording should have been "Make illegal unauthorized access", otherwise it doesn't make sense! ["We caught you using your own computer, your nicked!"] This is already illegal in most juristictions I'm aware of. Arguably the laws tend to be unworkable and/or go after the wrong targets, but they do exist. Britain has the Computer Misuse Act and Telecommunications Act 1984 which coveres different aspects of the above.
* Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications;"
The key words being "whose primary use" is to. Again I'm not sure whether the wording is suspect, surely they mean "whose primary use is intended to be..." as arresting someone for, say, creating an ordinary FTP client which, for coincidental reasons, ends up being the #1 choice of crackers would be unfortunate...
Assuming, again, ZDNet is being sleepy this morning, this isn't that unusual a request. Indeed, it probably already is illegal. In the US, the reason Napster is being targetted as a piracy tool rather than mIRC is because Napster's #1 intended use was to facilitate unauthorised copying, whereas mIRC was designed as a chat program. The fact that there are legitimate uses for Napster and illegal uses for mIRC doesn't change that. One assumes intent, therefore, is already a significant part of the equation.
* Outlaw the fraud and forgery of computer data as well as copyright infringement;
I'd be surprised if there aren't laws out there covering some of this, and copyright infringement's been covered by treaties for years. This is one of those "Why bother?" entries.
* Broadly criminalize child pornography, even if the subject only appears to be a child;
I assume "intent" is going to be part of this. How else do you legally distinguish between child porn and pictures of children? FWIW, I recall Britain has a law now against artificial child porn - pictures that have been created via Photoshop.
Either way, it's tempting to get worried about this because no question of intent is explicitly worded, and many IANAL types get worried about anything so subjective, but given there'd be a international outcry if proud parents, owners of stores selling goods aimed at children, etc, suddenly started getting jailed and/or deported due to pictures of people under 21 appearing on their sites, we can be reasonably sure that intent will be a factor in practice.
* Hold corporations liable for crimes and make certain service providers can collect data on their subscribers and save such data when authorities request it;
It's pretty much true that, because of the lack of common carrier statuses to ISPs even in countries that have the notion of a common carrier (in Britain, most phone companies have no legal protection against acts of their subscribers, for instance), corporations are liable. The collection of data is the new bit, but I assume it needs clarification. What possible incentive does a company have for collecting acurate data on its own users if the only occasion it will be used is in evidence against it? Is the intention that companies who collect such data will not be held liable?
Finally:
* Cooperate with other jurisdictions to secure evidence and extradite those persons charged with a computer crime.
Probably the only part of this that I think is going to be largely new in most juristictions.
The truth is that generally governments already have this mix of laws, in one way or another, both the somewhat bizarre ones and the not so bizarre ones, with the exception of the extradition part. That's the only bit that scares me - how far does it go? Can a 16 year old in the US looking at an adult website in Holland result in the extradition of the webmaster because the age of consent is different in the two countries?
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The last draft I saw of this treaty supplied a standard of 14 years old. I haven't gotten to look over the most recent draft.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
How about by DDOSing them back? Slam the crap out of them. Also, thier service providers will complain if they take up too much bandwidth. Besides, do we really care if some big business like Amazon is taken down for a few minutes? It's more important that scholars have net access than big business.
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
The thing is that law enforcement people, in the US and many other countries, don't believe that the existing laws are sufficient. They want to do things like outlawing tools, outlawing the spread of certain information, giving themselves power to do all kinds of spying, and so forth.
They generally want to increase their own power, and to outlaw behavior that, as far as they're concerned, is "only engaged in by criminals anyway". This is not about justifying their existence. It's about their desire for legal tools to lock up people who, in their opinion, deserve to be locked up.
These legal changes are often politically unpopular, since they're usually based on an incredibly fucked up, power-tripping worldview that has no room for variation from some imaginary norm, precious little room for the idea of independent thought, and no real respect for the ideas (as opposed to the forms) behind due process.
Because these changes are unpopular, the people who want them (again, mostly law enforcement people) use various political tactics to get them. One useful tactic is to find a pliable international body that's having some discussion, where the people involved in the discussion are either sympathizers of yours or people you can pressure. You then get that body to issue some piece of paper, say a draft treaty, that requires what you want.
Politics being what they are, it's hard to change these drafts once they come out, and it gets progressively harder to change them as they move further along in the process. When it comes time to get your domestic legislature to approve the treaty, you say, basically, "everybody else is doing it". You also try to word your treaty so that it's not obvious what it really implies.
Since the treaty approval process is different from the approval process for regular legislation, and usually involves different people, and since little attention is usually paid to "technical" treaties, you may very well be able to get your treaty approved.
Once you get everybody to adopt the treaty, you spring the trap... you explain to your local legislature that it's now required by this treaty to pass the laws you couldn't get it to pass before. Game over.
Hey! This could save a lot of trouble evaluating the thing if carnivore's made illegal by this treaty!
Less than 16 in Holland? Are you kidding? Where ya from anyway? I am from Holland, and trust me, it's 16.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
"until it's illegal to have a computer that's NOT hooked up to the internet?"
Simple! I'll use something that CAN'T be hooked up to the internet and do anything, like an 8088 or something running CP/M...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
It makes certain acts that are illegal criminal, rather than civil, offences. This would mean that they could be investigated by the police, and punished by imprisonment.
Its primary purpose is to show the process running on your system.
I've got a device at home that allows me to do the same thing, and as such it should be banned and made illegal immediately. It is called a (drums roaring up in background) screwdriver.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
until it's illegal to have a computer that's NOT hooked up to the internet?
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Why do we need laws governing the net? I can't think of any good reason. The first two W's in WWW stand for world-wide... nobody owns it, nobody controls it, and that's the way it should be. The internet is the one true place I at one time thought we could be without shackles, free to do whatever. All we are doing by passing laws is limiting the freedom of the intellectuals of our age, while adding power to the corporations who already controll the masses from outside the net. I honestly can't think of one good reason for passing any laws, by any country, that have ANY jurisdiction on the net. I love my freedom more than anything else in the world, and will die to protect it.
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
(Associated Press - Alcatraz) Today, in an effort to end the pampered style of geek prison life that so many convicted criminals have been accustomed to, The Rock was reopened for service today.
"Hey, these guys managed to get T3 lines into every cell, and the guard door system was a joke, we think that they managed to hack the system so that it would let the doors open whenever they wanted.", said Red Bull, the head of HACK (H)ackers (A)re (C)riminals (K)ill 'em.
"I wished that we could have continued using the death penalty against these evil terrorists and child pornographers, but the ACLU felt it necessary to defend these scumbags. Something about 'the punishment not fitting the crime' or other such nonsense"
"Look, these felons have it better in prison, hell, their cells are over 4 times as big as a typical cubicle is, and they get in house laundry, THEY DONT EVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DOING LAUNDRY AGAIN, and look this doesnt seem like a big point, but I've been to busts on these evil hackers, and their laundry piles up to huge amounts before they decide to do it. It's inhuman, I tell you.
"I just wanted to make this prison term as much of a punishment as possible, so we are cutting these geeks off of their lifeline, and going back to all old-style technology. No computers, no net access, barely electricity.
Maybe now these felons will get what they deserve.
tagline
... hi bingo
This is nothing more than the FBI attempting to get around the public's resistance to such laws. If an international treaty is signed, which supercedes US law, they get the power they want by essentially going over the heads of American Citizens.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
This is NOT a radical proposal; it's the most reasonable idea I've seen yet.
David Brin's view, as expressed in The Transparent Society, was precisely this: the People need to watch the Watchers, and be every bit as vigilant as the Government is in their surveillence of us. Not surprisingly, the Government doesn't see it this way, even though our tax dollars pay for the very equipment they use to catalog us like so many butterfly.
_rant_
Anyone who unilaterally defends our abilities to question the omnipresent government eye will either be branded a terrorist or a child molester, or both, and will summarily be dismissed, if not imprisoned. (Look how they turned Mitnick: no more frightening example of the power of the Big Stick can be found in recent reportage than his advocacy of the government DB.) This pretty much rules out the "democratic process", leaving us to fend for ourselves. That's why Freenet and such is not only important, but necessary: it exists outside of the limited mindscapes of Those Above.
_end rant_
Why can't we see what the Watchers see? This is more than a rhetorical question; it's becoming a fundamental issue of our existence.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
"Fair Use" is a doctrine created by the Supreme Court; they could conceivably rule it applies w.r.t. criminal circumvention when used to enable traditional Fair Use, but to date they have not done so.
As for "primary purpose," DeCSS has no use other than to circumvent effective access control measures. What makes the DMCA dangerous is that it makes no distinction between circumvention used to enable further infringement, and circumvention used to enable otherwise legitamate access. If you purchase a DVD and use DeCSS on it, you are circumventing CSS, even if in so doing you are not infringing on the copyright on the underlying material.
The DMCA is dangerous precisely because it makes circumvention a criminal act distinct from, and not requiring the presence of subsequent infringement.
If someone hacks your system, you have the total right to wipe their data (conter-hacking)
The idea comes from one of my aqaintances who had someone target him with a virus. (particularly nasty one) He responded by sending his own program.
Result: One hard drive full of viruses and script kiddy tools wiped out.
Is this such a bad idea? Let sysadmins go after harmful crackers (eg a virus that wipes hard drive-no restrictions, making a zombie-a few restrictions, changing one file-a lot of restrictions, and just getting in (no harm)-same for sysadmin)
This would certainly promote a decine in the number of script kiddies with "wipe the hd" type programs, one way or another.
Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications;
I would just like to point out that http (web sites) are a method of accessing other computers. So will this mean that the internet is illegal?????? What about e-comerce???
Dirty Pirate Hooker
"Brazil" all over again.....
That is what zdnet say. But if you read the actual treaty (http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/projets/cybe rcrime.doc) (sorry for the icky Word doc, NMF) you will see that the words "access, intercept or interfere" are qualified with the term "without right", and the treaty sections are headed "Illegal Access", "Illegal Interception", and so on.
I don't like the treaty for other reasons, but it's not that stupidly drafted. So remember people, always read the primary sources, and don't get distracted from the main issues, which are (IMHO):
- to what extent governments should compromise your rights in order to prevent or detect crime.
- what constitutes "cybercrime" in any case.
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly all right for me to hack into an account of yours online, find out your personal details and then use, say, your credit card to make a series of purchases? That's fine by you?
Or maybe I could get a photo of you and make some pornographic fakes up and post them around the net? That may not bother you, but I'm sure there would be thousands of people who would be mortified by that.
But obviously, this, and more, is fine by you.
The miscalculation of these gangs is the degree to which adolescent males, particularly those of Protestant heritage, are being cornered by the prevaling cultural currents into criminal activity as the primary way they can obtain positive attention from young females -- and the degree to which such young males are capable of being turned into hard-core and highly effective cyber-terrorists by such a system.
The government as it is presently "constituted" is simply incapable of doing anything but raping these young men; either figuratively by offering them very paltry compensation compared to what they can make in the open market, or literally, by putting them into a penal system dominated by ethnic gangsters with connections in the bureaucracies.
Seastead this.
Here is a link to the actual draft of the treaty. Please read it before posting. The article makes terrible simplifications of the wording that blur the original meaning.
/. article? It is important to the topic.
Can someone please put this link into the
Do you think they're going to prosecute you for running an FTP client anyway?
For most people, most of the time, no. But a bad law that is selectively enforced may be even more dangerous than a bad law universally enforced. This allows capricous judgement on the part of law enforcement and the judiciary. A bad law, universally enforced, would be more likely to generate outrage and get scrutiny by the general public. But as long as they don't after you, selective enforcement is fine, right? What about tomorrow when someone else is deciding how selective to be?
An example of this is laws trying to regulate sexuality and morality. Will someone go after "Mr. and Mrs. Missionary Position and Never On Sunday" for the time they decide to for once try something 'kinky'? Or will they go after "Those Immoral Kids"? This double-standard could become "Oh, no we don't prosecute those using tools on the job." but "Anyone at home with these is suspect." Nevermind if the only thing you do with the tools, whatever they may be, is make sure your own little in-house network is as secure as you can make it.
Using tools for illegal acts is already illegal. Making the tool illegal is foolish. Need we start applying for hammer licenses (and getting considered suspicious if we aren't professional carpenters)?
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
What strikes me as most pernicious about this is the existance of subjective criteria in the determination of a crime. Heck, just make -all- network transmissions of any sort illegal, and then the powers that be can choose to selectively prosecute whoever they dislike.
This looks to be pretty close to such a thing.
--
A truly functioning police state needs no police.
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
The problem with laws and treaties outlawing cracking tools is that making software illegal creates a broad category of thought-crime. If you ever wrote something someone asserted was a cracking tool, do your thoughts on the matter become illegal to express? It is far far better to make destructive actions punishable, as they mostly are under existing laws, than to encourage law enforcement to acquire ever more intrusive tools of enforcement, and to bring law enforcement into conflict with constitutional rights regarding warrants search and probable cause, which are already too weak.
I wrote parts of this stuff
The child pr0n article (9) includes drawings.
Communications fall under the juristriction of the countries of all communicating parties footnote 21). From the definition of "computer system" and from footnote 23 it is clear that a router is considered a communicating party.
There are provisions along the lines of ECHELON, Carnivore, RIP and the DMCA, but states are free to uphold civil liberties and free use if they want.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Yes, there are existing laws. But using those laws to control "cybercrime" would mean that law enforcement might actually have to exert itself. Or try to avoid breaking other existing laws in gathering the information. From what I've read of this treaty, its another one like the treaty that spawned the DMCA. Only this time, its law enforcement pushing for it, instead of the entertainment industry.
-RickHunter
Whenever I see words like that, I know it's just legalize for "bend over." Same kind of shit was in DMCA too. It just brings up the same old tired issues of how do you prove what the primary purpose of a tool is, or that someone might use a certain tool in a certain way. It presumes guilt. What the hell is the point of outlawing tools that can be used for crime, when the crime itself is already outlawed? I hate it when The Powers That Be invent new artificial victimless "crimes" whose only purpose is to prevent other crimes. It always creates innocent offenders.
No law or treaty that has this type of language in it should be signed.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So does that mean if someone is 40, but looks like they're 15, they can charge you with child pr0n-ography?
Aren't there existing laws that deal with these crimes already in existence? We already have copyright law. I know in Britain, there is already the Computer Misuse Act which deals with unauthorized access to computers.
Why are they trying to invent new laws where existing ones already suffice: is this just another case of bureaucrats trying to justify their existence?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Just look at the DeCSS case to see an example of how "primary use" can be twisted to mean just about anything. Even in the face of clear intent by a large group of users to use it non-infringingly, the remote possibility of abuse was enough to ignore the fair use exemptions.
Software is a tool, no different than anything that you'd find in a hardware store. Although imaginative individuals can think of any number of ways to bash, stab, and slice someone with anything you could find at Home Depot, that's no reason to outlaw or restrict them.
I must agree with you. Law enforcement agencies need to be able to work together to prevent abuses of the Internet, such as child porn. Hacking into a bank and changing account info should be something they can work together to prosecute. Yes, it's difficult and complicated. Yes, it can be improved. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be working on a solution.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
refer to the article, they are just "consulting" or something like that. the idea is to get these policys implemented overseas, thus giving them a foothold to implement policy in the US
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Or maybe I could get a photo of you and make some pornographic fakes up and post them around the net?
Could you do that for me, maybe increase the length and width of my dong in GIMP?
I'm not getting enough geekgirls, and I fell bad depriving them of my gift.
Thanks,
Actually, The UK and France both have nuclear weapons.
You don't need a whole lot more than a nuclear warhead and a dilapidated tugboat these days to be feared as a military force.
> I find this pretty interesting - since when did the united states government ever have to get support
> from abroad to implement policies?
Since the Constitution was first ratified back in the 1780's.
Art. 2, 2.2 grants the power of making treaties with foreign powers to the Presidnet, if 2/3s of the Senate approves. Art.1, 8.1 grants the power of making laws to enforce treaties to Congress.
Past legislation to enforce treaties with powers that the US government are not explicitly granted by the Constitution have been upheld by the Supreme Court. (If I were a lawyer, I could cite the case law on this.) It's an end-run around our implicit rights that I've been waiting to happen since Netizens first formulated the Anarchist/Libertarian nature of the 'Net.
Only I thought the boogey-man the PTB would invoke to do this would be the child pornographers, not garden-variety crackers.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Clearly this is a plot by U.S. business interests to saddle the Euros with a bunch of onerous laws that will hobble their ability to compete. We'll encourage them to adopt this crap then say "Well, let's see how it works out for you and then we'll consider signing on. Don't call us, we'll call you." Man, are we sneaky or what?
Yes, new laws against those mean "hackers" and "Cybercrime" will definitely solve the problem! I mean, it sure as hell solved all those drug problems.
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
This is partly a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments. International treaty does not supercede the US constitution.
Essentially, if an ISP maintains data that could cause it to be convicted under this thing, the fifth amendment would not require it to deliver such information.
The fourth amendment should stop an ISP from doing the spying in the first place because it is at the behest of the government and without probable cause and therefore dose constitute unlawful search and seisure.
It is amazing to me that despite a long history of legal tradition to the contrary, we could sign a treaty, and all of the sudden, ISPs could become liable for content for which they have no control.
That is a scary spectre.
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
"Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access computer systems or communications."
The thing is they say "access, intercept, or interfere with".
They would be making all network programs illegal. Dumbasses.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
That's art, designed to be viewed with the mature eye. Funny how the file is named dinky.jpg, as in "Where the hell is his ....?"
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
The invasion was beaten in the air fool, despite having far fewer planes and pilots than the luftwaffe the RAF made it impossible to either bomb Britain into submission or make the channel safe enough to take troops across.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
http://www.quintessenz.at/convent-d.htm l
Varies between 16 in UK and lower in places like Holland.
Remember people, we do need laws to govern the online world.
No, we don't
Dirty Pirate Hooker
The exact wording from the cybercrime document is:
Title 3 - Content-related offences
Article 9 - Offences related to child pornography
1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law when committed without right and intentionally the following conduct:
a. offering or making available child pornography through a computer system;
b. distributing or transmitting child pornography through a computer system;
c. producing child pornography for the purpose of its distribution through a computer system;
d. possessing child pornography in a computer system or on a computer-data storage medium.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1 above "child pornography" shall include pornographic material that visually depicts:
a. a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct;
b. a person appearing to be a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct;
c. realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct.
3. For the purpose of paragraph 2 above, the term "minor" shall include all persons under 18 years of age. A Party may, however, require a lower age-limit, which shall be not less than 16 years.
Who the hell do they think they are. More laws what make them that if people obey the current laws what make think they will obey they new one. the problem is not the laws it is the way they are enforced. Also in turn giving them more power. They already have echalcon (sorry about the spelling) to spy on people, and look into there personal. I understand wanting to stop real criminal, but at the cost of other people right that is just complete BS. I just don't get it.
vote libertarian!
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
"do you think they're going to prosecute you for running an FTP client anyway?"...
But the real danger is that, as it is worded right now, they could . Such open and subjective laws leave the field open for selective prosecution of anyone those in power decide that they don't like for some reason.
--
man sig
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
Yeah, pretty smart talk from a citizen of a country that hasn't successfully repelled a foreign invasion for 2000 years (though then you had help from the Germanic tribes impingin on Rome). Anyhow, lets see, England was conquered about 0 AD, 1054 AD, yeap, it's about time for another conquerin' So you start off saying that Britain hasn't succesfully defended against an invasion for 2000 years, and then go on to say we were conquered in 0 AD AND 1054 (you mean 1066 btw) You are a grade A fuckwit who knows nothing of what you speak. Otherwise you my now of the successful eviction of the Vikings by Alfred the Great (c. 900 AD), the Norse invasion two weeks before the battle of Hastings (the 1066 main event) or a little thing called WWII- Henry II, Henry VII and Charles II (and there are more) are just a few British monarchs who claimed (or reclaimed in Charles' case) their throne through invasion. Oh, and at least we never had our capital burnt to the ground by CANADIANS hahaha
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
"...devices or computer programs who's primary use is to..."
Announcing the latest and greatest version of "ps". Its primary purpose is to show the process running on your system. But now we've added the "--root_host_x" switch. If you use this switch, it launches a root attack against any foreign system. Totally legal!
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Does this mean that if someone makes a "Back Orifice Paint" package it would be legal?
Bob
"Where there's a pyramid, there's a pint of fish"
Why are the FBI involved in worldwide snooping? Isn't it their job to investivate internal affairs? Then again, maybe Jack Straw fell in love with their Carnivore and invited them to Europe.
Does my bum look big in this?
I find this pretty interesting - since when did the united states government ever have to get support from abroad to implement policies?
UBU
So, any program that is designed to access a computer system is illegal?
Yes. It's the only right thing to do. How else are we supposed to stamp out digital music piracy?
Why do you advocate a legal solution when a technical one is insight, yes, the cochlear implant.
Every person in America gets a cochlear implant. If this implant hears music without the appropriate legitimage watermark, your hearing shuts down.
If you forget to pay your hearing lease to the RIAA, your hearing shuts down.
It's the least we can do for the poor record execs, especially since Mariah Carey doesn't date them anymore.
There was a lot of effort made in making this treaty up. Unfortuantly none of that effort went into talking to people who have some real understanding as to what is going on, or what issues really need to be addressed.
The Internet was, and still is to some extent, about curiosity. It is about figuring out how things work, then telling everybody who wants to know. It is about the lack of geographical boundaries, or any 'real-life' bounds whatsoever. It is about being able to choose what you want to know about, and making that choice freely.
I've seen the Thomas Jefferson quote bandied about on all of the discussions with the upcommiing US presidental election. This discussion is IMHO a much better place to think about it.
suckers.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Look, don't pretend that you all didn't know this was going to happen as soon as The Big Money moved into raping the internet in addition to other natural and semi-natural (i.e. man-made) resources. Since they have most of the people who make decisions relevant to this in their pocket, so you USAnians are going to be SOL (yes, that's no matter which asshole you vote for your precious little presidency) until you get rid of the fucking bastards.
That's my opinion anyway, and I'll be willing to say that I was wrong if in 10 years the situation substantially changes for the better.
... bad implementation. I know it may be unpopular among slashdoters, but please hold one minute and think again. Now, how would any of you like to find out that this most destructive attack last weekend not only made a complete mess of you data center, it also placed you right out of business, no data, no money! Cute, isn't it ? Oh, and the guy you traked down is from irak, and you can't get to him (NATO refused bombing). Well, I do not favour E-Commerce and all this E-everything, but its time to do a reality check. Everywhere, where many people live together certain basic rules have to be established. Misbehaviour has to be punished in some way. It may not be the job of some so-called "Cybercrime" organizations to enforce how the punishment has to be done. But I could well think of some "OrganiNet" much like ICANN, to achive this. I think its time to say this, Information wants to be free, property does not! Lets just do an RFC or a Draft ,-)
Just wanting to be a little critc here. FLAME OFF
--
42 cows on a 42km road on their way to 42.org
The term you refer to is known as a "rider" - a seperate little law that would fail in open debate, but gets tacked onto a bill assured of passage as a way to get support from other congress members.
The relationship between the two, and probably the source of confusion, is that most pork-barrel programs are passed as riders on other legislation.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Just do an end-run around the problem and get what you want without public support.
...I would venture to say that, without serious intervention from some heroic source, this is just the first step in what is destined to become a "done deal" in one form or other.
I don't mean to seem excessively cynical, sensationalistic, or "conspiracy theorist"-ic, but...
If, in fact, certain U.S. Gov't agencies and departments are involved, as the article states...
members from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have aided in the drafting of the treaty
U.S. Intelligence Agencies (those renown TLA's we all love to hate, a.k.a. spooks) know better than to ask for precisely what they want. The political wheels carry far too much momentum to attach such a weighty treatise as this one.
My expectation is that, very soon, we will see the actual negotiations begin on this... Meaning: Everyone involved didn't like the draft, but none of them wanted to be the one to say "we won't have anything to do with such a ridiculously proposed treaty", so they all step up to the bargaining table for the "rewrite". Once this occurs, legislation in one form or other will follow (even though it may not, in the end, resemble this "draft").
Point being: The USDOJ and the FBI don't want *this* treaty at all. They just want *any* treaty... on which they can then attach their trademark bureacratic processes... resulting in "the inalienable right" of the US government to legislate internet activity.
In summary: Accept the inevitable (the fact that wheels are in motion on this means it's already done if someone doesn't stop it), or start dumping tea into the harbour.
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
Signature illegible, could be somebody else.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
According to the story, it appears that interception of computer communications is illegal, but is also required for logging purposes.
Isn't this a contradiction?
--
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... Oh, no. It's just an eyelash.
In other words, we could have about six million Kevin Mitnicks in jail in less than a year after the ratification.
Under this definition, such tools as apt-get, CVS, ping, tracert, telnet, ftp, and the clients of these could be made illegal.
MP3s, DivX, DeCSS, ASFRecorder, etc.
Well, I support this one, no more NAMBLA!
Here's the ultimate legitimization of Carnivore. Also, since ISPs could be held accountable as well, they might become intolerable to their customers just because some activities might borderline on infringement of this.
Basically, the same type of thing that happened back in the 30s when the FBI was formed. No more jumping over state or country borders to escape conviction.
One thing's for certain here: with the number of geeks being incarcerated after this passes, the prison system could lose its hardcore image.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I'd like to see the day when a corp gets a high fine forn not patching a hole that's been aroud for MONTHS.