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."
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...)
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.
"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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
From Eric "The Butcher of Columbine" Harris's web site:
"You know what I hate? Racism! . . . Don't let me catch you making fun of someone just because they are a different color." [people who don't like] "blacks, Asians, Mexicans or people from any other country or race besides white-American" should "have their arms ripped off" [and be burned].
I would really like to know which "White Supremacist" organization incited this anti-racist rhetoric on Harris's web site.
Or could it be, perhaps, that there is some source of propaganda at work here which is effective enough that you have succumbed to it? If so, what might that source be?
my wife is Thai...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.
A young Thai man I know was recently thrown in jail for a week or so for a minor offense and when he got out, he approached me at a programmers interest group meeting to tell me my perception of the situation in the jails is right on target. The moment he walked into the jail, he was immediately surrounded by other Asians both for protection from the monsterous evils of the environment, and for relatively petty exploitation by gangster elements (crooked gambling, etc.). I had told him that ethnic affiliation was the way to survive in that situation, and he wanted to make sure I knew he appreciated my warning.
The fact of the matter is, the more hostile the government bureaucracy is toward an ethnic gang, the more likely the members of that ethnicity are to become victims of cruel and unusual punishment in our ethnically-based penal system -- and while all ethnicities are victimized, some not all ethnicities are equally victimized -- and it is a simple fact that Mediterranean mafias among the whites, and other gangs among the nonwhites are relatively effective compared to the much more maligned white supremacist gangs with which you libelously affiliate me in your writings.
Call my claims "attempts at propaganda", but at some point, after at least 20 years of awareness of the problem at the level of the Supreme Court, one has to ask exactly what interests are being served by the ongoing situation in which we can all complain on occasion, but nothing ever really effective gets done to clean up the mess in the penal system? Could there be some conflict of interest at work, undermining governmental ethics? If not, why not? Why is internationalization spreading the problem to Europe via treaties and other agreements, rather than containing it within the U.S. to be vigorously vanquished? Is it duplicitous "white supremacist WASPs" that occupy figurehead positions in government? Why do you think so many white supremacist organizations, who obtain many of their most ardent supporters from prisons, are happy about Joe Leiberman's nomination as Democratic VP, would like to kill the WASP figure heads, and even so, do not identify the occupiers of the top positions in government as the primary problem?
Really, who is serving and who is being served by this pathological situation? The sexually sick ethnic gangs of sadists in prison or the people in the halls of power? Why do the guys in the halls of power give so-called "propagandists" like me so much material to work with and generate serious threats to their power if they were actually in control?
These are questions I've had to face because I like understanding reality more than I like being socially accepted or fashionable. Call me "antisocial", but then a lot of nerds are "antisocial" for the same reason -- and the more "antisocial" they are in precisely this way, the more of a grasp they have on reality and therefore the more "dangerous" in your terms, they become. Post-enlightenment science is like that -- the high priests of universal morality be damned.
But before you walk -- trying to answer these weighty questions for yourself -- perhaps you should try to crawl: Try to at least ask yourself the question I posed to you about how you came to make the statement the wave of terrorist attacks that hit the country (including Columbine) recently were mostly prompted by White Supremacist rhetoric in the face of the evidence to the contrary?
You might also ask yourself how a so-called "white supremacist" would end up being respected by a young Thai man who had to spend a little time in the penal system -- probably more respect than you are for attacking.
Seastead this.
it only makes software/hardware illegal if it used illegally
thats 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.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
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.
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
> 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
Call me a hapless tool of the ZOG, but you're a fruit-loop, mate.
/. readers to scary black studs in jail.
While undoubtedly the intent and effect of this treaty is to abridge our civil rights, I seriously doubt its main purpose is to offer the tender young butts of
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the majority of people who might be caught by such legislation are Protestants; between Hindus, Muslims, Catholics and us sneaky untrustworthy Jews, I would say you're in a minority. Not that I take you seriously, you understand...
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.
"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.
Remember people, we do need laws to govern the online world.
No, we don't
Dirty Pirate Hooker
vote libertarian!
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
"...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!)
I find this pretty interesting - since when did the united states government ever have to get support from abroad to implement policies?
UBU
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.