Slashdot Mirror
Cybercrime Treaty to Be Signed
texchanchan writes: "Yahoo reports that "Interior ministers and law enforcement officials from Europe, South Africa, Canada, the United States and Japan will sign the milestone cyber-crime convention.... [because] computer criminals... have moved on from ``innocent'' hacking to fraud, embezzlement and life-threatening felonies."" Feel the spin in that article, from the anonymous "official". We've posted about this treaty before; read the final draft and note it well, particularly the extradition provisions, mutual assistance (some other country gets your country to tap your phones, and send them the data) and the requirements to disclose passwords.
South America is becoming a bastion of freedom.
they've just figured out that hackers have moved on to embezzlement? wasn's this so commonplace even a decade ago that several popular movies had a go at it? hello?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
As if I had enough to worry about from just owning Windows, innocent pranks will land you in prison beside all the 'higher level' criminals. I don't look forward to sharing a cell with a guy that used to kill, rape, and eat small children, in that order. All because I left a text file on a server telling the admin about security holes. This is freedom alright. Freedom from justice.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
There are plenty of methods to hide data in plain sight with images and such. If I had real secrets, they wouldn't go unencrypted on a filesystem where only the kernel prevents access through a password. Or even store it in encrypted files or filesystems for which the password could be lost.
If I really had to hide data, I'd make sure noone would even see I was hiding something.
Quick, somebody call Alanis Morrisette. Maybe she can misunderstand this horribly in a future song.
Here's another one.
Honestly, are we more afraid of terrorists, or
our own governments?
George II says that Terrorists hate freedom, and want to take my freedom away. That isn't true.
Terrorists can only take my life. Only my government can take my freedom.
Sickman's spinfusor catches Anonymous Coward by surprise.
crypto crypto crypto crypto
Hi, my name is AFJWEFNPVTNGPIWERTGNPINGGX>YICT, what's yours?
--- The reclining dragon deeply fears the blue pool's clarity.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Most of the Western nations have mutual extradition, and other law enforcement, treaties. Suddenly, the nation with the most intolerant attitude sets the "standard" for all of us. Something has to give.
1Alpha7
Live to be Moderated
Improve security. Seperate important systems like landing lights from the internet. Don't just sue people.
I thought fraud, embezzlement, and life-threatening felonies were already against the law on these countries!
Soon, the Internet will reach its originally intended purpose of allowing people to shop online as quickly and efficiently as possible, and everything else will be outlawed.
once Bush hears that this is an "international treaty", he'll back out of it because of US interests.
I don't think it is crime to shut down your own site.
I'm moving to Sealand, last bastion of the real free world. Nice knowing y'all.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
I think that racists are cretins, but they have a right to hate whomever they please. They also have a right to express themselves, and the internet isn't immune to free speech. Now if only everyone else would agree....
If there is something life threatening about a computer being hacked, then perhaps the computer shouldn't be hooked up to the Internet.
//m
I believe something like this is needed so people committing crimes over the net form a different country can be brought to justice. So having this is good, but read it carefully. It basically gives them a huge amount of rights. They even suspect anything and your actions on the net are watched, your pc can be sensed and so on.
So if used correctly, this can be a good tool to help stop crime o the net. But wait a minute; the DMCL was meant to help the little guy when used correctly. And we all know how well the dmcl worked out. I fear something similar may happen to this.
my 2 cents plus 2 more
forget about living a police state, its
rapidly turning into a police world...
Oh shit, there goes the [Internet].
So...all young looking porno models are out of work now....I's a sad, sad, day.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
I don't think a computer crime should go unpunished, but I certainly do not want some other government to have to power to spy on me, let alone my own. all europe needs to do is what, say to the FBI...we want you to tape this man's wire so we can continue an investigation.....where is the oversight? there is none. a wire tape can be started by another country by way of just saying this person is a suspect in an investigation.....Im sorry, but I would perfer that i have my constitutional right protected while I am living in my country of origin. this makes every citizen suseptable to other countries legislation.....I trust my government more than I trust a forgien government, and I do not trust my government a whole lot.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I realize that you guys want my password, but....
I'm sorry, I just cannot recall it.
Exhibit 1:
"[We will make illegal...]the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of [...]a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 2 - 5"
Exhibit 2:
"Article 5 - System interference
[C]ommitted intentionally, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data."
So now Windows is illegal in Europe...
I have a 1975 Peavey Pacer. Mind you, this amp isn't even *supposed* to sound good. Switchable distortion has the awfullest neo-70's early solid-state tone you'd ever hear. Kinda sounds like broken chunks of plexiglass and a dildo rattling around in a plastic jar. About its only saving grace is you can crank the left (preamp) volume, attenuate the right (postamp) volume and get a bit of a softer crunch- a real frothy-fizzy sort of rumble, if you can imagine that.
The real magic happens though, when you run an Ibanez TS-10 TubeScreamer (the older, square seasick green one with the potmetal case) full bore (all knobs up to 11) into this preamp distortion. The speaker gets kinda flatulent and it sounds like it's trying to fold inside out, but run it nearly wide open throttle (it's 45Watts RMS, you kinda have to to keep up with a set of drums) and it cleans up to become nearly a match to the tone you hear on the first Van Halen album. Palm Muting chugs like a locomotive, vibrato moans like it hurts, and feedback is thick and woody.
Oh, and that crappy distortion you can turn on/off? Turn it on with this tone, and it'll add just a light sizzle to the top, but you can play notes that will sustain for several minutes, and *THEN* start to feedback.
There is a short somewhere in the reverb circuit, and it is exacerbated by the vibrations of the chassis. Basically, the reverb turns itself on and off at will, and most of the time has a delay (about 200ms) between the playing the chord and the reverbed "wooosh"- almost a gated sound. It's just a silly, silly amp.
For some reason there is a mind set between real crimes and Computer Crimes/Hacking. The legal guidleines sould be simple.
Hacking into a computer withough any password -> Trespassing.
Hacking into a computer with a password no matter how week. -> breaking and entering
The rest are assuming you have already hacked in:
After breaking in if you looked around the system -> Breaking ones privicy
Coruption/Altering/Deletion/DL of files -> Vandalism, Steeling.
Basicly the laws should be equilivant for what they do and to make the laws easer what ever they due remotly they should be charges as if they broke in to the building and did the same info to your records. With the extra charge of bandwith used.
I dont understand why laws have to be so complicated for a change in mediums.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not only that but half of the capacity of my harddisk seems suddenly to have become illegal :-(
Can you imagine if this was all just an elaborate project dreamed up by some guy who just sits at his house all day long dreaming up ways to get access to people's information so he can sell it? It's a brilliant idea. By the time everyone realizes this whole thing is a put-on, the culprits will have made off with everything they need.
Unless, of course, it's not a put-on. But by the time we realize that, the government will have made off with everything they need too...
Got Rhinos?
Of course, we feel it's all great to battle "child pornography" while we defend race-hatred, while non-Americans (who often have very different ages of consent) consider that an infringement of their free speech. So are we implicitly trading the right to different types of censorship?
I have to say that %50 of the spam I get on a daily basis is probably some kind of rip-off scam made up by some guy sitting in his room running on a free hosting service with a domain used to gather CC info.
:)
Does this mean that spammers will be considered terrorists? Will we have laws that will finally put these criminals in jail?
I hope this is the case. Since the last article I read about spammers, Ive been sending letters charging them for bandwidth ($50 a pop) if they continue to spam. Hopefully now I will be able to just send a little email to the FBI and say, hey, here is a terrorist for you to give hell to.
--------------------------
Is this a sig?
--------------------------
To say that this law will take away your freedoms and violate liberty, justice and any other word associated with the "Free World" is ludicrous. The Cybercrime Treaty is designed to keep people from doing very harmful things. Simply talking about hacking or trying to figure out how things work isn't going to land you in prison. Trying to see if you the new exploit in some OS can be used to steal money from a bank will, and now with this law maybe computer crimes can finally get the legal treatment that they deserve.
Murder laws are in place to keep you from taking someone's life. Does that mean if you step on an ant you'll go to jail? Or if you say "I'd could kill my boss for making me write VB code" you'll be accused of attempted murder? I think not. Neither will this treaty land you in a cell next to a child-eater for reading one of the hacker books you picked up on Amazon.com. Don't take a law that's designed to stop malicious people and extrapolate it into something that's going to take ones and zeros and make them illegal.
greg
Our courts finally figured out that French law didn't apply to an American company publishing on an American site. It seems our hope might be that the courts will decide that the treaty (and laws that are passed in compliance with it) cannot supercede the US constitution. Otherwise they've just done an end-run around the constitution. Which was probably their plan.
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
Attention! Now that this treaty has been signed into law, keep in mind that it is very important that you never forget your passwords. If you forget your password, and it is required for a terrorist investigation, you can be arrested for failure to disclose your password. Please be extremely careful with all your passwords, never EVER forget them.
Specfically:
- If you have Alzheimers, do not use any computer system that requires a password.
- If you write software, make sure that any time you ask a user to create a password, you inform them that they could be imprisoned for life in a foreign country if they forget it.
- If you have to remember multiple passwords, repeat them to yourself 100 times every night, before you go to sleep.
Please follow these tips to keep everyone safe & free from terrorism!
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
I'd like to see references to this alleged incident. I find it curious that the first I've heard of this serious matter is from this anonymous Euro official. I smell bullshit.
Has anyone else noticed the increasing tendancy for the 'news' media to report links between mostly inert activities enabled by corporate and government stupidity, in the area of technology, and mass murder, terrorism and other, arguably more serious, crimes?
Seems a good use of FUD on the media and government's part to reduce civil liberties and conceal their clear wrong technical choices.
What kind of goddamn MCSE moron has a computer which controls landing lights connected, directly or otherwise, to the internet?
. . . that under the provisions of the United States Constitution, "Interior ministers and law enforcement officials" can sign whatever the hell they want, but only the US Senate can actually approve a treaty with another nation. And until they do, it's not law.
Also note that treaties cannot alter the Constitution itself, nor can they implement anything that violates it.
NO. The Cybercrime Treaty is designed to prosecute/persecute/investigate you, when you have done very harmful things or when they think you have done very harmful things. It will not stop you.
I agree, I don't want a foreign government to spy on me with no oversight and in breach of my constitutional rights. The difference is I don't live in the US. Echelon anybody...?
I don't like where this is going.
Article 11 - Attempt and aiding or abetting
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 intentionally, aiding or abetting the commission of any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 2 - 10 of the present Convention with intent that such offence be committed.
Great. Now software developers that make things like Nmap, tcpdump, portscanner, sniffit, and other security tools will get jailed or fined out of existence and charged with "aiding and abetting" just because J. Random Cracker ran their software to 0\/\/3n3d someone's unsecured box. You just *know* some lawyer can't wait to make a bunch of money^W^W^W^W^Wuse this little bit of legislation to put people behind bars.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
So much for the Right to Privacy...... :)
Don't you see? If we allow the threat of cybercrime to force us to change the way we manage our landing lights, THE CYBERCRIMINALS HAVE WON!
Improving security is an admission that our resolve to enforce security as it is has weakened. We must continue to live our lives, connect everything possible to the public network regardless of how vital or sensitive, and protect our assets with poorly concieved security mechanisms. To do anything else would show that the hackers and the rest of the terrorists have won!
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
When you write your congressmen to complain about this new treaty and its repugnant ramifications, please remember one thing: the quality of your words influence how seriously the recipients take your concerns. Please don't depend on spell checkers and automated grammar checkers. Spell checkers can't tell if a word is misused, and grammar checkers are not capable of reliably parsing written language. Nothing has ever come about to replace good, old fashioned proofreading.
WEEK: time period of seven days
WEAK: not strong, feeble
STEELING: to brace or reinforce: "steel one's nerves"
STEALING: to take without permission
Equivalent
Remotely
"they should be charges" -> "there should be charges"
"same info to your records" -> "same to your records"
"With the extra charge of bandwith used" is not a sentence; it has no subject. Try this for your last paragraph:
This is the time to prove Lessig wrong. I don't know how to get a congresscritter's attention any more. They only used to pay attention to postal mail, which they are afraid to open now. But between telephone, fax, e-mail, and watching out for him when he comes into town, I intend to let my congresscritters know not just how much I despise this crock, but why.
It's time for a call to arms. Slashdotters can take down almost any web site, because there's lots of us and we're not too lazy to click on a few buttons. But if we want to avoid the tremendous pitfall this treaty will engender, it's time to slashdot Congress. I doubt there will be 10,000 phone calls, pieces of mail, etc., the entire Congress will get because of newspaper, radio, or TV coverage. If we're not too lazy, we can generate a normal ./ volume in faxes, phone calls, and so forth, we can make ourselves heard.
The alternative is to whimper, roll over, and cringe.
Article 10 - Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights 1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of copyright, as defined under the law of that Party pursuant to the obligations it has undertaken under the Paris Act of 24 July 1971 of the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, with the exception of any moral rights conferred by such Conventions, where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial scale and by means of a computer system.
Look carefully at the last eleven words. Does this mean our warez sites are not covered under the convention?
Do not call spammers terrorists. Terrorists kill people, spammers do not. I do not like spammers either, but calling them terrorists just weakens your argument and, to be honest, make you look like a kook. Feel free to call them thieves, liars, scumbags, or whatever, but not terrorists.
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
If they dare put a virus that logs everything I'm doing and it DARE slowing down my p0rn downloading, it could put me (or especially anyone around me) in a life threatening situation. Good Job!
(Job as in the Bill.... you horny minded you!)
Jesus H. Christ -- learn how to spell.
Basicly the laws should be equilivant for what they do and to make the laws easer what ever they due remotly they should be charges as if they broke in to the building and did the same info to your records. With the extra charge of bandwith used.
Amen. And, how 'bout we make the maroons who fail to take *reasonable* steps to secure their computers (ie, at least keep up with patches), responsible for their own messes? Is that too much to ask?
That thing is soo complicated to understand. =( Can someone point out to me exactly where it talks about 'disclosure of passwords' so I can read it, and understand all the details, not the general panic of "OH NO I HAVE TO GIVE MY PASSWORD TO THEM!?"
Can all fish swim?
Arrest Ted Turner, Valenti, and every other major studio or studio organization head.
Works such as "Porky's", "Last American Virgin", "Embrace of the Vampire", etc. all have various depictions of "minors" engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Hmm, better go after your local Blockbuster too - they distribute this stuff.
This doesn't bother me because I live in a the greatest Democracy ever (the U.S.A., of course) and I can just go out and vote against horrible treaties that violate my country's sovereignty and institute draconian penalties for running nmap. We get to vote for everything because we live in a Democracy. Hackers are jealous of our freedom, just like the people of Afghanisan who voted 19-1 for their government to fly airliners into the WTC two months ago.
God bless the free people of the U.S.A.!!!
All copies of Deus Ex should be immediately confiscated. This game advocates terrorism in the following forms
- Hacking into a computer system - click 'Hack' and you're instantly in. If a real life version of this was developed, we could be in serious trouble
- Determining where to bomb stuff. In the game, you bomb a huge ship by placing explosives at designated points. A terrorist could potentially sink a ship with this kind of deadly information!
- Also promotes an anti-government ideal. You eventually turn AGAINST the government because of some extremist terrorist group. You will also be actively disrupting TWO U.S. military facilities, which are federal offenses.
- Promotes killing. The so-called 'tranquilizer arrows' in the game do nothing. The reason why a guard shot with a tranquilizer arrow falls down is because he's so tired from chasing you five miles. Any non-lethal alternative is discouraged - at the beginning of the game, Kaplan berates you for using a minimum force approach. Whacking somebody with a baton just gets them angry at you, and when you chuck a gas grenade, it doesn't really do anything, the reason why they're rubbing their faces is because their contacts suddenly hurt.
-Determines future targets. The Statue of Liberty has been bombed by terrorists, giving future terrorists a potential target.
I urge all Slashdotters to write their congressman immediately and work to ban this game from store shelves. It worked for Primal Rage, now why not this?
Every country that signs onto this treaty currently has citizens who can use encryption. The legalities are changing, it seems since the various governments realized that the cat is already out of the bag, wrt encryption. The bad guys got it, and the good guys need to get it now. Witness in fact, direct from the treaty:
So, it's simple. Make yourself a key, and begin to encrypt things you send. If you dont know what it means to make a key, then go read any PGP site, including the one (still) at MIT.
If you really want to oppose this at the level where it matters, then encrypt. Dont write your senator, dont address the fine folks in Brussels. Encrypt.
Remember, encryption makes the internet a cozy bedside chat. Use it with your lovers, and use it with your friends.
Fear only the One who can factor large primes in his head, and never let them put a key on your head or your hand. Simple. Easy. Fun. Have fun. Love God. Love your neighbor. And have a Great Thanksgiving, America.
It really won't matter, they are all so scared of Anthrax, no mail is being opened.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
But Germany is the country with the most tapped phones per 1000 inhabitants in the whole world, and still growing.
That they fund GnuPG hast something to do with the fact, that the european industry is afraid of Echelon.
But the government is really eager nowadays to enforce an Orwellian police state.
If you are able to understand german, there are some disturbing articles at telepolis about the new European cyber-police called Enfopol.
Anybody know a country which doesn't sacrifice freedom to "fight terrorism" these days ?
Can someone please give me an example of *ONE* "life-threatening [felony]" that has been committed as a resulkt of a hack?
I don't remember ever reading about one...
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
"A European convention to be signed on Friday aims to unite countries in the fight against computer criminals, who have moved on from ``innocent'' hacking to fraud, embezzlement and life-threatening felonies."
This little quote from the article on yahoo illustrates another misconception... that "innocent" hackers are the one moving into fraud etc. Innocent hackers are still innocent hackers. Criminals that perpetrate these crimes intended to be criminals from the outset. The people (jerks) committing these so-called life-threatening felonies most likely never were innocent, or even hackers.
We should stand up and say something to our legislators, but realistically nothing will be done. I have tried to contact my "congresswoman" on several occasions to no avail. The only thing most politicians seem to care about are their careers. Sorry to the decent politicos for the generalization.
J
Fire in the sky
Section 9.2.c: ... realistic images representing a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
"child pornography shall include pornographic material that visually depicts
Rendered images will be deemed illegal. (Also note that section 9.2.b says you can't take pronographic pictures of someone that "appears" to be a minor)
And no, I am not a fan of child pornography, but section 9.2.c seems to be making new clarifications to current pornography law, and 9.2.b is just very poorly worded.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
Hmm... okay. Can then can someone tell me if there's ever been an intelligently built system that been the subject of a life-threatening hack?
-RB
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Voila, there's your line. Its accepted whats OK and whats not OK when it comes to hiring, by the same token a set of rules can be applied to hate speech.
Hate speech IMO is not OK because it infringes on the rights of those it is directed to. The right of the African-American community for instance, to live peacefully without slander directed toward them, is more important than the right of white supremacicts to spout their false garbage.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Here's a challenge to any mathematically-minded geeks with way too much spare time:
I want a new form of encryption. I want this form of encryption to take two separate plain text messages and two separate passwords. I want the algorithm to generate a single cipher text.
This allows me to have one real message and one 'bluff' message. If my password is ever demanded of me, I can provide the 'bluff' password. Lo and behold it reveals an innocent, readable message.
I probably have the skills to implement this such that the cipher text contains both messages in separate blocks, but it would be too easy for someone to detect the fact that the cipher text contains two messages. It would be great if somebody knew how to make this sophisticated enough to appear to any reasonably intelligent encryption buff to be a single message.
My limited experience in this field makes me think this would be very computationally difficult. Hundreds of thousands of internal keys would need to be generated until a set of keys is found that yield the same ciphertext for the two messages. Brute force would be unrealistic, so you'd need someone with some fairly serious math skills to come up with some fancy algorithm.
Even better would be if the 'bluff' text could be decrypted by some common tool like PGP. This would do no good if the person asking for passwords knew to ask for two of them.
Remember, encryption makes the internet a cozy bedside chat. Use it with your lovers, and use it with your friends.
I guess encryption has its uses, but this doesn't seem to be one of them...
O FhOm7HJWvWTvdk
izcibySPu1JeGcokPOpRINXooynbmOpHjxS+DA1nxSVaaB6meW yN7CfrpCyGTNS1
+F0UxPvfjteZLzWqm2lhDjjFrQ6mHMc0Ezc4Ni58S8orIfwxse dIO2Ly+VmxG8T/
x7rIY2/njTZa6VUYt44JeXqyXoHNfLF0pBorWxkuO9sx5qAo6L ScYenu8XI1xRAs
a7Jd76k12TTJu8vQONa+RpqgPp0G1iY847SMJVVABcEsBoPO/f JsYXHFCjMFiKyh
iIA9V85Hf+vk69WbOSwftOhZDP5++K1d/l7VBlSHrSbon9fTB/ 4lHW0fIYDZBE3O
2zMt64BjMG6O8AdpplOiXsby6eTmfkQBn/Aer4lxBiQpuGdbFM 3yaQXH1i8aZ/hr
oDVzbxA1lC0fGSkC8q9XjAIQptkmfhl0N3x1yhk9P6P/q1ftC6 DOHrLQmJAG5w4m
c4niiqXade1Y6s1gWuzm6Bv3H9uKUu15+3FUnHd2Z3fz81lLE7 xzVHHl2+3k2vKp
pnyEbwvG4I58nM9RaA7Zb1JcpvgAkpZDUlZ4/9lOkD0l0aAuE7 woW1q64m641Z+n
Amvel1UItemo005jA6I5yAbFImdR63PDzejPocOJK3vDNbn9My 8J8cwFBom58XCg
cG05L/iKycJc0Z0AMMIhBj/sefnBrpbqS1PsYyZtcAsZ/zSdNo rsUfq1RUy9CNwu
VDmJwynXe92lFeM9H1IOvDa7DaZBp70CVhYOCAQMsWFTwfm2R1 qg94Sc68w27rTL
BBuP3vZzMIVjcMX/SqU8EhTMibSG+J2OwjC1Zw8/JwGqT0eXrX nO51rZwAIw/lJA
xmrF+VLulch7V7zrli2T99eD+sCsasyceCCP8O0b3i/h+1Vedm wbWkAR//UAwVJH
5Q+FjIExi9lsC4yNPepFW8pIlN2PiDWfZqxCIR0CP/0y+lQFz+ QbTuAUHGi3DgRz
huDraOdT9LXIclHn9Alg1dT4918jD6GIVlkdO5ILh2QNwE+RSJ zywu0TlR+JwCa9
opCwf3ShRCxb+vhLoxNzjuj6KxutY3vSCMWfgo8JFFzNEJ7cAs xL3+/Y9/IwCFql
s9saL3bSrZNM+Np+oO70QE2uiQWdEeDTWyFsBbPqCQbYrbokLF YGF1eCUw+ACkTX
QbT3KuVgoGQGKvVnCTdBD+ktkNKc/wM8RRY+DGqXEdLvy+l6A+ OUvprh7y5v88Lz
rDyECLbAdo6QDS8c2blQ8xQ2GErJusySgVkKgmtXAwfeuK0nlr Nh0MMHFOsTkPCu
QvgvjnXkMQ9pjav8t0eaRMhYOMpBF7BSPZQncN+AlEZRsGU0di vSK/NZLesuC3jZ
RaWaWMWVkNnOb8jt4JeZQI9cY+0ZZxPdcK1pi6OBgcRCuScj2C TmJek6EfTyPlDz
03GH06bVagDt5YXY7ioCrqg6wNemK8kzQm4IpjNJ9gMq/5kazJ wtXx/745xB3ZEp
6k/H9FI4RHCOMRM2/vAYQ614r8ES+PKR3IqtNna9kRtmAmQF2j Vnxx0AVk8GbDhg
E9axVrublYnwPJ/+0tHFrsfujTXqUAOITnx7Fm29/GSPDZsBoO g3TQiXw6oGS5TY
s9sVr7OWVhaKXFkg2dMn1xhRDJAURaDxnFJ+gyQfaJklU5kQq5 bvLf1Vxsa6OdUj
zt563fuwqu1pWNgiQ/0iPy1IcCDs+t9hdylLL1K7QSEaGRajNg ==
=/QEv
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use
qANQR1DBwU4DyLpSti4FQV8QB/9c+lWNySH0JbKZNCcdGlx1p
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
The law makes it mandatory to reveal any encryption keys you have. Failure to do so can result in fine/imprisonment etc.
As a previous poster mentioned, best not be forgetting those passwords, you could be jailed for not supplying it.
So imagine a scenario, you slander somebody in the UK, under the UK's more draconian slander laws the UK government requests your files from your computer. The US law enforcement agencies then confiscate your computer and demand all encryption keys. You, not wanting to go to jail, supply them with all you can remember, however there are 3 you don't recall. You go to jail for not supplying keys....
... or, during the process of the investigation, the UK law enforcement officials let it slip (since they know you can't do anything to them) that according to your email archives you're having an affair with your wife's sister....
... or, they find evidence of slander and order you to pay restitution of 100,000 or face extradition and jail.
Mind, you as previously stated, until congress gives it the OK, this is still somewhat conjecture, but just encrypting anything is not necessarily the answer.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Don't take a law that's designed to stop malicious people and extrapolate it into something that's going to take ones and zeros and make them illegal.
I'm sure this statement would've been much comfort to Dmitry Skylarov as he spent weeks in jail. Obviously he's one of those malicious people that laws are supposed to go after. Just because a law isn't intended to do one thing doesn't it mean it won't be used anyway.
Simply talking about hacking or trying to figure out how things work isn't going to land you in prison.
Sure thing. I'm sure that Steve Jackson will back this one all the way.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
If you really want to oppose this at the level where it matters, then encrypt. Dont write your senator, dont address the fine folks in Brussels. Encrypt.
Remember, encryption makes the internet a cozy bedside chat. Use it with your lovers, and use it with your friends.
Well, it also depends upon the country's specific implementation of the treaty. We here in the US will have to worry that the data nazis will succeed in removing our constitutional rights to have privacy, whereas most European and Canadian implementations will probably have strong privacy rights.
Note that encryption is only useful if you encrypt all your message and chat traffic. If you only encrypt the sensitive ones, it's easier to break. And it makes it obvious that those are the messages that one wants to break in the first place.
But if all your message traffic is encrypted, you can't tell which messages are important, so you have to brute force all of them.
- good thing I have my peril sensitive sunglasses -
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Jesus H. Christ -- learm how to spell.
Same to you
Good point and I didn't mean my reply to read as facetious as it does, now that I re-read it. But as for extraditions, there have already been cases where the US aserts its national laws on foreign citizens : that Welsh teenager for one, Jon Johansson for another. I guess the Skylarov case is slightly different, but the point remains - this treaty just seems to even up the terrain in terms of nations asserting their laws on other sovereign nations. I don't support this for the US and I don't support it for the rest of the world either.
Amen. And, how 'bout we make the maroons who fail to take *reasonable* steps to secure their computers (ie, at least keep up with patches), responsible for their own messes? Is that too much to ask?
Legally speaking, yes. It is not the property owners responsibility to make his security meet the requirements of the trespasser. You are not allowed on my property regardless of whether or not it is secured, as long as I clearly mark it as mine.
While someone may be accountable to a third party if their negligence results in a loss (to the third party), they are under no obligation to protect themselves. The trespasser/thief is wholly responsible for his acts and liable for any damage.
For example. If I leave my car unlocked, you are not entitled to enter it and steal my stereo. Even if I leave the door open with the engine running, you would be committing a crime if you drove it off.
Get some perspective and learn to keep your hands to yourself. You have no legal or moral recourse if you get busted intruding on someone elses property, regardless of how lax their security is.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
I'm starting to feel afraid of our governments. I have little doubt that the US will sign the treaty, and congress will pass it where george will sign it.
Although, I kinda prefer O.B. tampons.
Someone switches off the landing lights via the computer systems.
As a pilot who has experienced this sort of thing (through other causes) I can say with certainty that any competent pilot can either switch the runway lights back on or go missed (or both if their not comfortable with the situation). Most airports, even the large ones, have pilot controlled lighting (key the mike n times on the CTAF/Tower Frequency). If the pilot is already in the flair then s/he can already see the runway with the plane's landing/taxi lights, and unless visibility is really, really bad (in which case they can go missed) they can land at that point without the runway lights being on at all.
If there really aren't options (like a blackout due to thunderstorm, terrorist bomb, or luser system cracker), then the pilot can do a missed approach and enter a holding pattern (if on instruments) until the situation is resolved or s/he is diverted to another airport, or if flying VFR simply go around and either try the approach again or find an alternate airport. Even in the worst case scenerio turning off the runway lights, even on short final, is hardly life threatening. Hell, its happened to me simply because the lights had been turned on 15 minutes earlier by another landing pilot and the timer shut the lights off with the threshold about fifty feet away from my descending aircraft. Seven quick clicks on the mike and I completed the landing without even a raise in pulse. This sort of thing happens all the time in non-computerized systems, and I will repeat again, it is not life threatening. Adding a computer to the situation doesn't change that, in the least.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Perhaps it is time for the geeks of the world to declare the internt a soverign country, with and end user licenses agrement that says something like the folowing:
/. could declare soverinty along with other places that would work better too. I suppose my long rant ends with a summary. I don't reacall the citizens of the internet having a say, that is bad.
ATTENTION by connecting your computer to the internet you agree that
1) Everyone has the right to say whatever they $^&# 'ign want and you can choose to listen or not.
2) you realize that the internet might be insecure, like walking down a street, Provide secruity for yourself.
3) We wil not take down a page you find offencive, someone wanted to say that.
4) We don't care about treaties you all signed, they are not ours.
5)By conneting your machine to our network you agree that you have read this agreement, even if you are a government this applies to you.
6) I said that we don't care if you are #$%'ing offended you controll where you browse.
7)Don't look to us to solve your internal network problems, it is YOUR fault they were not secure.
To governments:
we know your country has laws, so do we, we don't care what someone in another country did, it was not in your country. If you are so afraid of content perhaps you are closed minded or if you dislike content perhaps your citizens shouldn't be here.
Perhaps someone a little bit better should draft the deleration of indpendence for the net, But Hey the whole internet dosen't need to be indepented, Perhaps
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"-Unknowen
This is where Rubberhose comes in. Never thought I'd need it in America....
-Legion
Luckily congress still has to approve the treaty and we're lucky they're not stupid enuf--oh *shit*.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I guess I shouldn't call bullshit without doing my research first, but interestingly, this story has some details:
In March [1999], Department of Justice computer crime chief Scott Charney regaled a gathering of bankers with the story of a 1997 hacker who crashed a telephone switch, resulting in the landing lights at a Massachusetts airport going black.
Regular readers of this column will recall my conversation with the airport administrator, who assured me that his runway lights never even flickered.
Another report adds :
This incident was benign
But authorities said the outage had in fact caused no danger and little or no disruption at the airport, which sees a half-dozen flights a day.
"I don't have any reason to believe
In other words, the landing lights were not turned out, not least because it happened during the day. The Euro official's statement may not be complete bullshit as I claimed, but it's misleading at least. According to this piece on media hacking, the story is false. Yet this government site repeats the story and even claims that planes were diverted.
Whatever the truth of what really happened, there's clearly large dollops of myth in with the facts and it's no wonder my bullshit detector went off...
God, I'd kill for a country that wasn't so full of it's own pseudo-moral in-your-face neighbors-want-to-tell-you-how-the-fuck-to-live-yo ur-life bullshit. What violence I wouldn't do to live an a free country that's actually FREE.
Hey, I'm not sure if I remember this correctly since the Unacceptable Textbook Ban Treaty of 2014, but weren't there some guys who pretty much said the same thing back in the 1700's and did something about it?
Hope that little comment doesn't violate the Revisionist History Act of 2019. Wait, hold on, somebody's pounding on my front door....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
When asked, one must suply his/her password, right? So how does this work with doctors, lawyers (e.a.) and non-disclosure agreements with third parties? How will this law relate to other trust-relations which are also integrated within law?
Before a file is decrypted, it is impossible to tell whether it is part of such relation, or if it in fact contains illegal data, so how will this work out?
--Black holes are where God divided by zero--
You can't wear one while the cops are shooting at you..is a felony.
This alone is nice, but the kicker is that the 5th amendment (self-incrimination) should prevent legislation that requires the release of authentication (as opposed to encryption) information. The courts have repeatedly ruled that while the authorities have the right to subpoena your data, they cannot (under protection against self-incrimination) require you to testify that the data is in fact yours.
So I read it. the whole thing. Looks like it will:
A-Keep a zillion or so int. lawyers off food stamps for the foreseeable future.
B-Reassure the int. fat cats that the "problem has been adequately addressed"
C-Set a new world record for obscufatory( I think that means unclear, sometimes contradictory and in view of the mass of existing law on the issue somewhat pointless) rhetoric.
D-Scare the pants off every cracker in the known world.( Man! I could hear all those plugs coming out of wall sockets all the way over here!)
E-Prove to the world that these guys(and gals and any others of the 8 or 9 known sexes involved) know what they are talking about and have banded together to do something about it!
As i sometimes do, I went to one of my old fart buddies and got his opinion (I'm 52 so these guys are really ancient). I explained it rather well I thought and when he stopped laughing he had this to say.
"Well it sorta reminds me of the Volstead act. (Booze prohibition in the 20's) We'd come out of those logging camps with a hell of a thirst and there was nary a drop to be had. We bought our booze from the local sherrif because he would'nt throw us in the pokie if we bought it from him. I don't remember that it changed much of anything at all except who got our wages. But you know that pretty much convinced us all that when it comes right down to it each man has pretty much got to make his own rules. You know what I mean?"
Yeah, guess I do. Well thaks for taking the time to read this. Jim Sofra, Queen Charlotte Island,"The trailing edge of technology"
Get some perspective and learn to keep your hands to yourself. You have no legal or moral recourse if you get busted intruding on someone elses property, regardless of how lax their security is.
Well, I haven't broken into (or even trespassed) into any systems, and I'm *NOT* making excuses for those who do. I'm just trying to point out that when actual damage occurs from these break-ins (ie, l33tH4x0r stumbles across thousands of credit-card numbers), *SOME* of the blame must be put on the negligence of the computer's owner, at least where it can be determined that not even minimal due effort was made to secure things.
>Fear only the One who can factor large primes in his head
Alrighty then...
Ph33r m3!
Ok, I want to live in a land of the free. I also want the opportunity to create wealth without exploiting anyone. And I really want to get away from racism and religion.
Where do I go? Brazil is on my short list, but I had a racist Brazillian GF once (against Asians). I'm also thinking someplace in Africa where there isn't too much government, but I love NYC and want someplace with a nightlife and high density land development. Car culture is a definite minus.
People of the world, where can I go?
Sharing of information privately does usually imply encrypting with someone elses key, and signing with your own. It's nice to know that signing alone gives anyone a clean alternative to plead the fifth. This makes the written word unrecordable until it is revealed willfully, as in a beaten confession, I guess. :-)
I would just like to take a moment, at a time of great progress in the international community, to thank our great leader John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft has protected us from the terrorist threat while ignoring naysayers making claims that Big Brother is coming from us. God bless you Sir!
To think that in this great nation, entrusted to us by our great lord Jesus Christ, almost slipped into the hands of heathens and leftists. Why our saintly leader Mr. Ashcroft even is moving to protect us from death by banning assisted suicide if the courts will simply admit who is in charge. Our office of Homeland Security together with the Justice Department will vanquish the evil ones from our midst.
Behold a Pale Horse!
Hey, when I paste this into notepad and save my old pgp wont read it. Could you please just say what you meant, huh? And dont worry. You are among friends here... heh.
Just a copy of the parent post (I guess you can try encrypting with my public key, you should get the same result. Or maybe not).
I can factor large primes in my head. Give me a large prime, and I'll prove it. In fact, I'll factor it before you even give it to me. Its factors are 1 and itself.
Article 5 ? System interference
Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data.
The wording sounds very loose.
Here is the referenced article from Dr. Rivest's homepage.
Is to find some twisted way to get a high ranking politician or law enforcement official liable under the treaty.
Use the treaty as a tool against those individuals who passed it in the first place.
The wording of the treaty is loose enough that there should be plenty of wiggle room to abuse.
Just imagine a US official being extradited to some obscure european country... the US will nullify that treaty so quickly the photons won't have time to reach your eyeballs.
any people who didn't want to affect children in their search for child porn would be restricted to the real thing
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
This quote is from the Alpha Centauri game. From the character Commisioner Pravin Lal (leader of the UN Peacekeeper faction), and said to be from the U.N. Declaration of Rights.
or create a floating city of geeks... a new nation, freedom of information
Here you go, enjoy -
Rubberhose
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
The following has the potential to outlaw current feedback system that keeps vendors providing patches for glaring holes in their products. See Bruce Schneiers CryptoGram.
If the interpretation of device is as wide as it was in the DeCSS/DMCA case, also discussion about vulnerabilities could be prosecuted. Not to mention the actual exploits that seem to be the only things that push some vendors to take action.
I live in Europe/Finland. Until now it has been mostly safe to distribute & possess things like DeCSS here, but that seems to be changing.
Quotes from the convention:
Article 6 - Misuse of devices
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 intentionally and without right:
a. the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:
i. a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 2 ? 5;
The point is that everyone does it. (encrypts) If you must reveal your key, then that is up to you. But if everyone encrypts (or see elsewhere in this thread for signing and "winnowing"), then the parties to the treaty will only go after the people "they" are really interested in. Which doesn't bother me nearly so much as arbitrary scanning, which is a possibility under the measures proposed.
We just pass a treaty here throw out some rights there, blend in a WORLD court, add a dash of WTO. sprinkle in some cnn for flavor. garnish with a little lie or two. serve with propaganda.
Yup! Good point. I share your view.I figure anybody (or any goverment) that ignores the K.I.S.S. principle is a bit puffed up. All this stuff costs time and money as well and that does'nt earn them any credibility in my book. What happened to simple yet elegant proposals? Not a bit of art in the lot of them. Best, JS
Note that encryption is only useful if you encrypt all your message and chat traffic. If you only encrypt the sensitive ones, it's easier to break. And it makes it obvious that those are the messages that one wants to break in the first place.
It's even more effective if the majority of people use encryption.
Having cast my partially legally trained eye over this treaty, I have to say that on the whole people have got this one wrong. To me this looks like a non-issue treaty. The things that people seem to be going on about are not the result of this treaty. Specifically:
* There is no substantive change in the criminality of IP related activities. - The treaty simply states that states must follow their other international oblgations. The problem is in the IP treaties, not this one.(Article 10)
* The treaty's search and seizure type provisions refer to "competant authorities". In international law there is not distinction between different arms of government so a country can fulfil its obligations under this part by allowing a court to make an order. Courts almost certainly already have this power in all relevant countries.
* The treaty does not enable or require countries to apply legislation extra-territorially. Sklyarov type cases are nothing to do with this treaty. Jurisdiction under this treaty follows the norms at international law (Article 22). That is, states only have jurisdiction over offences committed in their own territory. The extradition rules are pretty much standard international rules. They allow for getting back people who are alledged to have committed a crime in your state and who have fled elsewhere.
* The aiding and betting rules are also not out of the ordinary. If you read the crimes act in your jurisdiction you will probably find similar provisions applying to all crimes, not just computer offences.
* The treaty explicitly does not override the European Convention on Human Rights or any other human rights treaty (Article 15)
* The treaty does not require countries to pass RIP style password surrender legislation.
Yeah, this manner of legislatoin is slowly but surely bringing my worst fears into reality. I love living in a world where I can act like an international citizen. I can go from country to country, experience each has to offer, and avoid the pitfalls present in any particular one by simply not going there. I live in England, and whilst I like many aspects of life here, I see freedoms being stripped away over time, and I sure don't like it. So, what can I do? Leave. I'm not tied to the nation, I can bugger off without a moments thought. However, when I see an international attempt to subvert the freedoms I enjoy in a supposedly free country, moving to another affected country isn't going to get me anywhere. So, where can I go from here?
"We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
Hash: SHA1
...unless you're communicating with someone in the UK, who can
be compelled to hand over
in prison), and who is forbidden to tell you (or anyone else)
that using encryption to communicate with them is now
compromised (on pain of, you guessed it, five years in
prison. This is the way that ECHELON works: one of it's
functions is to allow certain members of UKUSA to get around
domestic legislation banning surveillance of their own citizens.
There's no law forbidding them from using stuff intercepted,
and then passed on by, friendly governments.
The worldwide stampede to crush individual's freedom and privacy
is the most depressing thing to happen since I was born four
decades back. Join the EFF, write to your governmental representatives,
and encrypt, encrypt, encrypt... secure your machines and networks
as well as you possibly can. Use IPSec. Use VPNs. Tunnel stuff through
ssh.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (CYGWIN_NT-4.0)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7/VmVkZawWPzItK8RAncVAJ0ZmBWoSyZvCTaez68
5GaHQtwd6JBeRGZIdnWZ8GQ=
=/2q4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
The second exhibit could be used to conclude that devices implanted by the feds to intercept keystrokes in order to gain access to an individual's encrypted file is criminal. How does "preventive detention of federal agents suspected of terrorist acts, namely several forms of system interference" sound to you?
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
38 Religious hatred offences
(1) Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (racial hatred offences) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) For the heading substitute "RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS HATRED".
(3) After section 17 insert -
"Meaning of "religious hatred
17A Meaning of "religious hatred"
In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
(4) In the following provisions for "racial hatred" substitute "racial or religious hatred" -
(a) the cross-heading preceding section 18;
(b) section 18(l) and (5) (use of words or behaviour or display of written material);
(c) section 19(l) and (2) (publishing or distributing written material);
(d) section 20(l) and (2) (public performance of play);
(e) section 21(l) and (3) (distributing, showing or playing a recording);
(f) section 22(l), (3), (4), (5) and (6) (broadcasting or including programme in cable programme service);
(g) section 23(l) and (3) (possession of racially inflammatory material).
(5) In the sidenote to section 23 and the preceding cross-heading for "racially inflammatory" substitute "inflammatory".
(6) In section 29 (interpretation) after the definition of "recording" insert -
" "religious hatred" has the meaning given by section 17A;".
(7) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (arrestable offences) in paragraph (i) (offences under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986) for "racial hatred" substitute "racial or religious hatred".
39 Religiously aggravated offences
(1) Part 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In the cross-heading preceding section 28 for "Racially-aggravated" substitute "Racially or religiously aggravated".
(3) In section 28 (meaning of racially aggravated) -
(a) in the sidenote and subsection (1) for "racially aggravated" substitute "racially or religiously aggravated";
(b) in subsections (1) and (2) for "racial group" substitute "racial or religious group";
(c) in subsection (3) for the words from "on" to the end of the subsection substitute "on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph."
(4) In section 28 after subsection (4) insert -
"(5) In this section "religious group" means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
(5) In each of the provisions listed in subsection (6) -
(a) in the sidenote for "Racially-aggravated" substitute "Racially or religiously aggravated";
(b) in subsection (1) for "racially aggravated" substitute "racially or religiously aggravated".
(6) The provisions are -
(a) section 29 (assaults);
(b) section 30 (criminal damage);
(c) section 31 (public order offences);
(d) section 32 (harassment etc.).
(7) In section 153 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (increase in sentences for racial aggravation) -
(a) in the sidenote for "racial aggravation" substitute "racial or religious aggravation";
(b) in subsection (1) for the words from "racially-aggravated assaults" to the end of the subsection substitute "racially or religiously aggravated assaults, criminal damage, public order offences and harassment etc).";
(c) in subsections (2) and (3) for "racially aggravated" substitute "racially or religiously aggravated".
(8) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (arrestable offences) in paragraph (p) (offences falling within section 32(l)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) for "racially-aggravated" substitute "racially or religiously aggravated".
40 Racial or religious hatred offences: penalties
In section 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (penalties for racial or religious hatred offences) for "two years" substitute "seven years".
41 Hatred and fear offences: penalties
In Article 16(l) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/ 463 (N.I. 7)) (penalties for offences involving stirring up hatred or arousing fear) for "2 years" substitute "7 years".
42 Saving
This Part does not apply to anything done before it comes into force.
--are they trying to outlaw christianity?, ie.. those who dislike antichrists?