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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
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?
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?
Waah waah waah. I want to break into other people's systems. If they didn't want me running around in their computers, they would have patched their systems. If they didn't want me running around in their houses, the would have put bars on the windows and a security guard at every door. If they didn't want me driving their car, the would have it locked in a steel safety cage. If they didn't want me screwing their wife, they'd have her chained to the stove.
Bitch, you break into my computer, I will press charges, I don't care what patches I've neglected. Just because I forgot to lock my door doesn't mean I've invited you into my house. Unauthorized access is just that, unauthorized. Once little terrorist fucks like you recognize that every computer connected to the Internet isn't put there for you to hack into or DOS, the world will be a much better place
When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
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?
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.
Actually, banning hate speech causes more problems than you seem to think, mostly because different people will consider different things hate speech.
Suppose that I say that all blacks should die. This may qualify as hate speech to you (as it would to me also), but would sound somehow reasonable for a white supremacist.
How about if I say that Americans are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. That would probably be considered hate speech as well, but not so by say, the Taliban.
How about if I say that the Taliban are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. Surely this is hate speech as well, if we are to hold everyone to the same standard?
So therein lies the problem: different people, different points of view, which ends with the stronger one censoring the marginal one through the "hate speech" label.
For another example, the Church of Scientology saying already says its critics engage in religious hate-speech in an attempt to quench criticism. Surely having a ban on hate speech at hand would please them and other criticized organisations greatly...
"I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
No it's not. Racial hatred is abhorrent to most of us, but it is not like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater as it does not put those hearing it in imminent danger of life and limb. Nor does it put those who it disparages in danger unless the person advocates violence toward them, in which case they are violating the law (in most countries).
Before you advocate banning speech that you hate, think about the absurd lengths that political correctness can take people to. Besides, "Free Speech" is exactly that. The ability to say whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. And "hurt others" doesn't mean hurting their feelings. If they feel bad, tough $hit.
Curtailing anyone's right to say what they want is way to EVIL to do it unless someone will be badly injured or killed if what they want to say is said, and it has to be directly linked.
For some reason Europeans seem to think that you can just draw a line and say "That's hate speech" and still have freedom to express yourself. Maybe you can do that, but at what point does hate speech stop being hate speech.
I mean, why ban Nazi items on Yahoo auctions? How "free" is that? The items aren't advocating racial hatred. That's just stupid.
Even in the People's Republic of China you have "Free Speech" if you define "free" speech as that which the powers at be don't find offensive.
Learn to listen to speech that you don't like. If it's as bogus as real racial hatred is, then you won't have to listen long, but the idiots spouting it will still have their rights intact.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
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
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
So now we can't talk about religion, sex, etc. for fear that someone will take offense and call it "hate speech"? How insanely stupid. This is the problem with curtailing ANY speech. This is the path that leads to. This is why SMART people in the US through court cases have said that prior constraint of speech is to be avoided at all costs and only allowed where DIRECT and DAMAGING results will occur.
Besides, YOU think the speech of the white supremecists is false garbage. Who made YOU arbiter of the universe? YOU might think that the DMCA is beautiful and those who oppose it are spouting false garbage as well. Maybe it's "hate speech" to denounce the DMCA as the evil piece of $hit it is. Down this path leads madness.
The German government thinks the Scientologists are spouting false garbage, but the Scientologists say they are just practicing their religion. Who's right?
Let people hear it for themselves and make their own opinion. That is "openness". That is "Freedom". Freedom is protecting ALL speech. That doesn't mean that SOME speech can't have consequences, but it should only be speech where it can be proven to be DIRECT and DAMAGING.
Besides, the eventual end of this "don't discriminate" stuff being applied everywhere is where we have Arab terrorists killing 5000 people and the police unable to question Arabs because they are Arab and came from Afganistan/Saudi Arabia, etc., even though there is a high probability they know something about the attacks.
No one should be discriminated against unfairly, but we shouldn't let political correctness lead us to stupidity either.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
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--
> That is NOT the same thing as a Superman movie teaching a kid to jump off the roof. There's no 'urge' for the kid to jump off the roof, and Superman doing so doesn't teach the kid that it's okay to give in to his 'urge'.
.. it does NOT teach us that the real thing IS OKAY. People go to see it, not for the plot, or the acting, but because they want to see a PRETEND VERSION OF SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINATELY NOT OKAY WHEN DONE FOR REAL.
.. were you abused, or are you just looking out for the poor helpless clueless defenseless abuse victims like me?
Okayokay. I retract my Superman example.
Any violent movie. Bruce Willis is the hero. Does he teach us that killing is okay? That, if you have the urge to kill someone (as people tend to do), just find a bunch of wrong doers, and then shoot the living shit out of them? No, because is PRETEND killing, and the sane ones out there, know it. Just like pornography in which the subject 'appears young' tells us that it is OKAY to pretend
Also:
Diaper fetish movies. Athromorphic pornography. Rape fantasy movies. All are examples of situations or imagery that depict acts that, if carried out in real life, would inflict hurt on people (or animals.) I've had two girlfriends who loved rape porn. Does having pornography that ENACTS a scenario that participants and audiences know are wrong in real life constitute a violation of the rights of anyone? NO.
I was abused as a child. I was abused as a teenager. Fuck you for telling me to keep my mouth shut about a subject I know nothing about, and double fuck you (unless you were also abused) for assuming you know the ramifications of such pornography.
Urges are like earthquake faults. It's far better to let them out in small, consentual ways than to force someone into seeking out the 'big one' when the urges get too much with no release.
So tell me
"Old man yells at systemd"
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;