G8: States and large companies leave to hunting the cyberpirates
Jean-Pierre Chevènement excluded creation, as suggested it the Americans, from a world data-processing font which could have continued the suspects beyond the national borders. The governments want to convince the companies to invest in their security Updated Tuesday May 16 2000
Lucas Delattre
HOW TO ESTABLISH a " penal code " international for better fighting against all the forms of piracy on the data-processing networks? Such is one of the first objectives of the most industrialized countries, which are confronted with a rise to power of the " cybercriminality ", this new form of delinquency, or sometimes even of terrorism, which is caught with the interests users of them, but also of the companies and States. Attacks of sites, transmission of destroying messages such as ILOVEYOU, diffusion of contents with character pédophile on the Net: the forms of the cybercriminality are very varied and have as a common point their capacity to be unaware of the borders for better escaping any control. Comparable with the tax havens, of the " paradises of the Net " are likely to multiply, in particular in Asia.
For Monday May 15, the security in the cyberspace has been the subject of a three days meeting of the countries most industrialized (G8) in Paris. Diplomats, magistrates, police officers, as of the members of the institutions charged to take care of the protection of the private life were invited to dialogue with the representatives of the 150 companies among most significant of the sector of communication and information technologies.
" POINTS OF CONTACTS "
This conference falls under a process which began at the Summit of Lyon in 1996, date on which the countries of G8 in particular adopted " points of contact " to exchange their information on the cybercrime. The meeting of Paris should release from the tracks of action for the heads of State and government of the countries of G8 which must be found in node with Okinawa, in Japan, in July.
For once, Europeans show themselves more " liberal " that the Americans. In their analysis of the new criminality related to the data-processing networks, the United States is in favour of a very repressive approach. Europeans, them, do not intend to give to unspecified " a cyberpolice " the right to violate the private life of each one in the name of defense of the interests of the States " Internet would be a space without right or the cyberspace, from its nature even, would require a specific legal status or a cyberpolice which would exceed the framework of the States and their sovereign competences. Nothing is inaccurate any more. The States preserve the responsibility, and the capacity to act ", declared the Minister of Interior Department French Jean-Pierre Chevènement, which introduced the debates. The French position is largely shared by Europeans and the Japanese.
The Americans, at the beginning, were in favour of a all-repressive system. It acted, with the eyes of Washington, to establish a system making it possible the services of information of the whole world to short-circuit the legal institutions to go up as fast as possible to the criminals. The United States considers that the cybercriminality is a stake of national defense of first command but their interest is also economic: they do not want to handicap the rise to power of the electronic trade, called to draw to the top the American and world growth.
In front of the European reserves to launch out in this crusade, the Americans put water in their wine " the American speech changed ", indicates one in the French delegation. Beyond the starting divergences, the countries of G8 make the unanimous report today that the respect of the anonymity and the private life of each one must be respected, but that it should not be a folding screen to do anything.
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES
One thus seeks to harmonize the definition of the cybercrime and to define procedures of effective co-operation within the framework of the sovereignty of the States. Example: the concept of " incentive to racial hatred " does not exist in the United States. However nothing prevents the sites néo-Nazis based on the other side of the Atlantic to diffuse their propaganda in Europe via the Net...
The States of G8 granted their violins but it remains to them to convince the companies to take their share of responsibility. Such is the principal object of the meeting of G8 in Paris, which gathers for the first time the States and the private sector " the industrialists want all and their opposite ", known as a member of the French delegation. In other words the companies want at the same time a maximum of security and a minimum of overcosts. One of the principal difficulties encountered by the States is to convince the Internet operators to preserve during several months the data they have, to allow the safeguarding of the elements of proof. Will of regulation of the States on a side, libertarian aspirations of the " Net economy " of the other: the conflict which takes shape is far from being solved. *** TRANSLATION ENDS HERE ***
Then what was driving him? Financial gain? Power? Fame? Sexual appeal? Come on, now. If performing an act of kindness is not considered ethical, then I don't know what is.
I spoke to some people over at Intel recently, and I asked them if they were worried about AMD at all? I mean with all the recent production issues they have had with their chipsets, RAMBUS, etc., I was really curious about what they were thinking. Were thay really scared and rushing things? What they said didn't suprise me. They actually like the competition, as it keeps the monopoly police off of their back on on Microsoft's. Intel has been extremely quiet lately, especially in their expansion into other markets such as network processors, home networking, etc.
I disagree. If someone steals a CD of mine, I'm not held criminially responsible for the other person stealing my CD, even if I leave it in an open window. The same should go for MP3's. Leaving an MP3 up on Napster is like leaving a CD in an open window- it's there, but I'm not saying steal it. And if you do, you break the law, not me.
If you upgraded to the new Napster Beta 6 client, you will need to download the new napigator client. Napster has blocked all opennap servers in the new client. Last I heard, the new napigator program was to be released today.
Although the judge ruled that Napster is not just a medium for the transfer of files, it does not put a nail in Napster's coffin yet (although it dosen't look good). I wish the article had said why the judge gave that ruling, especially with the recent ruling by another court limiting the liability an ISP has. Perhaps because Napster's servers are set up specifically to transfer MP3's, unlike an ISP where it strictly passed data without discrimination. Napster needs to set up it's servers to transfer all sorts of files, therefore limiting its liability. Thank god for gnutella and opennap. I think gnutella would stand a legal test of fire a little better because there are no central servers at all- just peer to peer.
If the judge has ruled that mp3.com copied and re-played the music without the publisher's consent, then perhaps (and this would suck for modem users) if you own the CD, MP3.com would let you rip it onto their server, where you could then listen to the music where ever. Fair use law certainly covers this. So basically MP3.com could be a storage area for your MP3's, and could stream them back to you. Basically the same concept, but you would have to transmit all the 1's and 0's over to their site first, where as now you just have to have the CD scanned without transmitting the data.
This is nothing to be alarmed about in the Linux world. Microsoft's plan over the next few years is to make computers easier and friendlier for the home user, and this is just one aspect of this plan. If you follow MS like I do, this is simply a new feature that will be implemented in MS's next OS release, Windows ME. Every time the OS boots, it's going to check on-line for an updated patch/feature (sucks to be a modem user), and automatically download and install it. Other things such as improved speech recognition and even a rumored tweaking to the GUI are in the works.
Are we now to assume that the source code to virii are the same plane as say, angry adolescent poetry? Or perhaps software cracks can now be viewed legally as civil disobedience for the digital era -- a charming rebuttal of the profiteering capitalist gluttons dominating the Age of Silicon?
Not being a legal expert, I would say that what the court means is that, yes, even though you are free to express yourself and your beliefs, through, print, speech, and now code (just not nudity), the same laws and boundaries laid out over the past two centuries apply. The first amendment gives us the right to say what we want, as log as it does not step on someone else's privacy or civil rights. Even now you can't harass someone through a speech or publication because of their color, sex or whatever, and the court is saying that this is going to apply to a software program or web site as well.
While a youth can write all the angry, adolescent poetry he/she wishes, (First Amendment right) he/she better be careful they are not violating any hate crimes or carrying any threats of violence to any individuals or corporations. The same thing goes for writing a virus program. You certainly can write a destructive piece of code, but you'd have a hard time proving that you had no criminal intent, and if you released it, fugeddaboutit. That's a criminal act equivalent to smashing a computer.
My guess is when the app comes out of Beta, they will have enough proof to show advertisers that they have enough eyeballs to put banner ads into the client. Plus they will be able to prove that most of the users are 18-24 yrs. old-- a marketers dream! I'm almost positive that they will incorporate banner ads. I also think that they will offer a "premium version" of the client with added features for a price. So they'll probably have a basic free version and the upgraded version. Just look at RealPlayer. The've sold tons of the upgraded versions even though you can get the baxic for free.
The reason for the ADV: header is so that you can filter out any messge with "adv" in the subject. It's a good beginning, but this law will not even make a dent in the amount of spam the net moves every day.
Slashdot Mirror
G8: States and large companies leave to hunting the cyberpirates
Jean-Pierre Chevènement excluded creation, as suggested it the Americans, from a world data-processing font which could have continued the suspects beyond the national borders. The governments want to convince the companies to invest in their security
Updated Tuesday May 16 2000
Lucas Delattre
HOW TO ESTABLISH a " penal code " international for better fighting against all the forms of piracy on the data-processing networks? Such is one of the first objectives of the most industrialized countries, which are confronted with a rise to power of the " cybercriminality ", this new form of delinquency, or sometimes even of terrorism, which is caught with the interests users of them, but also of the companies and States. Attacks of sites, transmission of destroying messages such as ILOVEYOU, diffusion of contents with character pédophile on the Net: the forms of the cybercriminality are very varied and have as a common point their capacity to be unaware of the borders for better escaping any control. Comparable with the tax havens, of the " paradises of the Net " are likely to multiply, in particular in Asia.
For Monday May 15, the security in the cyberspace has been the subject of a three days meeting of the countries most industrialized (G8) in Paris. Diplomats, magistrates, police officers, as of the members of the institutions charged to take care of the protection of the private life were invited to dialogue with the representatives of the 150 companies among most significant of the sector of communication and information technologies.
" POINTS OF CONTACTS "
This conference falls under a process which began at the Summit of Lyon in 1996, date on which the countries of G8 in particular adopted " points of contact " to exchange their information on the cybercrime. The meeting of Paris should release from the tracks of action for the heads of State and government of the countries of G8 which must be found in node with Okinawa, in Japan, in July.
For once, Europeans show themselves more " liberal " that the Americans. In their analysis of the new criminality related to the data-processing networks, the United States is in favour of a very repressive approach. Europeans, them, do not intend to give to unspecified " a cyberpolice " the right to violate the private life of each one in the name of defense of the interests of the States " Internet would be a space without right or the cyberspace, from its nature even, would require a specific legal status or a cyberpolice which would exceed the framework of the States and their sovereign competences. Nothing is inaccurate any more. The States preserve the responsibility, and the capacity to act ", declared the Minister of Interior Department French Jean-Pierre Chevènement, which introduced the debates. The French position is largely shared by Europeans and the Japanese.
The Americans, at the beginning, were in favour of a all-repressive system. It acted, with the eyes of Washington, to establish a system making it possible the services of information of the whole world to short-circuit the legal institutions to go up as fast as possible to the criminals. The United States considers that the cybercriminality is a stake of national defense of first command but their interest is also economic: they do not want to handicap the rise to power of the electronic trade, called to draw to the top the American and world growth.
In front of the European reserves to launch out in this crusade, the Americans put water in their wine " the American speech changed ", indicates one in the French delegation. Beyond the starting divergences, the countries of G8 make the unanimous report today that the respect of the anonymity and the private life of each one must be respected, but that it should not be a folding screen to do anything.
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES
One thus seeks to harmonize the definition of the cybercrime and to define procedures of effective co-operation within the framework of the sovereignty of the States. Example: the concept of " incentive to racial hatred " does not exist in the United States. However nothing prevents the sites néo-Nazis based on the other side of the Atlantic to diffuse their propaganda in Europe via the Net...
The States of G8 granted their violins but it remains to them to convince the companies to take their share of responsibility. Such is the principal object of the meeting of G8 in Paris, which gathers for the first time the States and the private sector " the industrialists want all and their opposite ", known as a member of the French delegation. In other words the companies want at the same time a maximum of security and a minimum of overcosts. One of the principal difficulties encountered by the States is to convince the Internet operators to preserve during several months the data they have, to allow the safeguarding of the elements of proof. Will of regulation of the States on a side, libertarian aspirations of the " Net economy " of the other: the conflict which takes shape is far from being solved. *** TRANSLATION ENDS HERE ***
Then what was driving him? Financial gain? Power? Fame? Sexual appeal? Come on, now. If performing an act of kindness is not considered ethical, then I don't know what is.
I spoke to some people over at Intel recently, and I asked them if they were worried about AMD at all? I mean with all the recent production issues they have had with their chipsets, RAMBUS, etc., I was really curious about what they were thinking. Were thay really scared and rushing things? What they said didn't suprise me. They actually like the competition, as it keeps the monopoly police off of their back on on Microsoft's. Intel has been extremely quiet lately, especially in their expansion into other markets such as network processors, home networking, etc.
*cough* *cough* Slashdot ripoff! *cough*
I disagree. If someone steals a CD of mine, I'm not held criminially responsible for the other person stealing my CD, even if I leave it in an open window. The same should go for MP3's. Leaving an MP3 up on Napster is like leaving a CD in an open window- it's there, but I'm not saying steal it. And if you do, you break the law, not me.
If you upgraded to the new Napster Beta 6 client, you will need to download the new napigator client. Napster has blocked all opennap servers in the new client. Last I heard, the new napigator program was to be released today.
Although the judge ruled that Napster is not just a medium for the transfer of files, it does not put a nail in Napster's coffin yet (although it dosen't look good). I wish the article had said why the judge gave that ruling, especially with the recent ruling by another court limiting the liability an ISP has. Perhaps because Napster's servers are set up specifically to transfer MP3's, unlike an ISP where it strictly passed data without discrimination. Napster needs to set up it's servers to transfer all sorts of files, therefore limiting its liability. Thank god for gnutella and opennap. I think gnutella would stand a legal test of fire a little better because there are no central servers at all- just peer to peer.
If the judge has ruled that mp3.com copied and re-played the music without the publisher's consent, then perhaps (and this would suck for modem users) if you own the CD, MP3.com would let you rip it onto their server, where you could then listen to the music where ever. Fair use law certainly covers this. So basically MP3.com could be a storage area for your MP3's, and could stream them back to you. Basically the same concept, but you would have to transmit all the 1's and 0's over to their site first, where as now you just have to have the CD scanned without transmitting the data.
This is nothing to be alarmed about in the Linux world. Microsoft's plan over the next few years is to make computers easier and friendlier for the home user, and this is just one aspect of this plan. If you follow MS like I do, this is simply a new feature that will be implemented in MS's next OS release, Windows ME. Every time the OS boots, it's going to check on-line for an updated patch/feature (sucks to be a modem user), and automatically download and install it. Other things such as improved speech recognition and even a rumored tweaking to the GUI are in the works.
Are we now to assume that the source code to virii are the same plane as say, angry adolescent poetry? Or perhaps software cracks can now be viewed legally as civil disobedience for the digital era -- a charming rebuttal of the profiteering capitalist gluttons dominating the Age of Silicon?
Not being a legal expert, I would say that what the court means is that, yes, even though you are free to express yourself and your beliefs, through, print, speech, and now code (just not nudity), the same laws and boundaries laid out over the past two centuries apply. The first amendment gives us the right to say what we want, as log as it does not step on someone else's privacy or civil rights. Even now you can't harass someone through a speech or publication because of their color, sex or whatever, and the court is saying that this is going to apply to a software program or web site as well.
While a youth can write all the angry, adolescent poetry he/she wishes, (First Amendment right) he/she better be careful they are not violating any hate crimes or carrying any threats of violence to any individuals or corporations. The same thing goes for writing a virus program. You certainly can write a destructive piece of code, but you'd have a hard time proving that you had no criminal intent, and if you released it, fugeddaboutit. That's a criminal act equivalent to smashing a computer.
I was dumb enough to give my e-mail address. I think you're right about a stupid sat phone calling card scam.
My guess is when the app comes out of Beta, they will have enough proof to show advertisers that they have enough eyeballs to put banner ads into the client. Plus they will be able to prove that most of the users are 18-24 yrs. old-- a marketers dream! I'm almost positive that they will incorporate banner ads. I also think that they will offer a "premium version" of the client with added features for a price. So they'll probably have a basic free version and the upgraded version. Just look at RealPlayer. The've sold tons of the upgraded versions even though you can get the baxic for free.
FoxPro?
The reason for the ADV: header is so that you can filter out any messge with "adv" in the subject. It's a good beginning, but this law will not even make a dent in the amount of spam the net moves every day.