再保险:网络犯罪公约

嗯,我绝对理解和欣赏不想看到地下驱动任何进一步远离白天的光亮比它已经是…但是…不是他们(条约》作者)想这样做吗?我的意思是,是的,我们希望能够看到这些东西时表面能够找出如何保护自己。然而与此同时,我们必须接受,地下的某些方面的刑事定罪(甚至一些不是地下的一部分)必须采取某种形式以(至少)阻止黑手党男孩的。我们可以寻求有条约语言明确的…但我怀疑,可能成为老鼠的巢穴“行业专家”辩论废话(离开条约作家甚至认为我们不能同意)。或者,我们可以寻求包括某种“特殊豁免”类型的条款,允许我们去做我们所做的,不用担心。那些与我们互动可以利用我们的零花钱来保护自己(可能是可爱的更多的地下组织之一)。如果你把炸弹制作一个类比…我们可以设计一个炸弹没有(或多或少)障碍。任何人都可以建造一些炸弹而不用担心起诉(我喜欢PVC管材、发胶和苹果炸弹)。 Some can construct "serious" bombs for licensed use (bullets, snow removing missiles, etc...) Some can use "serious" bombs in licensed/permit situations (beaver damn busting...etc...) But build a bomb and associate it with terrorist materials (I have a pipe bomb and scribbling that describe me blowing up my school) and you're into criminal action. Use it for such criminal purposes and you're completely illegal. While the fact that some aspects of bombs is illegal may hinder bomb squads (to varying extents) from being able to disarm bombs they find, its better than making them legal. We may not want to drive the underground deeper, but we must accept that society is none-to-pleased with the idea that we might be fostering, encouraging, or even accepting of the actions of some, whom they see, akin to mafia boy. Appreciate that we, as an industry, have done a terrible job at preparing society for our ideas. Many companies have used the image that the name mafia boy conveys as marketing fodder (NAI's pierced hacker comes to mind.) As such, its going to be a hard slog to convince them that some of these underground folks are actually beneficial to life. Look at Mudge's persona as portrayed by the media for an example. A thief is a criminal. Put him to work with a security firm to devise better ways to protect a bank and he's a consultant. If thieves were getting into too many banks, would we legalize it in the hope we'd get better at catching them? I think not. Clinton's idea is to take these cyber-criminals and send them to school, then onto a cyber-peace corps. NewEconomy.com's idea is to offer him options, a T1 and a shiny new laptop. With more than 1 million vacant IT positions in the U.S. alone, its pretty clear that these criminals are in great demand. With such incentive abounding to lure someone from the dark side, those that don't want to come have to been seen as "hard core", no? If they are "hard core", do we even talk to them today? Are we likely to? Will we lose anything (will their perception of themselves change) if we label them as criminals? I'm sorry, I've gone on too long already. I'll try not to say anything more on the list until more have chimed in (I'll reply to any comments in private.) Cheers, Russ - NTBugtraq Editor "dot-age" (as in "we're in the dot-age") = senility (source Webster's)