再保险:网络犯罪公约

“Magdych,吉姆”写道:>对不起,如果听起来不屑一顾……我绝对不是说>没关系。我只是想指出,一些>参数(特别是我早些时候)相当>以美国为中心。,例如,一个犯罪在一些>欧洲国家自己的枪。好点。我仍然在挣扎是否模棱两可的语言是一个问题!首先,我注意,我不精通公共政策是如何受到国际条约的问题。炎症的风险,我将表明CVE编辑委员会没有任何国际法专家。这不是批评,也不意味着我们应该什么都不做。但是,我认为我们作为一个板,寻求建议和输入的人也许能够阐明模糊条约语言的优点和缺点。 BTW, the example of gun ownership is precisely what is motivating me here. Some countries may choose to make it illegal to ban exploit code in much the same way that they ban guns. While I may strongly disagree with both of these (Mike, you aren't the only gun totin' redneck here), I recognize that it is within their sovereign right to do so. This leads me to question the purpose of such a treaty. Are there higher purposes that are served by drafting a international treaty that is vague enough to allow *some* countries to ban exploit code while allowing other countries not to ban it? Is the ambiguity the result of a political compromise to gain broader acceptance or is it misguided bumbling by beaureucrats who don't understand the technology? I'm not sure and would love to hear some input from some folks who regularly deal with policy issues at the federal level. Steve Christey, perhaps MITRE could open a dialogue with somebody like Jeffery Hunker and bring him into the discussion by acting as his proxy to the board. Perhaps others could suggest good sources from outside of the US to gain a broader international perspective. Dave -- ============================================================== Dave Mann || e-mail: dmann@bos.bindview.com Senior Security Analyst || phone: 508-485-7737 x254 BindView Corporation || fax: 508-485-0737