再保险:第二网络犯罪条约草案声明

(以下是反弹消息从马特主教。我将此消息的“应答”设置为他的地址。——史蒂夫]:bishop@nob.cs.ucdavis.edu结婚2000年5月10日11:59:10:亚当Shostack < adam@HOMEPORT。ORG > cc: cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org cc: bishop@cs.ucdavis.edu应答:马特主教< bishop@cs.ucdavis.edu >主题:Re:第二网络犯罪条约草案声明回答:你结婚的消息,2000年5月10日10:58:30 -0400。<20000510105829. b20100@weathership.homeport.org>日期:结婚,2000年5月10日08:54:42 -0700:马特主教< bishop@nob.cs.ucdavis.edu >由于分级(Spaf不是决赛,你很幸运,我们有5周的学期去!)我一直沉默。这里我走。我喜欢史蒂夫的信,斯图尔特,安德烈写道。然而我希望权衡亚当的评论。我不认为语言这一段是适得其反:>,如果相反,该条约禁止使用任何使用开发工具,我们>担心这将是适得其反。因为电脑>罪犯目前主要的有效法律>执行,他们将不会有太多的影响通过新的法律禁止他们>工具。我将添加“然而,计算机安全专家希望保持法律的范围内将不利影响,也会组织希望使用他们的服务来提高他们的安全。”This, on the theory that we have to hit people who aren't security experts in the face with the problem. I also do not think the paragraph: > We urge that appropriate laws criminalizing the misuse of > such tools replace the ownership or creation clauses, and further that > the Council fund research into ways to encourage companies to produce > more secure software, such as, but not limited to, recinding warranty > law exemptions, requiring recalls of bad software, etc. is too controversial. My only concern is that including it might give the treaty makers the idea that we're in it for funding and not on principle. If others do not think it will be taken that way, I'd urge its inclusion. But I think the letter as is is acceptable (obviously, I'd prefer the sentence above added!) and would sign it. Matt ------- End of Forwarded Message