再保险(板):网络犯罪公约声明反对意见

我担心漏洞信息的发布和流通的一些代码可能是有害的。我不是一个喜欢充分披露是目前实践。所以我因此同情马库斯的立场。说了这么多,我也支持言论自由和媒体的概念。这里有滑坡参数表明,没有明确的分界线,我们可以说,之前是好的,之后的一切都是犯罪。在当今世界尤其如此。因此,我不支持这种行为定罪的法律没有明确证据的恶意和明确的举证责任,没有合法的理由相同。当前的条约的措辞不明确这种区别,和国家立法机构不太可能做得更好。所以,我们提高我们的声音,表明当前的条约的措辞可能危及当前实践教学和保护。我们表明,他们应该考虑他们所做的事情。 The letter does not advocate immunity, nor does it claim that there should never be restrictions. Actually, I think there should be civil recourse and not criminal penalty. People who post exploits and full details of vulnerabilities without adequate advance warning of vendors to provide fixes should be liable for lawsuits, but not necessarily arrest. That is coming, and what we state in the letter doesn't hinder or prevent this. As such, I don't see a contradiction with Marcus's view. --spaf