再保险(板):网络犯罪公约声明的地位

我理解正确,斜方不再愿意主办的网站,即使董事会希望进行声明呢?同时,将斜方人员不再支持声明?我不同意司法部的评估。我们的立场没有条约将直接导致定罪的我们的工作。相反,我们(我的理解)是提高关注潜在的误解。一些职员在司法部向斜方的企业法律顾问保证这不是意图的变化到底是什么在我的脑海里。我也有点担心多这个响应由斜方和司法部正在讨论。但我把它留给另一个咆哮。- - - - - -斯科特·布莱克blake@bos.bindview.com安全项目经理+ 1-508-485-7737 x218 BindView公司细胞:+ 1-508-353-0269 > - - - - - - - - - - - >从原始信息:owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org > (mailto: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org]代表Steven m . Christey > >发送:周一,6月26日,2000年开场后点>:spaf@CERIAS.PURDUE。EDU > Cc: cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org;ptasker@MITRE.ORG;> gjg@MITRE.ORG;ramartin@MITRE。ORG >主题(板):网络犯罪公约的状态声明> > >,> > Spaf问及网络犯罪公约声明的状态。下面从加里Gagnon >是一个更新,紧随其后的是我们的描述>下一步:> > >我们已经完成了网站准备公开发布。我们一直> >与律师讨论这个验证我们对条约> >的理解和关注。此外,我们还讨论了> >与重要的政府人员的担忧。上周五,横切的企业> >律师,我跟玛莎Stansell-Gamm,美国司法部的> >科长负责美国代表团起草条约> >。司法部已经说服我和我们的律师,起草人条约> >充分解决这一问题。 In particular, Article 6 has >>two section "a", both of which must hold true to be a criminal >>offense (emphasis added): >> >> "Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be >> necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law >> when committed intentionally and without right: >> >> >> a.THE PRODUCTION, SALE, PROCUREMENT FOR USE, IMPORT, DISTRIBUTION OR >> OTHERWISE MAKING AVAILABLE OF: >> >> 1.a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted >> [specifically] [primarily] [particularly] for the purpose of >> committing any of the offences established in accordance with >> Article 2 – 5; >> >> 2.a computer password, access code, or similar data by which the >> whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed >> with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing the >> offences established in Articles 2 - 5; >> >> a.the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) >> above, WITH INTENT THAT IT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING THE >> OFFENSES ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLES 2 -5. A party may require by law >> that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability >> attaches. " >> >>The way this was explained to me is that the possession (production, >>sale, distribution, etc) with the intent to commit the offenses is >>what the treaty is recommending become a crime consistent across the >>member nations. DoJ recognized the difficulty proving the intent >>portion of this treaty language. In addition, I have re-read the >>summary of concerns by the CVE Editorial Board, and feel that based on >>the above the treaty language appropriately addressed them. >> >>Therefore, based on this legal review of the treaty language as well >>as personnel discussions with DoJ, we no longer feel this issue is of >>grave concern to security professional community. We would recommend >>to NOT go forward with the letter and signature collection. > > >However, we recognize that some Editorial Board members may still wish >to move ahead with the statement, independently of DoJ's assurances >that such a treaty would not result in the criminalization of "white >hat" security activities. > >To this end, we are doing the following: > >1) We have scheduled a more detailed conversation with Gene Spafford > on Tuesday afternoon. > >2) We will be packaging the web site up for transition to Gene > Spafford, who will take over the effort in the event that Board > members want to move forward with the statement. > > >More details will be available after our conversation with Spaf. > >- Steve >