再保险(板):网络犯罪公约声明的地位

在星期二,2000年6月27日,在-0700年10:30:53AM,大卫·勒布朗写道:|吧,这就是为什么最明智的办法是调节行为。很|可以定义”系统,不属于我”和“攻击”。一旦|你开始进入工具的问题,我们开始处理模糊|敞开的条款解释,|言论自由权利的践踏,把法律障碍的可能性的人|正试图保护你。毕竟,我们可能会注意|法律。| |例如,衣架可以用来进入汽车。力学相当|拥有一组“瘦吉姆”,往往是复杂的衣架。我们|没有法律对这些对象,|拥有的人是否有犯罪意图。使用这些对象在车辆|你没有所有者的许可是非法和合法|。计划使用的对象以犯罪的方式是阴谋,|也是非法的。占有的对象可能被认为是证据,但它|并不违法。 Actually, it is in some states. But I think that we're way off topic, and would like to suggest that Steve is working on finding a good home for those of us who would like to make a statement in public about the treaty, and our energies are better spent finding additional respected signers for the document that many editorial board members want to sign. The board as a group, I think, should consider if we want to create guidelines for speaking as a group in public in the future, and perhaps consider addressing the mission of the CVE in other ways. Adam | These types of crimes are no different, and should not be treated any | differently. I would really find it onerous to have to go check with legal | every time I hit the compile button, and that's where we're headed. | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Marcus J. Ranum [mailto: mjr@nfr.net]| >发送:星期二,6月27日,2000年6:51我| >:大卫·勒布朗;“斯科特·布莱克”;| | > > cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org主题:RE:网络犯罪公约(董事会)状态的声明| > | | > > | > >条约需要显式地允许白色帽子| >活动和研究。| | > >这也是无法定义,如不允许漏洞。| > | > mjr。| | | > > - - - - - - - - >马库斯·j·Ranum | >首席技术官,网络飞行记录器,Inc . | >工作:http://www.nfr.net| >个人:http://pubweb.nfr.net/ mjr| >——“这是很少,任何形式的自由失去了。”-Hume