Cybercrime Treaty Fight Begins 155
Deskpoet writes "This article on ZDnet details how the Global Internet Liberty Campaign, based in Europe, is rising up to create awareness of this perfidy-in-action. There's also info about how it's really US law enforcement that's driving this thing. Your tax dollars at work."
But seriously... (Score:1)
Where Your Vote Should Go [mikegallay.com]
8 Years Is Clearly Enough (Score:1)
Anyone But Gore in 2000!
--
Re:The fcsk???? (Score:1)
Re:It's better than that (Score:1)
Elgon
Re:being prosecuted for running ftp (Score:1)
The Black Panther party tried to claim things like that, back when they were running criminal drug rings and killing people with impunity. It turns out to have been a plain lie on their part. They weren't being 'persecuted', they were being busted for running a criminal operation.
There have and will be isolated cases of abuse of authority. Those need to be clearly identified and dealt with properly, from within the system.
Paint with too broad of a brush, and nobody will take you seriously at all.
the draft convention (Score:1)
Re:You need to look at both sides of the issue (Score:1)
We need laws because without them, any troublemaker out there can take it down. Are you ready for rogue nations to set up warehouses full of DDOS machines and start slamming the net? How will you resolve it? With a bazooka? No, with laws.
Candy Land utopia is just a couple laws away!!! (Score:1)
Re:Hm... that ZDNet article is abit misleading... (Score:2)
Most of the time illegal use is already illegal anyway. The only people who will be thankful for redundant laws are lawyers...
Indeed it might be ammusing for proposed laws to be given a slashdot moderation. Maybe with criteria like "good", "troll", "redundant", "special interest lobbied".
does it? (Score:2)
My reasoning is, otherwise it would state essentially, "This Constitution... shall be the supreme law of the land... anything in [this] Constitution notwithstanding." I don't think it's intended to be this self-referential...?
The first interpretation on the other hand simply affirms the constitution's primacy over state law.
Also note the qualification, "...all treaties made... under the authority of the United States..." (read: as a country, rather than treaties made by individual states) - again emphasizing the relationship between federal and state government.
On the other hand yours is a good point and I don't think I've refuted it after all. Just thinking about it.
Also, question: Isn't there some other place in the constitution that states that no US treaty can violate the provisions of the constitution? This is where the heart of the matter lies.
Thoughts, anyone?
Re:All hot air? (Score:2)
Also must prevent any lawyers from starving...
This is also an attempt to look good on fighting crime, pushing up the number of arrests and convictions makes things look like a better job is being done.
Re:All hot air? (Score:2)
The real point of laws like this is to allow politicans to look good ("See, I'm OPPOSED to assaulting minorities", or "Look how OPPOSED I am to computer crime") without actually doing anything.
Especially to have them look good in the eyes of those who lobbied for the special laws in the first place.
Re:Eh? Animated child pr0n is illegal? (Score:2)
Good news for anyone in Canada who hates the plays of a certain Mr Shakesphere. One of them, "Romeo and Juliet" is now illegal...
Re:What an awfully broad brush they're painting wi (Score:2)
Except that there are many places where there are ages of consent far younger than 18.
Indeed there appears to be little corrolation between ages of consent and age of majority. (As well as bizare situations, such as the USA, where 18 is in theory the age of majority, but people of that age are forbidden from drinking alcoholic beverages. Or places where there is no age of consent...)
Don't forget the hardware (Score:1)
Lets see there go keyboards, mice, any display device, printer and a whole lot more.
Re:You need to look at both sides of the issue (Score:1)
idiot.
Re:You need to look at both sides of the issue (Score:1)
What about sniffers? They are starting to bridge the gap between obvious throw outs like telnet clients (used for accessing computer systems) and the intention of the treaty (malicious access of computer systems).
Let's hope the real treaty is not worded as poorly as the article. The person writing the article also had some grammar problems, so maybe it is just a comprehension issue on the author's part.
Re:Support from abroad? (Score:2)
The Constitution states "Congress will enact no law..." - doesn't say anything about an international governing body enacting a law that our treaties require us to enfore/obey.
Why do you think so many are upset with these types of organizations - and "globalization" in general?
Re:What an awfully broad brush they're painting wi (Score:3)
How about this picture? Should it be illegal? [artpassions.net]
Click on the link...don't worry, it is nothing gross, but it could be cosidered child pornography by some people.
Re:But seriously... (Score:1)
To make *owning* a sniffing tool illegal makes about as much sense as outlawing the ownership of lockpicking tools.
Nathan
being prosecuted for running ftp (Score:2)
Well, in some cases, yes, I think you might get prosecuted for running an ftp client.
If your a normal, boring person, you watch TV, buy an SUV, encourage sprawl by moving to the suburbs, vote for one of the two acceptable candidates, use ftp all you want, the government isn't worried, it considers you a sheeple.
On the other hand, if you have any kind of subversive tendencies, this is just one more thing for the government to get you on, the government likes a stockpile of easy to break rules to keep you in line.
"Do you have a manufacturer's receipt for the 30 round magazine for your semi-automatic assault rifle, proving it was made pre-ban, and not post-ban by terrorists?"
No, well, if you're lucky prison, if not, an FBI sniper will kill you and your family.
I feel for the Europeans though, at least we Americans have the constitutional right to revolt.
As John Adams said 225 years ago, the tree of Liberty needs to watered in the blood of patriots every 20 years.
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
Won't happen. Hell, I think even the mainstream hacker community by now probably associates hacking with criminal behavior at this point. Too much illegal hacking and bragging, not enough white hat activities being noticed. Probably because white hats don't do any actual damage.
Let's face it, the old style good person hacker of honor died in the 80s.
Re:It's better than that (Score:5)
This also means many other tools will be illegal, including telnet, ftp, ssh, tcpdump...
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Re:Yes we do (Score:2)
Why should this be treated any differently from a waiter writing down someone's card details, someone using a stolen card, a bank employee using someone's details to order an additional card, etc, etc. What about the hacking makes a difference to the action of credit card fraud.
Or maybe I could get a photo of you and make some pornographic fakes up and post them around the net? That may not bother you, but I'm sure there would be thousands of people who would be mortified by that.
What would be the fundermental difference between that and someone taking the original picture with a chemical camera or getting an artist to draw a likeness. Then printing it up on fliers?
Should the definition of a crime really hinge on the minute details of tools used in performing it? Except when it is only possible to commit a crime using a specific tool. Which is in reality very, very few crimes.
Re:Guvvies Like Turning Out Younger Punks (Score:2)
I did know that bit about the Trenchcoat Mafia, though.
Take a better look and.. OH MY! (Score:1)
"Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer program who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications."
take out a few words:
"Criminalize the production... of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access computer systems or communications." WHAT!? so web browsers, ftp clients, and anything of that nature is illegal now!? UH OH!
maybe they should have thought this through a little, no?
Re:Guvvies Like Turning Out Younger Punks (Score:1)
Re:Guvvies Like Turning Out Younger Punks (Score:2)
Besides, the wave of terrorist attacks that hit the country (including Columbine) recently were mostly prompted by White Supremacist rhetoric. I worry about that, because random attacks on non-whites could impact me and my family (my wife is Thai, and I have a cousin whose husband is Korean).
Of course, the best way to handle this would be to say:
1. Yes, there is a problem with our prison system. The fact that rape is a part of the experience is a disgrace.
2. I don't think Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists or other religions are particularly likely to be spared this particular indignity, despite Baldreson's assertions.
We should clean up our corrupt American government, but it seems to me that it is run by white, protestant males (look at the two presidential candidates.).
The H1-B system is a problem because it prevents full citizenship for visa holders and full participation in the rights of citizenship, not because it allows them into the country.
The prison system is a disgrace, and something ought to be done about it.
Corporate TaskMasters (Score:2)
Outlaw the fraud and forgery of computer data as well as copyright infringement;
Now programs like Nmap, Nessus (and what others) are 'illegal'? IP Loggers, what about traceroute? That is a very popular tool of crackers you know - soon pinging will be crime because "this person was doing something to our machine other than what we specifically say is permissible in our TOS (subject to change at any time)." Forged Email? Custom packets (of any kind)? Who will determine 'what forged data' looks like? Obviously it will look much like 'non-forged' except whoever has the Biggest Lawyer(TM) will be the one with the 'official' data. And Copyright? Don't these people understand IP is a red-herring?
I am in utter amazement that an armed revolution hasn't started yet - are these people serious?
Are citizens and normal people going to possibly/remotely benefit from any of this? It is so goddamned obviously another piece of corporate-purchased law. Except the kiddie-porn stuff - that gets the support of the SoccerMoms(TM) , Religious Nutballs, and the rest of mindless sheeple onside everytime.
Enforcing monopoly in order to reduce supply and extort profits is an artifical construct, I once felt that allowing 'some copyright' and 'patents' were necessary, much like their designers it would give the inventor some due reward - protection from being stole from. But now I believe all IP should be abolished. The bad is far outweighing the good now. Far Far outweighing
So, think this 'treaty' is a good thing? Somehow you think you should NOT vote for someone who will end the corporate domination of the world? Wake up America! Do the world a favour! Tell your friends/neighbours/coworkers/relatives to:
Re:ZDNET have summarised the article incorrectly (Score:2)
It would make sniffers illegal! (Score:4)
Sniffers are extremely useful networking tools. They serve a valuable, productive purpose. Apparently, no effort was made in thinking this treaty up.
Re:ZDNET have summarised the article incorrectly (Score:1)
The treaty itself doesn't talk about programs designed to access other systems being illegal per se: that is ZDNet's precis, and an incorrect one IMHO. The treaty explictly qualifies all references to illegal interception, access, etc as being "without right".
Anyway, read it yourself, decide for yourself.
Whatever... (Score:1)
Hopefully those couple of white hats in the news stories we've seen lately will help push the movement forward but until then every time you tell someone that you comprimised their system you're running the risk of being cavity searched by the FBI for the PDA that you did it on.
Essays on supremacy of treaties (Score:2)
Oh god... here we go again... (Score:3)
Time to leave Europe I think...
Ummm...this will outlaw all electronics! (Score:1)
WOOHOO!!! There goes the information age, as well as the industrial age as all cars made within the past 15 years or so have computer chips in them! ANARCHY!!!
Supremacy of treaties (Score:2)
Here's a lengthy discussion [jbs.org] of the whole question of whether treaties have supremacy over the constitution.
There goes telnet and minicom (Score:5)
Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications;
So, any program that is designed to access a computer system is illegal? Like:
They better rethink that one.
I imagine they will try to outlaw SA security tools too, like SAINT, COPS, TIGER and crack, just because a cracker can use these too.
Of course, I can think of a lot of Slashdotter's who wouldn't object to these tools being outlawed, because they're dangerous and can be misused by uneducated persons, no wait, that's guns that should be outlawed because they're dangerous, not security tools.
No, there certainly is no analogy between security tools like SAINT that can be misused and guns that can protect you or be misused, none at all.
Re:But seriously... (Score:1)
Go send someone 16 to buy some spray paint at the local Wal-Mart and see what happens.
Criminalize the possession of such devices by govt (Score:3)
Hm... that ZDNet article is abit misleading... (Score:1)
Where Zdnet dragged that 'access' up from I don't know but if we want to be taken seriously by non-computer literate people then maybe we need to have something like this to build trust (though sod the interception and recoding keeping parts of the act...)
Info? US law enforcement? (Score:1)
Well, no there's not. It simply says that a group with 28 members "believe[s] that U.S. law enforcement is attempting to gain international support for modifications to its country's laws -- support that it has not been able to gain domestically. " It wouldn't surprise me if they're right but I don't see a single fact supporting their belief.
As long as I'm courting flames, know what I think is funny? For decades the most strident voice against ceding control of US law to international bodies and treaties has been Jesse Helms. Of course, all good liberals and leftists denounced him as a jingoistic Neanderthal for resisting globalization and internationalization. Now that internationalization has become politically incorrect, you don't see anyone saying, "Gee, Jesse may be a bigot but he was right all along about the WTO and IMF."
---------
And it's a TREATY, so it preempts US Constitution! (Score:2)
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Now while you could argue that this means treaties only preempt "anything in the { Constitution or laws } of any State"...
Neither interpretation is gramatically incorrect. This leaves a serious hole in the US Constitution, IMO, that NEEDS AN AMENDMENT NOW to correct. Lest creatives Supreme Court judges rule that Kofi Annan and the UN (and its special councils like ICANN, WIPO, etc.) outrank the rights granted to Americans by the Constitution. We are not safe until an amendment patches this bug.
Comment removed (Score:5)
Re:There goes telnet and minicom (Score:1)
Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access, intercept or interfere with computer systems or communications;
Of course, this also would have repercussions for government agencies attempting to engage in legitimate snooping work. (I'm sure some exists!) I'm sure that a "real-world" criminal would have a pretty strong defence if it could be proved that a law-enforcement agency used what would be an illegal method of information-gathering.
Mind, this would result in more work for those highly-paid lawyers out there.... Coincidence?
Re:Just what is the age of consent in Europe? (Score:1)
Re:You need to look at both sides of the issue (Score:2)
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Re:All hot air? (Score:2)
The thing is that law enforcement people, in the US and many other countries, don't believe that the existing laws are sufficient. They want to do things like outlawing tools, outlawing the spread of certain information, giving themselves power to do all kinds of spying, and so forth.
They generally want to increase their own power, and to outlaw behavior that, as far as they're concerned, is "only engaged in by criminals anyway". This is not about justifying their existence. It's about their desire for legal tools to lock up people who, in their opinion, deserve to be locked up.
These legal changes are often politically unpopular, since they're usually based on an incredibly fucked up, power-tripping worldview that has no room for variation from some imaginary norm, precious little room for the idea of independent thought, and no real respect for the ideas (as opposed to the forms) behind due process.
Because these changes are unpopular, the people who want them (again, mostly law enforcement people) use various political tactics to get them. One useful tactic is to find a pliable international body that's having some discussion, where the people involved in the discussion are either sympathizers of yours or people you can pressure. You then get that body to issue some piece of paper, say a draft treaty, that requires what you want.
Politics being what they are, it's hard to change these drafts once they come out, and it gets progressively harder to change them as they move further along in the process. When it comes time to get your domestic legislature to approve the treaty, you say, basically, "everybody else is doing it". You also try to word your treaty so that it's not obvious what it really implies.
Since the treaty approval process is different from the approval process for regular legislation, and usually involves different people, and since little attention is usually paid to "technical" treaties, you may very well be able to get your treaty approved.
Once you get everybody to adopt the treaty, you spring the trap... you explain to your local legislature that it's now required by this treaty to pass the laws you couldn't get it to pass before. Game over.
Does this include Carnivore? (Score:2)
The fcsk???? (Score:1)
I can really identify with you, so much.
Re:How many years... (Score:1)
Simple! I'll use something that CAN'T be hooked up to the internet and do anything, like an 8088 or something running CP/M...
Re:ZDNET have summarised the article incorrectly (Score:1)
Re:It's better than that (Score:1)
I've got a device at home that allows me to do the same thing, and as such it should be banned and made illegal immediately. It is called a (drums roaring up in background) screwdriver.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I can really identify with you, so much.
How many years... (Score:1)
Re:You need to look at both sides of the issue (Score:3)
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
geek prisons... (Score:2)
(Associated Press - Alcatraz) Today, in an effort to end the pampered style of geek prison life that so many convicted criminals have been accustomed to, The Rock was reopened for service today.
"Hey, these guys managed to get T3 lines into every cell, and the guard door system was a joke, we think that they managed to hack the system so that it would let the doors open whenever they wanted.", said Red Bull, the head of HACK (H)ackers (A)re (C)riminals (K)ill 'em.
"I wished that we could have continued using the death penalty against these evil terrorists and child pornographers, but the ACLU felt it necessary to defend these scumbags. Something about 'the punishment not fitting the crime' or other such nonsense"
"Look, these felons have it better in prison, hell, their cells are over 4 times as big as a typical cubicle is, and they get in house laundry, THEY DONT EVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DOING LAUNDRY AGAIN, and look this doesnt seem like a big point, but I've been to busts on these evil hackers, and their laundry piles up to huge amounts before they decide to do it. It's inhuman, I tell you.
"I just wanted to make this prison term as much of a punishment as possible, so we are cutting these geeks off of their lifeline, and going back to all old-style technology. No computers, no net access, barely electricity.
Maybe now these felons will get what they deserve.
tagline
Re:It would make sniffers illegal! (Score:3)
Re:It would make sniffers illegal! (Score:1)
HELLO!?! Without "access"ing other computers, there's no point in having an Internet! I'd love it if they made this illegal, because technically everyone in all of the government would be in trouble because they have network in place and are sending and receiving email!
I think it's about time that we vote out all of these lameass politicians in favour of people who actually have proven themselves to know how technology works, or at LEAST elect a few and make a committee for them to work on, where ALL technology oriented bills have to go...
Ummm... (Score:1)
This is nothing more than the FBI attempting to get around the public's resistance to such laws. If an international treaty is signed, which supercedes US law, they get the power they want by essentially going over the heads of American Citizens.
Re:But seriously... (Score:1)
The ability to misuse a tool for malignant reasons exist in any aspect of our existence. I'm not just talking about tools that make me a usefull admin. Chainsaws, spray paints, hardware tools (hammers, screwdrivers, pliers, etc) were all created to serve a usefull purpose but they're not regulated or outlawed but if you wanted to you seriously hurt people with em you could. Is it any easier/harder to ddos ebay and yahoo then it is to buy a chainsaw or a nailgun from Home Depot and go to town?
My point is that it's easy to misuse a tool to do harm and piss people off but it should at least be clear that outlawing it is not the answer.
Re:Corporate TaskMasters (Score:1)
Re:Criminalize the possession of such devices by g (Score:1)
David Brin's view, as expressed in The Transparent Society, was precisely this: the People need to watch the Watchers, and be every bit as vigilant as the Government is in their surveillence of us. Not surprisingly, the Government doesn't see it this way, even though our tax dollars pay for the very equipment they use to catalog us like so many butterfly.
_rant_
Anyone who unilaterally defends our abilities to question the omnipresent government eye will either be branded a terrorist or a child molester, or both, and will summarily be dismissed, if not imprisoned. (Look how they turned Mitnick: no more frightening example of the power of the Big Stick can be found in recent reportage than his advocacy of the government DB.) This pretty much rules out the "democratic process", leaving us to fend for ourselves. That's why Freenet and such is not only important, but necessary: it exists outside of the limited mindscapes of Those Above.
_end rant_
Why can't we see what the Watchers see? This is more than a rhetorical question; it's becoming a fundamental issue of our existence.
Re:does it? (Score:1)
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States
A treaty that violated the constitution could never be ratified (this would exceed the authority of the United States). As I am not a lawyer, I probably don't understand the subtleties ("Well, yes, I shot him, your honor, but Colt Firearms is the real criminal here") and my cut and dried view is probably being laughed at by attourneys right now.
Re:It's better than that (Score:1)
"Fair Use" is a doctrine created by the Supreme Court; they could conceivably rule it applies w.r.t. criminal circumvention when used to enable traditional Fair Use, but to date they have not done so.
As for "primary purpose," DeCSS has no use other than to circumvent effective access control measures. What makes the DMCA dangerous is that it makes no distinction between circumvention used to enable further infringement, and circumvention used to enable otherwise legitamate access. If you purchase a DVD and use DeCSS on it, you are circumventing CSS, even if in so doing you are not infringing on the copyright on the underlying material.
The DMCA is dangerous precisely because it makes circumvention a criminal act distinct from, and not requiring the presence of subsequent infringement.
Better... (Score:1)
If someone hacks your system, you have the total right to wipe their data (conter-hacking)
The idea comes from one of my aqaintances who had someone target him with a virus. (particularly nasty one) He responded by sending his own program.
Result: One hard drive full of viruses and script kiddy tools wiped out.
Is this such a bad idea? Let sysadmins go after harmful crackers (eg a virus that wipes hard drive-no restrictions, making a zombie-a few restrictions, changing one file-a lot of restrictions, and just getting in (no harm)-same for sysadmin)
This would certainly promote a decine in the number of script kiddies with "wipe the hd" type programs, one way or another.
Re:There goes telnet and minicom (Score:1)
Re:There goes telnet and minicom (Score:1)
When all monitors must be thrown out remember that they all must be treated as toxic waste due to the large quantity of lead that they contain
Were all criminals now.. (Score:2)
I would just like to point out that http (web sites) are a method of accessing other computers. So will this mean that the internet is illegal?????? What about e-comerce???
Re:But seriously... (Score:1)
Re:Whatever... (Score:1)
This sounds like that movie (Score:1)
ZDNET have summarised the article incorrectly (Score:5)
I don't like the treaty for other reasons, but it's not that stupidly drafted. So remember people, always read the primary sources, and don't get distracted from the main issues, which are (IMHO):
- to what extent governments should compromise your rights in order to prevent or detect crime.
- what constitutes "cybercrime" in any case.
Yes we do (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly all right for me to hack into an account of yours online, find out your personal details and then use, say, your credit card to make a series of purchases? That's fine by you?
Or maybe I could get a photo of you and make some pornographic fakes up and post them around the net? That may not bother you, but I'm sure there would be thousands of people who would be mortified by that.
But obviously, this, and more, is fine by you.
Re:Oh god... here we go again... (Score:1)
Guvvies Like Turning Out Younger Punks (Score:1)
The miscalculation of these gangs is the degree to which adolescent males, particularly those of Protestant heritage, are being cornered by the prevaling cultural currents into criminal activity as the primary way they can obtain positive attention from young females -- and the degree to which such young males are capable of being turned into hard-core and highly effective cyber-terrorists by such a system.
The government as it is presently "constituted" is simply incapable of doing anything but raping these young men; either figuratively by offering them very paltry compensation compared to what they can make in the open market, or literally, by putting them into a penal system dominated by ethnic gangsters with connections in the bureaucracies.
This is really poor reporting (Score:5)
Can someone please put this link into the
Software crime == thought crime (Score:2)
For the benefit of those too lazy to read it (Score:2)
The child pr0n article (9) includes drawings.
Communications fall under the juristriction of the countries of all communicating parties footnote 21). From the definition of "computer system" and from footnote 23 it is clear that a router is considered a communicating party.
There are provisions along the lines of ECHELON, Carnivore, RIP and the DMCA, but states are free to uphold civil liberties and free use if they want.
Tools Again (Score:2)
Whenever I see words like that, I know it's just legalize for "bend over." Same kind of shit was in DMCA too. It just brings up the same old tired issues of how do you prove what the primary purpose of a tool is, or that someone might use a certain tool in a certain way. It presumes guilt. What the hell is the point of outlawing tools that can be used for crime, when the crime itself is already outlawed? I hate it when The Powers That Be invent new artificial victimless "crimes" whose only purpose is to prevent other crimes. It always creates innocent offenders.
No law or treaty that has this type of language in it should be signed.
---
Re:Guvvies Like Turning Out Younger Punks (Score:2)
From Eric "The Butcher of Columbine" Harris's web site:
"You know what I hate? Racism! . . . Don't let me catch you making fun of someone just because they are a different color." [people who don't like] "blacks, Asians, Mexicans or people from any other country or race besides white-American" should "have their arms ripped off" [and be burned].
I would really like to know which "White Supremacist" organization incited this anti-racist rhetoric on Harris's web site.
Or could it be, perhaps, that there is some source of propaganda at work here which is effective enough that you have succumbed to it? If so, what might that source be?
my wife is Thai...I don't think Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists or other religions are particularly likely to be spared this particular indignity, despite Baldreson's assertions.
A young Thai man I know was recently thrown in jail for a week or so for a minor offense and when he got out, he approached me at a programmers interest group meeting to tell me my perception of the situation in the jails is right on target. The moment he walked into the jail, he was immediately surrounded by other Asians both for protection from the monsterous evils of the environment, and for relatively petty exploitation by gangster elements (crooked gambling, etc.). I had told him that ethnic affiliation was the way to survive in that situation, and he wanted to make sure I knew he appreciated my warning.
The fact of the matter is, the more hostile the government bureaucracy is toward an ethnic gang, the more likely the members of that ethnicity are to become victims of cruel and unusual punishment in our ethnically-based penal system -- and while all ethnicities are victimized, some not all ethnicities are equally victimized -- and it is a simple fact that Mediterranean mafias among the whites, and other gangs among the nonwhites are relatively effective compared to the much more maligned white supremacist gangs with which you libelously affiliate me in your writings.
Call my claims "attempts at propaganda", but at some point, after at least 20 years of awareness of the problem at the level of the Supreme Court, one has to ask exactly what interests are being served by the ongoing situation in which we can all complain on occasion, but nothing ever really effective gets done to clean up the mess in the penal system? Could there be some conflict of interest at work, undermining governmental ethics? If not, why not? Why is internationalization spreading the problem to Europe via treaties and other agreements, rather than containing it within the U.S. to be vigorously vanquished? Is it duplicitous "white supremacist WASPs" that occupy figurehead positions in government? Why do you think so many white supremacist organizations, who obtain many of their most ardent supporters from prisons, are happy about Joe Leiberman's nomination as Democratic VP, would like to kill the WASP figure heads, and even so, do not identify the occupiers of the top positions in government as the primary problem?
Really, who is serving and who is being served by this pathological situation? The sexually sick ethnic gangs of sadists in prison or the people in the halls of power? Why do the guys in the halls of power give so-called "propagandists" like me so much material to work with and generate serious threats to their power if they were actually in control?
These are questions I've had to face because I like understanding reality more than I like being socially accepted or fashionable. Call me "antisocial", but then a lot of nerds are "antisocial" for the same reason -- and the more "antisocial" they are in precisely this way, the more of a grasp they have on reality and therefore the more "dangerous" in your terms, they become. Post-enlightenment science is like that -- the high priests of universal morality be damned.
But before you walk -- trying to answer these weighty questions for yourself -- perhaps you should try to crawl: Try to at least ask yourself the question I posed to you about how you came to make the statement the wave of terrorist attacks that hit the country (including Columbine) recently were mostly prompted by White Supremacist rhetoric in the face of the evidence to the contrary?
You might also ask yourself how a so-called "white supremacist" would end up being respected by a young Thai man who had to spend a little time in the penal system -- probably more respect than you are for attacking.
Re:Hm... that ZDNet article is abit misleading... (Score:2)
thats just like saying that they are outlawing hammers if the hammer is used illegaly. stupid and pointless. how about making the illegal USE of these tools and hardware illegal.
Re:If we can trust ZDNet's take on it... (Score:2)
Wait a minute, why did they pass a law against that? I thought the REASON child porn was banned was because children were being expoited and abused to create it (I have a good friend who was a victim of this, so I'm all for stopping that). Now if some sicko wants to look at a photoshop created image that LOOKS like child porn, what's the harm in that? The reason why someone would want to see that escapes me, but wouldn't it be better to let them look at the digitally created substitute rather than letting them become frustrated with not being able to find anything to satisfy their perverse desires and possibly go out and hurt REAL children?
All hot air? (Score:4)
Aren't there existing laws that deal with these crimes already in existence? We already have copyright law. I know in Britain, there is already the Computer Misuse Act which deals with unauthorized access to computers.
Why are they trying to invent new laws where existing ones already suffice: is this just another case of bureaucrats trying to justify their existence?
Re:It's better than that (Score:4)
Software is a tool, no different than anything that you'd find in a hardware store. Although imaginative individuals can think of any number of ways to bash, stab, and slice someone with anything you could find at Home Depot, that's no reason to outlaw or restrict them.
Re:If we can trust ZDNet's take on it... (Score:2)
I assume "intent" is going to be part of this. How else do you legally distinguish between child porn and pictures of children? FWIW, I recall Britain has a law now against artificial child porn - pictures that have been created via Photoshop.
Either way, it's tempting to get worried about this because no question of intent is explicitly worded, and many IANAL types get worried about anything so subjective, but given there'd be a international outcry if proud parents, owners of stores selling goods aimed at children, etc, suddenly started getting jailed and/or deported due to pictures of people under 21 appearing on their sites, we can be reasonably sure that intent will be a factor in practice.
Not typically in practice. There have been documented cases, although I have no information at hand to reference, where individuals were targetted by vague laws such as these for purely political reasons. Which is the true danger. Sure, not everyone with a picture of their 2yr old in the tub is going to be prosecuted. But if you happen to piss off the "powers that be" in such a way as to provoke a witch hunt - and you happen to have a picture of your 2yr old in the tub - well then Mister! You're a Child Pornographer and gonna do some serious time as some Bubba's wife!
Re:FBI != NSA (Score:2)
Re:Support from abroad? (Score:2)
> from abroad to implement policies?
Since the Constitution was first ratified back in the 1780's.
Art. 2, 2.2 grants the power of making treaties with foreign powers to the Presidnet, if 2/3s of the Senate approves. Art.1, 8.1 grants the power of making laws to enforce treaties to Congress.
Past legislation to enforce treaties with powers that the US government are not explicitly granted by the Constitution have been upheld by the Supreme Court. (If I were a lawyer, I could cite the case law on this.) It's an end-run around our implicit rights that I've been waiting to happen since Netizens first formulated the Anarchist/Libertarian nature of the 'Net.
Only I thought the boogey-man the PTB would invoke to do this would be the child pornographers, not garden-variety crackers.
Geoff
Re:Guvvies Like Turning Out Younger Punks (Score:2)
While undoubtedly the intent and effect of this treaty is to abridge our civil rights, I seriously doubt its main purpose is to offer the tender young butts of
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the majority of people who might be caught by such legislation are Protestants; between Hindus, Muslims, Catholics and us sneaky untrustworthy Jews, I would say you're in a minority. Not that I take you seriously, you understand...
Yes! (Score:5)
Nitpick: Standardized crime "statues" (Score:2)
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
cya
Ethelred
Break down the OR in that (Score:2)
"Criminalize the production, sale, distribution or otherwise making available of devices or computer programs who's primary use is to access computer systems or communications."
The thing is they say "access, intercept, or interfere with".
They would be making all network programs illegal. Dumbasses.
Re:You need to look at both sides of the issue (Score:2)
No, we don't
Re:All hot air? (Score:2)
Politicians seem to think that if one law is good (i.e. popular) then more will be better. In the States, there is a big push for "hate crime" laws, which would penalize people for, say f'instance, beating up minorities. While these laws may be well-intentioned (like the cybercrime treaty) they in effect require the criminal justice system to read people's minds.
Assault is already a crime. Why should there be an additional penalty added if the victim is in a protected class? Doesn't that make the rest of us less protected?
Hate crime? Isn't that redundant? People don't assault, kill, or vandalize (or, for that matter, break into computer systems and wreak havoc) out of love.
The real point of laws like this is to allow politicans to look good ("See, I'm OPPOSED to assaulting minorities", or "Look how OPPOSED I am to computer crime") without actually doing anything.
offtopic but nader is pro-censorship (Score:2)
Re:Yes we do (Score:2)
would be nice if someone wrote some laws to cover that stuf. Wait a minute..... we HAVE laws for that,....be nice if someone enforced them sometime......
It's better than that (Score:3)
Announcing the latest and greatest version of "ps". Its primary purpose is to show the process running on your system. But now we've added the "--root_host_x" switch. If you use this switch, it launches a root attack against any foreign system. Totally legal!
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Support from abroad? (Score:4)
I find this pretty interesting - since when did the united states government ever have to get support from abroad to implement policies?
Lots of effort was made (Score:2)
The Internet was, and still is to some extent, about curiosity. It is about figuring out how things work, then telling everybody who wants to know. It is about the lack of geographical boundaries, or any 'real-life' bounds whatsoever. It is about being able to choose what you want to know about, and making that choice freely.
I've seen the Thomas Jefferson quote bandied about on all of the discussions with the upcommiing US presidental election. This discussion is IMHO a much better place to think about it.
Re:If we can trust ZDNet's take on it... (Score:2)
The US tried this, too. Fortunately, the Supreme Court acquitted the person involved - the reason kiddy pr0n is illegal in the US is because its creation is harmful to children - fake kiddie pr0n isn't.
Re:Support from abroad? (Score:3)
This is not at all unusual. I believe the same thing happened with copyright laws, with the U.S. government encouraging foreign governments to increase copyright holder's powers, and then came to Congress and said, 'See, the rest of the world is doing it, so we should too.'
When fanaticism is in play, not getting support for your idea is no deterrent. Just do an end-run around the problem and get what you want without public support.
________________