Slashdot Log In
Cybercrime Treaty to Be Signed
Posted by
michael
on Wed Nov 21, 2001 02:34 PM
from the world-government dept.
from the world-government dept.
texchanchan writes: "Yahoo reports that "Interior ministers and law enforcement officials from Europe, South Africa, Canada, the United States and Japan will sign the milestone cyber-crime convention.... [because] computer criminals... have moved on from ``innocent'' hacking to fraud, embezzlement and life-threatening felonies."" Feel the spin in that article, from the anonymous "official". We've posted about this treaty before; read the final draft and note it well, particularly the extradition provisions, mutual assistance (some other country gets your country to tap your phones, and send them the data) and the requirements to disclose passwords.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The irony (Score:2, Funny)
late to the dance... (Score:1)
Oh Joy (Score:1)
Passwords are not all (Score:2, Insightful)
If I really had to hide data, I'd make sure noone would even see I was hiding something.
the irony (Score:1, Funny)
Autoimmune Disease (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, are we more afraid of terrorists, or
our own governments?
George II says that Terrorists hate freedom, and want to take my freedom away. That isn't true.
Terrorists can only take my life. Only my government can take my freedom.
time to write that acyclic pad generator (Score:1)
Hi, my name is AFJWEFNPVTNGPIWERTGNPINGGX>YICT, what's yours?
What about spammers ? (Score:2, Funny)
Projection of Force (Score:1)
Most of the Western nations have mutual extradition, and other law enforcement, treaties. Suddenly, the nation with the most intolerant attitude sets the "standard" for all of us. Something has to give.
1Alpha7
Landing Lights (Score:4, Insightful)
Improve security. Seperate important systems like landing lights from the internet. Don't just sue people.
Re:Landing Lights (Score:4, Funny)
It'll get worse with the net-capable appliances of the future -- Shutdown all fridges in Boston every Friday the 13th, Code Red for toasters, etc. (Just kidding, I hope!)
Star Wars (EpIV for you damned kids) should have warned them: An unauthorized R2 unit at a docking bay data port shut down all the garbage mashers on the Detention Level... Bad network security on something the size of a small moon!
I guess I'd better not ever try out my prank of taking a highish power IR laser, modulating it with the on/full volume/play codes for most TVs, stereos, VCRs, DVDs -- and then painting a few nearby apartment buildings with it at 3am...
Pilots can easilly turn them back on (Score:5, Informative)
As a pilot who has experienced this sort of thing (through other causes) I can say with certainty that any competent pilot can either switch the runway lights back on or go missed (or both if their not comfortable with the situation). Most airports, even the large ones, have pilot controlled lighting (key the mike n times on the CTAF/Tower Frequency). If the pilot is already in the flair then s/he can already see the runway with the plane's landing/taxi lights, and unless visibility is really, really bad (in which case they can go missed) they can land at that point without the runway lights being on at all.
If there really aren't options (like a blackout due to thunderstorm, terrorist bomb, or luser system cracker), then the pilot can do a missed approach and enter a holding pattern (if on instruments) until the situation is resolved or s/he is diverted to another airport, or if flying VFR simply go around and either try the approach again or find an alternate airport. Even in the worst case scenerio turning off the runway lights, even on short final, is hardly life threatening. Hell, its happened to me simply because the lights had been turned on 15 minutes earlier by another landing pilot and the timer shut the lights off with the threshold about fifty feet away from my descending aircraft. Seven quick clicks on the mike and I completed the landing without even a raise in pulse. This sort of thing happens all the time in non-computerized systems, and I will repeat again, it is not life threatening. Adding a computer to the situation doesn't change that, in the least.
References (Score:4, Informative)
I guess I shouldn't call bullshit without doing my research first, but interestingly, this story [zdnet.com] has some details:
In March [1999], Department of Justice computer crime chief Scott Charney regaled a gathering of bankers with the story of a 1997 hacker who crashed a telephone switch, resulting in the landing lights at a Massachusetts airport going black.
Regular readers of this column will recall my conversation with the airport administrator, who assured me that his runway lights never even flickered.
Another report [zdnet.com] adds :
This incident was benign
But authorities said the outage had in fact caused no danger and little or no disruption at the airport, which sees a half-dozen flights a day.
"I don't have any reason to believe
In other words, the landing lights were not turned out, not least because it happened during the day. The Euro official's statement may not be complete bullshit as I claimed, but it's misleading at least. According to this piece [techtv.com] on media hacking, the story is false. Yet this government site [ussc.gov] repeats the story and even claims that planes were diverted.
Whatever the truth of what really happened, there's clearly large dollops of myth in with the facts and it's no wonder my bullshit detector went off...
Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't worry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, he'll sign it, but that doesn't matter, because the 50 states can safely ignore it. Really, they can, because Federal treaties are not binding on the states! This is according to George W. Bush himself: "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it?" Statement from the office of Texas Governor George W. Bush [ccadp.org]
So please write your state Attorney General and ask that they please ignore this treaty.
Also, and more importantly, write your Senators and ask that they not ratify it in the first place.
Well, it's been fun. (Score:2)
Next July (Score:2, Funny)
I think that racists are cretins, but they have a right to hate whomever they please. They also have a right to express themselves, and the internet isn't immune to free speech. Now if only everyone else would agree....
Reciprocal indignities. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Next July (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose that I say that all blacks should die. This may qualify as hate speech to you (as it would to me also), but would sound somehow reasonable for a white supremacist.
How about if I say that Americans are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. That would probably be considered hate speech as well, but not so by say, the Taliban.
How about if I say that the Taliban are terrorists, kill people and that their government should be destroyed. Surely this is hate speech as well, if we are to hold everyone to the same standard?
So therein lies the problem: different people, different points of view, which ends with the stronger one censoring the marginal one through the "hate speech" label.
For another example, the Church of Scientology saying already says its critics engage in religious hate-speech in an attempt to quench criticism. Surely having a ban on hate speech at hand would please them and other criticized organisations greatly...
Re:Drawing the line (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, YOU think the speech of the white supremecists is false garbage. Who made YOU arbiter of the universe? YOU might think that the DMCA is beautiful and those who oppose it are spouting false garbage as well. Maybe it's "hate speech" to denounce the DMCA as the evil piece of $hit it is. Down this path leads madness.
The German government thinks the Scientologists are spouting false garbage, but the Scientologists say they are just practicing their religion. Who's right?
Let people hear it for themselves and make their own opinion. That is "openness". That is "Freedom". Freedom is protecting ALL speech. That doesn't mean that SOME speech can't have consequences, but it should only be speech where it can be proven to be DIRECT and DAMAGING.
Besides, the eventual end of this "don't discriminate" stuff being applied everywhere is where we have Arab terrorists killing 5000 people and the police unable to question Arabs because they are Arab and came from Afganistan/Saudi Arabia, etc., even though there is a high probability they know something about the attacks.
No one should be discriminated against unfairly, but we shouldn't let political correctness lead us to stupidity either.
life threatening (Score:4, Redundant)
Good but very bad (Score:1)
So if used correctly, this can be a good tool to help stop crime o the net. But wait a minute; the DMCL was meant to help the little guy when used correctly. And we all know how well the dmcl worked out. I fear something similar may happen to this.
my 2 cents plus 2 more
wonderful.... (Score:1)
rapidly turning into a police world...
As said in Planet of the Apes (old version)... (Score:2, Funny)
This is a little scary (Score:3, Funny)
So...all young looking porno models are out of work now....I's a sad, sad, day.
I am not happy (Score:3, Insightful)
I would just pull a Reagan. (Score:1)
I'm sorry, I just cannot recall it.
Maybe this will be good... (Score:2, Funny)
"[We will make illegal...]the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of [...]a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 2 - 5"
Exhibit 2:
"Article 5 - System interference
[C]ommitted intentionally, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data."
So now Windows is illegal in Europe...
Diferentaing Computer Crimes with Ordanary ones. (Score:1)
Hacking into a computer withough any password -> Trespassing.
Hacking into a computer with a password no matter how week. -> breaking and entering
The rest are assuming you have already hacked in:
After breaking in if you looked around the system -> Breaking ones privicy
Coruption/Altering/Deletion/DL of files -> Vandalism, Steeling.
Basicly the laws should be equilivant for what they do and to make the laws easer what ever they due remotly they should be charges as if they broke in to the building and did the same info to your records. With the extra charge of bandwith used.
I dont understand why laws have to be so complicated for a change in mediums.
Nuts (Score:2)
Can you imagine if this was all just an elaborate project dreamed up by some guy who just sits at his house all day long dreaming up ways to get access to people's information so he can sell it? It's a brilliant idea. By the time everyone realizes this whole thing is a put-on, the culprits will have made off with everything they need.
Unless, of course, it's not a put-on. But by the time we realize that, the government will have made off with everything they need too...
Would this include Spammers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this mean that spammers will be considered terrorists? Will we have laws that will finally put these criminals in jail?
I hope this is the case. Since the last article I read about spammers, Ive been sending letters charging them for bandwidth ($50 a pop) if they continue to spam. Hopefully now I will be able to just send a little email to the FBI and say, hey, here is a terrorist for you to give hell to.
Violation of liberites? I think not. (Score:1)
Murder laws are in place to keep you from taking someone's life. Does that mean if you step on an ant you'll go to jail? Or if you say "I'd could kill my boss for making me write VB code" you'll be accused of attempted murder? I think not. Neither will this treaty land you in a cell next to a child-eater for reading one of the hacker books you picked up on Amazon.com. Don't take a law that's designed to stop malicious people and extrapolate it into something that's going to take ones and zeros and make them illegal.
greg
Re:Violation of liberites? I think so (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure this statement would've been much comfort to Dmitry Skylarov as he spent weeks in jail. Obviously he's one of those malicious people that laws are supposed to go after. Just because a law isn't intended to do one thing doesn't it mean it won't be used anyway.
Simply talking about hacking or trying to figure out how things work isn't going to land you in prison.
Sure thing. I'm sure that Steve Jackson [eff.org] will back this one all the way.
What of the court's decision, France vs. Yahoo? (Score:1)
Dear Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Specfically:
- If you have Alzheimers, do not use any computer system that requires a password.
- If you write software, make sure that any time you ask a user to create a password, you inform them that they could be imprisoned for life in a foreign country if they forget it.
- If you have to remember multiple passwords, repeat them to yourself 100 times every night, before you go to sleep.
Please follow these tips to keep everyone safe & free from terrorism!
See a pattern here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Has anyone else noticed the increasing tendancy for the 'news' media to report links between mostly inert activities enabled by corporate and government stupidity, in the area of technology, and mass murder, terrorism and other, arguably more serious, crimes?
Seems a good use of FUD on the media and government's part to reduce civil liberties and conceal their clear wrong technical choices.
What kind of goddamn MCSE moron has a computer which controls landing lights connected, directly or otherwise, to the internet?
It is important to note . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Also note that treaties cannot alter the Constitution itself, nor can they implement anything that violates it.
Re:It is important to note . . . (Score:5, Informative)
This doesn't negate the original statement. Only Congress can OK a treaty. Until they do, signing the paper means nothing (see the treaty on Global Warming, signed but essentially dead in the US because it hasn't gotten past Congress).
Without amending/revoking Constitutional Amendments, the treaty STILL cannot override the Bill of Rights, period. The ONLY way to beat something in the Bill of Rights and all Amendments attached to it is via another Amendment.
In come the landsharks^WLawyers (Score:3, Informative)
Article 11 - Attempt and aiding or abetting
1. 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, aiding or abetting the commission of any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 2 - 10 of the present Convention with intent that such offence be committed.
Great. Now software developers that make things like Nmap, tcpdump, portscanner, sniffit, and other security tools will get jailed or fined out of existence and charged with "aiding and abetting" just because J. Random Cracker ran their software to 0\/\/3n3d someone's unsecured box. You just *know* some lawyer can't wait to make a bunch of money^W^W^W^W^Wuse this little bit of legislation to put people behind bars.
Lessig's message never more timely (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the time to prove Lessig wrong. I don't know how to get a congresscritter's attention any more. They only used to pay attention to postal mail, which they are afraid to open now. But between telephone, fax, e-mail, and watching out for him when he comes into town, I intend to let my congresscritters know not just how much I despise this crock, but why.
It's time for a call to arms. Slashdotters can take down almost any web site, because there's lots of us and we're not too lazy to click on a few buttons. But if we want to avoid the tremendous pitfall this treaty will engender, it's time to slashdot Congress. I doubt there will be 10,000 phone calls, pieces of mail, etc., the entire Congress will get because of newspaper, radio, or TV coverage. If we're not too lazy, we can generate a normal ./ volume in faxes, phone calls, and so forth, we can make ourselves heard.
The alternative is to whimper, roll over, and cringe.
Copyright? (Score:2, Insightful)
Article 10 - Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights 1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of copyright, as defined under the law of that Party pursuant to the obligations it has undertaken under the Paris Act of 24 July 1971 of the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, with the exception of any moral rights conferred by such Conventions, where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial scale and by means of a computer system.
Look carefully at the last eleven words. Does this mean our warez sites are not covered under the convention?
Good, I'll be able to sue the FBI (Score:1)
(Job as in the Bill.... you horny minded you!)
Jibber Jarbish (Score:1)
Whoa. Paranoia runs deeper than i thought. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every country that signs onto this treaty currently has citizens who can use encryption. The legalities are changing, it seems since the various governments realized that the cat is already out of the bag, wrt encryption. The bad guys got it, and the good guys need to get it now. Witness in fact, direct from the treaty:
So, it's simple. Make yourself a key, and begin to encrypt things you send. If you dont know what it means to make a key, then go read any PGP site, including the one (still) at MIT [mit.edu].
If you really want to oppose this at the level where it matters, then encrypt. Dont write your senator, dont address the fine folks in Brussels. Encrypt.
Remember, encryption makes the internet a cozy bedside chat. Use it with your lovers, and use it with your friends.
Fear only the One who can factor large primes in his head, and never let them put a key on your head or your hand. Simple. Easy. Fun. Have fun. Love God. Love your neighbor. And have a Great Thanksgiving, America.
european surveillance extended world wide (Score:2, Interesting)
But Germany is the country with the most tapped phones per 1000 inhabitants in the whole world, and still growing.
That they fund GnuPG hast something to do with the fact, that the european industry is afraid of Echelon.
But the government is really eager nowadays to enforce an Orwellian police state.
If you are able to understand german, there are some disturbing articles at telepolis [heise.de] about the new European cyber-police called Enfopol [heise.de].
Anybody know a country which doesn't sacrifice freedom to "fight terrorism" these days ?
"...life-threatening felonies?" (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't remember ever reading about one...
Re:"...life-threatening felonies?" (Score:4, Informative)
Here is one..
In 1997 a Massachusetts teenager broke into and disabled telecommunications at Worchester airport, disabling the control tower for 6 hours.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/juveni
I am sure there others.
Innocent? (Score:3, Insightful)
This little quote from the article on yahoo illustrates another misconception... that "innocent" hackers are the one moving into fraud etc. Innocent hackers are still innocent hackers. Criminals that perpetrate these crimes intended to be criminals from the outset. The people (jerks) committing these so-called life-threatening felonies most likely never were innocent, or even hackers.
We should stand up and say something to our legislators, but realistically nothing will be done. I have tried to contact my "congresswoman" on several occasions to no avail. The only thing most politicians seem to care about are their careers. Sorry to the decent politicos for the generalization.
J
Interesting tidbits you'll find in the draft: (Score:4, Insightful)
"child pornography shall include pornographic material that visually depicts
Rendered images will be deemed illegal. (Also note that section 9.2.b says you can't take pronographic pictures of someone that "appears" to be a minor)
And no, I am not a fan of child pornography, but section 9.2.c seems to be making new clarifications to current pornography law, and 9.2.b is just very poorly worded.
Perhaps it's time (Score:4, Interesting)
ATTENTION by connecting your computer to the internet you agree that
1) Everyone has the right to say whatever they $^&# 'ign want and you can choose to listen or not.
2) you realize that the internet might be insecure, like walking down a street, Provide secruity for yourself.
3) We wil not take down a page you find offencive, someone wanted to say that.
4) We don't care about treaties you all signed, they are not ours.
5)By conneting your machine to our network you agree that you have read this agreement, even if you are a government this applies to you.
6) I said that we don't care if you are #$%'ing offended you controll where you browse.
7)Don't look to us to solve your internal network problems, it is YOUR fault they were not secure.
To governments:
we know your country has laws, so do we, we don't care what someone in another country did, it was not in your country. If you are so afraid of content perhaps you are closed minded or if you dislike content perhaps your citizens shouldn't be here.
Perhaps someone a little bit better should draft the deleration of indpendence for the net, But Hey the whole internet dosen't need to be indepented, Perhaps
Luckily (Score:2, Funny)
what I'd kill for (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, I'm not sure if I remember this correctly since the Unacceptable Textbook Ban Treaty of 2014, but weren't there some guys who pretty much said the same thing back in the 1700's and did something about it?
Hope that little comment doesn't violate the Revisionist History Act of 2019. Wait, hold on, somebody's pounding on my front door....
Max
What about confidential files? (Score:4, Insightful)
Before a file is decrypted, it is impossible to tell whether it is part of such relation, or if it in fact contains illegal data, so how will this work out?
"Sorta like the Volstead act" (Score:3, Interesting)
A-Keep a zillion or so int. lawyers off food stamps for the foreseeable future.
B-Reassure the int. fat cats that the "problem has been adequately addressed"
C-Set a new world record for obscufatory( I think that means unclear, sometimes contradictory and in view of the mass of existing law on the issue somewhat pointless) rhetoric.
D-Scare the pants off every cracker in the known world.( Man! I could hear all those plugs coming out of wall sockets all the way over here!)
E-Prove to the world that these guys(and gals and any others of the 8 or 9 known sexes involved) know what they are talking about and have banded together to do something about it!
As i sometimes do, I went to one of my old fart buddies and got his opinion (I'm 52 so these guys are really ancient). I explained it rather well I thought and when he stopped laughing he had this to say.
"Well it sorta reminds me of the Volstead act. (Booze prohibition in the 20's) We'd come out of those logging camps with a hell of a thirst and there was nary a drop to be had. We bought our booze from the local sherrif because he would'nt throw us in the pokie if we bought it from him. I don't remember that it changed much of anything at all except who got our wages. But you know that pretty much convinced us all that when it comes right down to it each man has pretty much got to make his own rules. You know what I mean?"
Yeah, guess I do. Well thaks for taking the time to read this. Jim Sofra, Queen Charlotte Island,"The trailing edge of technology"
It sounds like a wide open witch hunt treaty (Score:1)
Article 5 ? System interference
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, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data.
The wording sounds very loose.
The quickest way to get this treaty nullified... (Score:2)
Use the treaty as a tool against those individuals who passed it in the first place.
The wording of the treaty is loose enough that there should be plenty of wiggle room to abuse.
Just imagine a US official being extradited to some obscure european country... the US will nullify that treaty so quickly the photons won't have time to reach your eyeballs.
Vulnerability demonstration code outlawed (Score:2, Insightful)
The following has the potential to outlaw current feedback system that keeps vendors providing patches for glaring holes in their products. See Bruce Schneiers CryptoGram. [counterpane.com]
If the interpretation of device is as wide as it was in the DeCSS/DMCA case, also discussion about vulnerabilities could be prosecuted. Not to mention the actual exploits that seem to be the only things that push some vendors to take action.
I live in Europe/Finland. Until now it has been mostly safe to distribute & possess things like DeCSS here, but that seems to be changing.
Quotes from the convention: [coe.int]
Article 6 - Misuse of devices
1. 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:
i. a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Article 2 ? 5;