|
|
William Hill Principal INFOSEC Engineer The MITRE Corporation "Steven M. Christey" wrote: > All, > > The final version of the CyberCrime treaty statement is ready for your > signature. > > Editorial Board members from 26 different organizations have voted to > ACCEPT the statement, and expect to endorse it as individuals or as > official representatives of their companies. There are 28 > organizations on the Board at this time, so this clearly satisfies any > "quorum" requirement. > > I made two small grammatical changes based on comments by Andre Frech > and Jim Magdych, which means that I added three commas. No other > changes were made. The final text is below. > > At MITRE, Gary Gagnon (a director in our Security and Information > Operations division) is working on a strategy for conducting the > outreach. I expect that we will have a concrete approach, including a > coordinator, in the next day or so. > > The next step is to gather the signatures from Editorial Board members > so that we have a unified statement for the outreach. I will gather > the signatures for this initial effort. > > Some Board members have expressed concerns that even if they sign as > an individual and we include a disclaimer, that listing their company > affiliation may cause careless readers to believe that the member is > representing an official position. To address this, I propose the > following convention: > > - If you're representing an official position for your company, > include your title and the phrase "Representing XYZ Corporation" > as part of your signature > > - If you're signing as an individual, you have the option to include > your organization or not; if not, your title and/or role in the > community is encouraged. Consider that your title may further > reinforce the fact that you don't speak for your organization. > > The "Representing" tag will reinforce who's making an official > organizational statement and who isn't. The disclaimer has been > adapted as follows: > > This statement represents the professional opinion of each > individual signer. Unless stated otherwise, it may not represent > the official position of the signer's parent organization. > > Finally, because Adam Shostack and Scott Blake introduced this issue > to the Board, I suggest that their signatures should be listed first. > > Thanks to everyone for the incredible level of participation in this > effort. It's been a busy but rewarding experience. I look forward to > collecting your signatures as we move into the next phase. > > - Steve > > ************** FINAL TEXT of CyberCrime Treaty Statement ************** > > Greetings: > > As leading security practitioners, educators, vendors, and users of > information security, we wish to register our misgivings about the > Council of Europe draft treaty on Crime in Cyberspace. > > We are concerned that portions of the proposed treaty may result in > criminalizing techniques and software commonly used to make computer > systems resistant to attack. Signatory states passing legislation to > implement the treaty may endanger the security of their computer > systems, because computer users in those countries will not be able to > adequately protect their computer systems and the education of > information protection specialists will be hindered. > > Critical to the protection of computer systems and infrastructure is > the ability to > * Test software for weaknesses > * Verify the presence of defects in computer systems > * Exchange vulnerability information > > System administrators, researchers, consultants, and companies all > routinely develop, use, and share software designed to exercise known > and suspected vulnerabilities. Academic institutions use these tools > to educate students and in research to develop improved defenses. Our > combined experience suggests that it is impossible to reliably > distinguish software used in computer crime from that used for these > legitimate purposes. In fact, they are often identical. > > Currently, article 6 of the draft treaty is vague regarding the use, > distribution, and possession of software that could be used to violate > the security of computer systems. We agree that damaging or breaking > into computer systems is wrong and we unequivocally support laws > against such inappropriate behavior. We affirm that a goal of the > treaty and resulting legislation should be to permit the development > and application of good security measures. However, legislation that > criminalizes security software development, distribution, and use is > counter to that goal, as it would adversely impact security > practitioners, researchers, and educators. > > Therefore, we respectfully request that the treaty drafters remove > section a.1 from article 6, and modify section b accordingly; the > articles on computer intrusion and damage (viz., articles 1-5) are > already sufficient to proscribe any improper use of security-related > software or information. > > Please do not hesitate to call on us for technical advice in your > future deliberations. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This statement represents the professional opinion of each individual > signer. Unless stated otherwise, it may not represent the official > position of the signer's parent organization. > > [Scott Blake and Adam Shostack signatures here] > > -- corporate signers: examples -- > > Jane Doe > CTO > Representing Big_Corporation_ABC > > Ralph Kramden > Community-Based Transportation Technician > Representing Small_Business_DEF > > -- individual signers: examples -- > > David LeBlanc, Ph.D. > Microsoft Information Security > > Steve Christey > Lead Information Systems Engineer > The MITRE Corporation
begin:vcard n:Hill;William tel;work:703-883-6416 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:The MITRE Corporation adr:;;1820 Dolley Madison Blvd;McLean;VA;22102; version:2.1 email;internet:bill@mitre.org title:INFOSEC Engineer fn:Bill Hill end:vcard
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature