Re: Draft Convention on Cybercrime

[David Ford <david () kalifornia com>]

For reference:


> Article 6 - Illegal Devices
>
> 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.

I don't think that the creation of nmap fits into either section 1 or 2.  The possession of nmap for the purpose of 
committing a crime certainly does however.  This is much the same as making a wreckingball crane.  That isn't a crime.  
Using that wreckingball crane on your neighbor's house
without his approval on the otherhand...

Do note the statement of article 6.  "...when committed intentionally and without right:"

-d


Matt Marnell wrote:

> Fyodor, nmap enthusiasts-
>
> I was just wondering how you guys feel about the Draft Convention on Cybercrime being circulated throughout roughly 
> 40 countries for approval (including the US)?  In it, certain "Illegal Devices" are banned entirely, the definition 
> of which encompasses utilities such as nmap (Article 6).
>
> you can check out the first revision of the treaty here:
> http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/projets/cybercrime.htm
>
> Matt

--
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an
eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was
'committed'."