RE: [BOARD] Status of CyberCrime treaty statement
I would have liked to have seen this voted on before a decision was made.
This seems to be very important to a lot of people including myself.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aleph1@SECURITYFOCUS.COM [mailto:aleph1@SECURITYFOCUS.COM]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 5:14 PM
> To: Scott Blake
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [BOARD] Status of CyberCrime treaty statement
> * Scott Blake (blake@BOS.BINDVIEW.COM) [000626 22:10]:
> > Do I understand correctly that MITRE is no longer willing
> to host the
> > website, even if the Board wishes to proceed with the
> statement? Also,
> > will MITRE personnel no longer endorse the statement?
> > I have to disagree with the DoJ's assessment. Our position
> was not that
> > the treaty would lead directly to the criminalization of our jobs.
> > Rather, we (as I understand it) are raising a concern about
> the potential
> > for misinterpretation. Some staffer at DoJ assuring
> MITRE's corporate
> > counsel that that's not the intent changes exactly nothing
> in my mind.
> > I'm also more than a little concerned about this response
> being discussed
> > with DoJ by MITRE. But I'll leave that for another rant.
> I am also disappointed by this response. I think its also a glimpse at
> future problems with the CVE. Although the folks at Mitre talked of
> the CVE possibly being spun off as an independent organization in the
> future (ala the WildList) and that Mitre will simply nurture it in
> its early stages that is obviously not the case currently.
> I think we need a better statement as to what the future
> governing body
> of the CVE will look like and who has ultimate control over
> the decision
> make process: the board, Mitre or something else.
> > -----
> > Scott Blake firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Security Program Manager +1-508-485-7737 x218
> > BindView Corporation Cell: +1-508-353-0269
> Elias Levy
> Si vis pacem, para bellum