Hello Christa, I think that would be great to get an opinion from a lawyer which knows and speaks the lingo... After all the target audience are lawyers..
Thanks for your help - Markus -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christa Pfister Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [swinog] "Hackerparagraph" (fwd) I have a suggestion: I could draft a comment (regarding "hacking-tools") for the Vernehmlassung and submit it to the mailing-list for approval and input by SWINOG members. As the author of a doctoral thesis on Art. 143bis (the Swiss hacking provision), I might be able to add a certain academic weight to the SWINOG position. I would be prepared to do this for free, it wouldn't be a paid "Gutachten", but rather a joint statement by an association of people who deal with this issues on a daily basis and a lawyer who has studied this provision in depth. If SWINOG agrees (do you have any decision procedures?), I would submit a draft by 15 May 2009. The Vernehmlassung ends 30 June, so that would leave us enough time for discussion. Regards, Christa ________________________________ Von: [email protected] im Auftrag von Daniel Roethlisberger Gesendet: Mi 18.03.2009 15:45 An: SWINOG Betreff: Re: [swinog] "Hackerparagraph" (fwd) Andreas Fink <[email protected]> 2009-03-17: > Collegues, > > The federal adminstration wants to change the law about cyber crime. > > See also: > > >http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/gg/pc/pendent.html#EJPD > (or especially Genehmigung und Umsetzung des Übereinkommens des > Europarates über die Cyberkriminalität ) [...] Note that according to the "Adressatenliste", SwiNOG was explicitly invited to comment on the proposed change of law. I guess SwiNOG should comment on Art. 143bis Abs. 2 and request a clarification, in order to make sure that academical, commercial and private IT security research will not be affected by the change of law. The proposed wording of Abs. 2 currently does not adequatly honour the fact that security tools are dual-use goods by nature; i.e. they are not inherently good or evil. Or in other words, there is no practical way to distinguish a tool used by a professional penetration tester from a tool used by a blackhat. The difference between the two is not in the tools, it's in the contracts (i.e. approval of the target's owner). -- Daniel Roethlisberger http://daniel.roe.ch/ _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [email protected] http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
