[governance] Project Censores

[Chaitanya Dhareshwar]

It's nice (in that they try to be candid) - but chances are they'll end up
prosecuted like most others.

-C

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com>wrote:

> Some opinion please?
>
> http://www.projectcensored.org/
>
> Carlos Vera
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 23/09/2012, a las 15:12, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't feel that we need new legitimate international systems to
>> > address the problem of botnets.
>>
>> I also certainly wouldn't ask for a "legitimate international systems to
>> address the problem of botnets" specifically, but I share the concern
>> that I believe Parminder was expressing, and I think that domain name
>> seizures by US courts when the domain name holder is outside the US
>> need to be either stopped or made subject to legitimate internationally
>> agreed rules.
>>
>
> The reality is that countries differ in the manner of categorising cyber
> crime and this poses a challenge as far as extra-territorial jurisdictional
> enforcement. If country A and country B both have the same categorisation
> of what they consider to be a cyber crime, then chances of law enforcement
> cooperation are higher then if they were'nt. For instance even despite
> things like the Budapest Convention it does not mean that categorisation is
> the same for countries who have ratified it. For example, if we take "child
> pornography", Article 9(2) limits this content related offence, see: "For
> the purpose of paragraph 1 above, the term "child pornography" shall
> include pornographic material that visually depicts"
>
> On one hand you have blind persons claiming "visual impairment" as a
> defence.
>
>
> It is part of the responsibility of courts to weigh the effects of an
>> order that is requested not only with regard to the litigants, but also
>> with regard to the public interest and with regard to innocent third
>> parties that might be affected.
>
> The third parties are those computers who have been infected by "Malware"
> andl who have no idea that their machines are being unscrupulously used by
> a few.
>
>
>> Third parties who would be affected by
>> the order must be given a fair opportunity to inform the court about
>> how they would be affected.
>>
> Imagine in this case identifying the John Does and flying 35 million
> persons for one trial. So it follows that enforcement in this regard is not
> that simple.
>
>>
>> Does anyone seriously believe that in this case there was any chance
>> for the effects on the innocent third parties in China to be explained,
>> or appropriately weighted, or weighted as strongly as if they had been
>> US residents?
>>
>  Botnets are global and so end users computers who are caught in the
> "dragnet" are from the world over. You are right there should be robust
> dialogue and discussions on  this matter as far as establishing criminal
> liability, rights of parties etc etc.
>
>>
>> All website addresses and email addresses at subdomains of 3322.org
>> were destroyed by the seizure. In my understanding that was "arbitrary
>> or unlawful interference with" the "correspondence" of innocent
>> people, and therefore a human rights violation (see ICCPR [1], article
>> 17).
>> [1] http://idgovmap.org/map/treaty/ICCPR
>
>
> Well this is something that should be robustly discussed etc where we
> collectively explore all sides and weigh the matter thoroughly.
>
>>
>>
>> (IMO, if the US court did not consider the effects on the innocent
>> third parties, then the seizure was *arbitrary* interference. If the
>> court considered those side-effects but considered them justifiable,
>> then the seizure was *unlawful* interference, because US courts lack
>> jurisdiction to decide that the correspondence of a Chinese person in
>> China with other people in China may for some reason lawfully be
>> interfered with.)
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120924/1d49cb92/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t