Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
* on the Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:36:35AM +0100, Thomas Dagonnier wrote:
> It may be an idea to have a look at the treaty they have to implement
> : http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm
I concur, this treaty is shite. It criminalizes various tools instead
of acts, tries to heavy-hand enforcement of monopolies, tries to invent
new laws where old ones are quite clear (forgeries, fraud), tries to
criminalize third parties ("aiding, abettig") and so on.
Shame on whoever came up with this, and on whoever signed this. You've
just grossly violated democratic judical principles. In accordance to
Henlons Razor (which assumes there is no malice if sufficiently explained
by stupidity), you are morons.
Seegras
--
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are
likely to end up with neither." -- Bruce Schneier
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Peter Keel wrote: > * on the Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:36:35AM +0100, Thomas Dagonnier wrote: > > It may be an idea to have a look at the treaty they have to implement > > : http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm > Shame on whoever came up with this, and on whoever signed this. You've > just grossly violated democratic judical principles. One important thing to keep in mind is that signatures under international treaties are *not* a commitment to do what the treaty says, they are only a declaration of intention to consider for ratification that particular version of the treaty. The step through which a country promises to implement what the treaty says is ratification. In Switzerland, ratfication of a treaty requires decisions of both Nationalrat and Staenderat and then there is the possibility of a referendum. The reality is that we have quite extensive democratic rights and possibilities to influence what happens. Many officials in the federal administration don't really appreciate these democratic principles, and like to make everyone believe that Switzerland has to do certain things because the text of an international treaty says that we should, even if we haven't yet decided to agree to that international treaty. But we have real power in our hands. As pointed out by Thomas, if the Swiss legislation mimics exactly what the treaty says in its article 6, the problems that we are concerned about will not occur. So at least that article of the convention is not a true problem. I haven't yet studied the convention in its entirety -- it might contain serious problems in other areas, but if it doesn't, we shouldn't oppose this CoE convention, but just demand that it should be implemented in a way which does not cause problems. If they don't listen to this demand, there's always the possibility of doing a referendum campaign. Of course that'd be MUCH more work than simply sending in a comment during the present public comments period. Our main benefit from having the democratic possibility of doing a referendum campaign is that because we have this possibility, comments from all kinds of interested parties (like we are now invited to send in during the present public comments period) are going to be taken seriously. Therefore, I'm pretty sure that the disaster with regard to the legality of security tools is going to be averted if we take appropriate action now. Therefore, please, everyone: Please make sure that your employer or some other organization that you're a member of sends a letter which states clearly that security tools must remain legal to possess and distribute, as long as this is done with a legitimate, non-criminal intention. (I'm writing such a letter, too, on behalf of SIUG, but IMO it's best when many concerned companies and other organizations all send a letter of their own.) Greetings, Norbert -- http://siug.ch/ Swiss Internet User Group (SIUG), eine Initiative der /ch/open ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Two comments from a lawyer's point of view: "One important thing to keep in mind is that signatures under international treaties are *not* a commitment to do what the treaty says, they are only a declaration of intention to consider for ratification that particular version of the treaty." That's an interesting thesis, but I don't agree 100 %. Art. 6 of the Cybercrime Convention: I have analysed this provision in my thesis and I agree with the conclusion that the Article of the Convention is in principle acceptable. The implementation into national law has given rise to discussions in other countries. I have followed the German discussion, which revolved arount the same arguments as the discussion on this list. I will carefully analyse the proposed changes in Swiss law, and I might even submit an opinion in the Vernehmlassungs-procedure. Regards, Christa Von: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Mi 18.03.2009 12:15 An: Peter Keel Cc: swi...@swinog.ch Betreff: Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph" Peter Keel wrote: > * on the Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:36:35AM +0100, Thomas Dagonnier wrote: > > It may be an idea to have a look at the treaty they have to implement > > : http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm > Shame on whoever came up with this, and on whoever signed this. You've > just grossly violated democratic judical principles. One important thing to keep in mind is that signatures under international treaties are *not* a commitment to do what the treaty says, they are only a declaration of intention to consider for ratification that particular version of the treaty. The step through which a country promises to implement what the treaty says is ratification. In Switzerland, ratfication of a treaty requires decisions of both Nationalrat and Staenderat and then there is the possibility of a referendum. The reality is that we have quite extensive democratic rights and possibilities to influence what happens. Many officials in the federal administration don't really appreciate these democratic principles, and like to make everyone believe that Switzerland has to do certain things because the text of an international treaty says that we should, even if we haven't yet decided to agree to that international treaty. But we have real power in our hands. As pointed out by Thomas, if the Swiss legislation mimics exactly what the treaty says in its article 6, the problems that we are concerned about will not occur. So at least that article of the convention is not a true problem. I haven't yet studied the convention in its entirety -- it might contain serious problems in other areas, but if it doesn't, we shouldn't oppose this CoE convention, but just demand that it should be implemented in a way which does not cause problems. If they don't listen to this demand, there's always the possibility of doing a referendum campaign. Of course that'd be MUCH more work than simply sending in a comment during the present public comments period. Our main benefit from having the democratic possibility of doing a referendum campaign is that because we have this possibility, comments from all kinds of interested parties (like we are now invited to send in during the present public comments period) are going to be taken seriously. Therefore, I'm pretty sure that the disaster with regard to the legality of security tools is going to be averted if we take appropriate action now. Therefore, please, everyone: Please make sure that your employer or some other organization that you're a member of sends a letter which states clearly that security tools must remain legal to possess and distribute, as long as this is done with a legitimate, non-criminal intention. (I'm writing such a letter, too, on behalf of SIUG, but IMO it's best when many concerned companies and other organizations all send a letter of their own.) Greetings, Norbert -- http://siug.ch/ Swiss Internet User Group (SIUG), eine Initiative der /ch/open ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
* on the Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > * on the Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:36:35AM +0100, Thomas Dagonnier wrote: > > > It may be an idea to have a look at the treaty they have to implement > > > : http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm > > Shame on whoever came up with this, and on whoever signed this. You've > > just grossly violated democratic judical principles. > > One important thing to keep in mind is that signatures under > international treaties are *not* a commitment to do what the > treaty says, they are only a declaration of intention to > consider for ratification that particular version of the treaty. Yes, but they're a commitment to implement said articles, so if you sign this, you intent to: "10.1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of copyright," There are certain provisions which weaken this, further down but STILL this declares the intention to take out copyright infringement out of civil right into criminal right. Which is an outrageous step in the protection of artificial trade-monopolies. Cheers Seegras -- "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin "It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither." -- Bruce Schneier ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Copyright infringement IS already a criminal offence (Art. 67 URG - Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht) - nothing new there. Regards, Christa Von: swinog-boun...@lists.swinog.ch im Auftrag von Peter Keel Gesendet: Mi 18.03.2009 13:41 An: swi...@swinog.ch Betreff: Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph" * on the Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > * on the Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 08:36:35AM +0100, Thomas Dagonnier wrote: > > > It may be an idea to have a look at the treaty they have to implement > > > : http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm > > Shame on whoever came up with this, and on whoever signed this. You've > > just grossly violated democratic judical principles. > > One important thing to keep in mind is that signatures under > international treaties are *not* a commitment to do what the > treaty says, they are only a declaration of intention to > consider for ratification that particular version of the treaty. Yes, but they're a commitment to implement said articles, so if you sign this, you intent to: "10.1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of copyright," There are certain provisions which weaken this, further down but STILL this declares the intention to take out copyright infringement out of civil right into criminal right. Which is an outrageous step in the protection of artificial trade-monopolies. Cheers Seegras -- "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin "It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither." -- Bruce Schneier ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Christa Pfister wrote: > "One important thing to keep in mind is that signatures under > international treaties are *not* a commitment to do what the > treaty says, they are only a declaration of intention to consider for > ratification that particular version of the treaty." That's an > interesting thesis, but I don't agree 100 %. I wonder if you would maybe be willing to help me find a formulation which you would support 100%, but which is nevertheless a reasonably short explanation of how the Swiss government can sign treaties such as this Convention on Cybercrime, which requires changes to the law that the government does not have authority to decide on its own? I believe that in order to agree to be bound to a treaty of this type, there must be approval from Ständerat and Nationalrat and the possibility of a referendum! [ As I see it, the challenge here particularly with regard to this particular treaty is that at least upon casual reading of the treaty text, I get the impression that (unlike e.g. the WIPO Internet Treaties) this would be one of the those treaties where signing the treaty is intended to be a form of expressing consent to be bound by the treaty, just like ratification. However, if for this treaty, that is the meaning of signing it, how can it be that Switzerland signed it in 2001, but only in 2008 it was proposed in parliament that Switzerland might ratify this treaty, and it is only this proposal of ratification that leads to discussion of the changes to the law which are necessary for implementing the treaty? As you are certainly aware, the international law of treaties, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, foresees both possibilities: Signature of a treaty can have the meaning of committing to do what the treaty says, but it isn't necessarily so. ] Greetings, Norbert -- http://siug.ch/ Swiss Internet User Group (SIUG), eine Initiative der /ch/open ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Am 18.3.2009 19:43 Uhr, Norbert Bollow schrieb: > I believe that in order to agree to be bound to a treaty of this > type, there must be approval from Ständerat and Nationalrat and the > possibility of a referendum! For that it would make sense, if we would get in contact with the political parties. At the moment, it seems that none of the parties in the parliament have an opinion on this issue. Ihsan -- ih...@dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
we have to make sure that they get aware of the issue and that it is a big concern... LOBBYING... On 19.03.2009, at 10:54, Ihsan Dogan wrote: Am 18.3.2009 19:43 Uhr, Norbert Bollow schrieb: I believe that in order to agree to be bound to a treaty of this type, there must be approval from Ständerat and Nationalrat and the possibility of a referendum! For that it would make sense, if we would get in contact with the political parties. At the moment, it seems that none of the parties in the parliament have an opinion on this issue. Ihsan -- ih...@dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Salut, Ihsan, On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:54:28 +0100, Ihsan Dogan wrote: > For that it would make sense, if we would get in contact with the > political parties. At the moment, it seems that none of the parties in > the parliament have an opinion on this issue. That is of course also very important. Firstly, politicians need to be educated on these issues; secondly, I would also dislike it if someone just calls me when he needs me to vote for something he wants and then leaves me alone again, without building up any relationship or explaining his thoughts. Feels a bit like abuse, eh? Either way, the number one priority is still to submit a response to the proposal, then the lobbying can be #2 on the agenda. Tonnerre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Hey guys, the law enforcement offices, sometime using hack/backdoor in skype or whatever (I've heard about it, rumors or reality?), they will/should be forced to provide a list of tool they are able to use/abuse to sound legitimate, isn't it? will be interesting to say the least. Anyway, this law will be hard to enforce, like anything in an non material media. About the blacklist: tcpdumd/snoop and wireshark: no way, maybe metasploit on a gray line, mostly 0day stuff floating from irc to email to email etc are a real problem. Cheers. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Am 20.3.2009 0:29 Uhr, Tonnerre Lombard schrieb: >> For that it would make sense, if we would get in contact with the >> political parties. At the moment, it seems that none of the parties in >> the parliament have an opinion on this issue. > That is of course also very important. Firstly, politicians need to be > educated on these issues; secondly, I would also dislike it if someone > just calls me when he needs me to vote for something he wants and then > leaves me alone again, without building up any relationship or > explaining his thoughts. Feels a bit like abuse, eh? Instead of educating politicians it would make more sense, if the IT people would be more involved in politics. The IT industry is doing more for the GDI (BIP) than the farmers, but unfortunately we are not organized. > Either way, the number one priority is still to submit a response to > the proposal, then the lobbying can be #2 on the agenda. Friday evening I was at an Apéro and I had personal contact with the FDP Nationalrat Markus Hutter. I've spoke with him and he promised me to bring up this topic at the "Rechtskomission". Ihsan -- ih...@dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Ihsan Dogan schrieb: > > > Instead of educating politicians it would make more sense, if the IT > people would be more involved in politics. The IT industry is doing more > for the GDI (BIP) than the farmers, but unfortunately we are not organized. > > We also have no means to deliver kilo-gallons of slurry to the front-door of the parliament ;-) Also, farmers have much more means to apply pressure to the public - it's not easy to replace their goods & services on short-notice and they are mostly self-employed. Our work has been commoditized to the point where we are replaceable almost immediately - and most of us are employees. Those who are not are replaceable even easier And all the heavy-lifting of the infrastructure is done by big corporations that never go on strike or deny service to their customers (which is the usual way pressure groups like garbage-men and farmers get their agenda through). A part of reality is also, of course, that most of what we do is not really essential - superfluous luxury so to speak. People need food, water, shelter (and garbage-collection). People can survive without email (though we work hard to convince them otherwise) ;-) Rainer ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Hi Folks, I also thought today that even the Schools for IT should position in this discussion... I will try to reach the BBW Winterthur which I am a student of (and some apprentices of members of this mailinglist, too btw) I will also try to reach the TBZ in this purpose I think we should try to collect organisations which will work together, I can also speak for Gnupingu and the Lug Kreuzlingen Silvan Am 23.03.2009 um 17:44 schrieb Rainer Duffner: Ihsan Dogan schrieb: Instead of educating politicians it would make more sense, if the IT people would be more involved in politics. The IT industry is doing more for the GDI (BIP) than the farmers, but unfortunately we are not organized. We also have no means to deliver kilo-gallons of slurry to the front-door of the parliament ;-) Also, farmers have much more means to apply pressure to the public - it's not easy to replace their goods & services on short-notice and they are mostly self-employed. Our work has been commoditized to the point where we are replaceable almost immediately - and most of us are employees. Those who are not are replaceable even easier And all the heavy-lifting of the infrastructure is done by big corporations that never go on strike or deny service to their customers (which is the usual way pressure groups like garbage-men and farmers get their agenda through). A part of reality is also, of course, that most of what we do is not really essential - superfluous luxury so to speak. People need food, water, shelter (and garbage-collection). People can survive without email (though we work hard to convince them otherwise) ;-) Rainer ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On Monday 23 March 2009, Rainer Duffner wrote: [..] > People can survive without email I am tempted to doubt that. The reactions to mail outage suggest the contrary ;-) have fun, Michi ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Michael Naef schrieb: > On Monday 23 March 2009, Rainer Duffner wrote: > [..] > >> People can survive without email >> > > I am tempted to doubt that. The reactions to mail outage suggest > the contrary ;-) > > Well, it depends. I survived a week without email on my holiday. ;-) But our customers' business sort-of depends on email-availability, yes. Can you eat/drink email? Can you breath email? Can you email the garbage away? ;-) Nope, it's fully virtual. Email's non-availability is only an issue, if you're the only one without it. If everybody else didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a problem. Rainer ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On 23.03.2009, at 18:28, Rainer Duffner wrote: > Michael Naef schrieb: >> On Monday 23 March 2009, Rainer Duffner wrote: >> [..] >> >>> People can survive without email >>> >> >> I am tempted to doubt that. The reactions to mail outage suggest >> the contrary ;-) >> >> > > Well, it depends. > I survived a week without email on my holiday. > ;-) > But our customers' business sort-of depends on email-availability, > yes. > > Can you eat/drink email? > Can you breath email? > Can you email the garbage away? > ;-) > > Nope, it's fully virtual. > Email's non-availability is only an issue, if you're the only one > without it. > If everybody else didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a problem. Whole industries depend on it. Without e-mail my business would be dead. In todays world communication is a vital issue to the service industry. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On 23.03.2009, at 21:31, Andreas Fink wrote: > On 23.03.2009, at 18:28, Rainer Duffner wrote: >> Michael Naef schrieb: >>> On Monday 23 March 2009, Rainer Duffner wrote: >>> [..] People can survive without email >>> >>> I am tempted to doubt that. The reactions to mail outage suggest >>> the contrary ;-) >> Well, it depends. >> I survived a week without email on my holiday. >> ;-) >> But our customers' business sort-of depends on email-availability, >> yes. >> >> Can you eat/drink email? >> Can you breath email? >> Can you email the garbage away? >> ;-) >> >> Nope, it's fully virtual. >> Email's non-availability is only an issue, if you're the only one >> without it. >> If everybody else didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a problem. > Whole industries depend on it. Without e-mail my business would be > dead. In todays world communication is a vital issue to the service > industry. The question I usually ask people is: "If I gave you a choice between taking down your email-system or your PBX, what would you choose?" Everyone says to kill the phones. I think that's a good measure of relevance. Chris ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Salut, On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:46:12AM +0100, Ihsan Dogan wrote: > Instead of educating politicians it would make more sense, if the IT > people would be more involved in politics. The IT industry is doing more > for the GDI (BIP) than the farmers, but unfortunately we are not organized. That's maybe a good long term vision but I don't see that happen at this precise moment. > > Either way, the number one priority is still to submit a response to > > the proposal, then the lobbying can be #2 on the agenda. > > Friday evening I was at an Apéro and I had personal contact with the FDP > Nationalrat Markus Hutter. I've spoke with him and he promised me to > bring up this topic at the "Rechtskomission". Very good! Just please ensure beforehand that he understood the issue. ;-) Tonnerre pgpfxrlMO40Yt.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On the Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 05:51:33PM +0100, Michael Naef blubbered: > > People can survive without email > > I am tempted to doubt that. The reactions to mail outage suggest > the contrary ;-) People will certainly not die of an email outage. But they suddenly remember they have a phone and call the sysadmin. This is great! Whenever you feel lonely, just issue a "postfix stop" and "/etc/init.d/cyrus stop" or whatever software powers your email system. Be advised, you should have a BOfH excuse at hand. CU, Venty -- Verpassen Sie nicht den neuen Hackerfunk am 04. April 2008. Wie immer von 19:00 bis 20:00 Uhr auf Radio LoRa in Zürich. http://www.hackerfunk.ch/ http://www.lora.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Salut, On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Patrick Tybo wrote: >About the blacklist: tcpdumd/snoop and wireshark: no way, maybe >metasploit on a gray line, mostly 0day stuff floating from irc to email >to email etc are a real problem. Can you give me a legal guarantee that tcpdump will in no case be considered as a hacker tool? No, you can't. It always depends on mood and understanding of the judge in question, and potentially other factors. Tonnerre pgplT3ZPnN5uI.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On the Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:37:30PM +0100, Chris Meidinger blubbered: Hi. > > Whole industries depend on it. Without e-mail my business would be > > dead. In todays world communication is a vital issue to the service > > industry. > > The question I usually ask people is: "If I gave you a choice between > taking down your email-system or your PBX, what would you choose?" > > Everyone says to kill the phones. > > I think that's a good measure of relevance. Not necessarily. For certain things, phonecalls are much better, because of the realtime aspect. The reason for voting for email instead of phones is that mails can be read later. It does not so much interfere with work, unless you let yourself distract by blinking icons or whatever. Any media has its pros and cons. CU, Venty -- Verpassen Sie nicht den neuen Hackerfunk am 04. April 2008. Wie immer von 19:00 bis 20:00 Uhr auf Radio LoRa in Zürich. http://www.hackerfunk.ch/ http://www.lora.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:03:00AM +0100, Martin Ebnoether wrote: > On the Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:37:30PM +0100, Chris Meidinger blubbered: > > Hi. > > > > Whole industries depend on it. Without e-mail my business would be > > > dead. In todays world communication is a vital issue to the service > > > industry. > > > > The question I usually ask people is: "If I gave you a choice between > > taking down your email-system or your PBX, what would you choose?" > > > > Everyone says to kill the phones. > > > > I think that's a good measure of relevance. > > Not necessarily. > > For certain things, phonecalls are much better, because of the > realtime aspect. > What!?! Email is not realtime? It sure is like chat. You press send and the other side gets the mail instantly. If the mail does not arrive within 10 sec the Internet is broken and you should call your ISP. -- :wq Claudio ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:53:16PM +0100, Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote: > Salut, > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Patrick Tybo wrote: > >About the blacklist: tcpdumd/snoop and wireshark: no way, maybe > >metasploit on a gray line, mostly 0day stuff floating from irc to email > >to email etc are a real problem. > > Can you give me a legal guarantee that tcpdump will in no case be considered > as a hacker tool? No, you can't. It always depends on mood and understanding > of the judge in question, and potentially other factors. > Actually this is the biggest risk of this law. Taking away "hacker tools" from sysadmins and software developers will decrease the security of the swiss IT infrastructure. It is like outlawing vaccination. -- :wq Claudio ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
On Tuesday 24 March 2009, Claudio Jeker wrote: [..] > What!?! Email is not realtime? I guess venty meant ansynchronous versus synchromous (..phone calls, which is the very distinction between them. A three way handschake to make "sure" about something over phones ist much faster. But just to report something a synchronous medium would be way too much :) Michi ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Salut, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:24:54AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > What!?! Email is not realtime? It sure is like chat. You press send and > the other side gets the mail instantly. If the mail does not arrive within > 10 sec the Internet is broken and you should call your ISP. Are you talking about those mythical glorious days before greylisting? Tonnerre pgpUUFpj7r7OM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Am 23.3.2009 17:44 Uhr, Rainer Duffner schrieb: >> Instead of educating politicians it would make more sense, if the IT >> people would be more involved in politics. The IT industry is doing more >> for the GDI (BIP) than the farmers, but unfortunately we are not organized. > > We also have no means to deliver kilo-gallons of slurry to the > front-door of the parliament ;-) > Also, farmers have much more means to apply pressure to the public - > it's not easy to replace their goods & services on short-notice and they > are mostly self-employed. > Our work has been commoditized to the point where we are replaceable > almost immediately - and most of us are employees. Those who are not are > replaceable even easier > And all the heavy-lifting of the infrastructure is done by big > corporations that never go on strike or deny service to their customers > (which is the usual way pressure groups like garbage-men and farmers get > their agenda through). I don't agree on this. There are many small companies in Switzerland, which are depending on a good law system. > A part of reality is also, of course, that most of what we do is not > really essential - superfluous luxury so to speak. > People need food, water, shelter (and garbage-collection). People can > survive without email (though we work hard to convince them otherwise) ;-) You should also not forget, that all those companies are also tax payers and employers. So, there should be an interest, not to annoy them and keep them in Switzerland. Ihsan -- ih...@dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Salut, Am 23.3.2009 23:13 Uhr, Tonnerre LOMBARD schrieb: >> Instead of educating politicians it would make more sense, if the IT >> people would be more involved in politics. The IT industry is doing more >> for the GDI (BIP) than the farmers, but unfortunately we are not organized. > > That's maybe a good long term vision but I don't see that happen at this > precise moment. I'm doing my best. :-) Switzerland allows us to have a direct influence in politics. We should use this right! >>> Either way, the number one priority is still to submit a response to >>> the proposal, then the lobbying can be #2 on the agenda. >> Friday evening I was at an Apéro and I had personal contact with the FDP >> Nationalrat Markus Hutter. I've spoke with him and he promised me to >> bring up this topic at the "Rechtskomission". > > Very good! Just please ensure beforehand that he understood the issue. ;-) I'm sure he understood the issue. Actually, it's not hard at all to understand this issue. The problem is, that most of the people are not aware about the problems. Ihsan -- ih...@dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Salut, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:01:08PM +0100, Ihsan Dogan wrote: > >> Instead of educating politicians it would make more sense, if the IT > >> people would be more involved in politics. The IT industry is doing more > >> for the GDI (BIP) than the farmers, but unfortunately we are not organized. > > > > That's maybe a good long term vision but I don't see that happen at this > > precise moment. > > I'm doing my best. :-) > Switzerland allows us to have a direct influence in politics. We should > use this right! Sure, but in terms of fine-grained control over the process it does not really grant the people more rights than they have in any other country. Nevertheless, those rights suffice to make our mark, using either strategy. But you must admit that your suggestions are rather long-term while mine are mid-term. > I'm sure he understood the issue. Actually, it's not hard at all to > understand this issue. The problem is, that most of the people are not > aware about the problems. Sure. Tonnerre pgpJ1FQkrvcGP.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Fwd: Re: "Hackerparagraph"
Salut, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:38:23AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > Can you give me a legal guarantee that tcpdump will in no case be considered > > as a hacker tool? No, you can't. It always depends on mood and understanding > > of the judge in question, and potentially other factors. > > Actually this is the biggest risk of this law. Taking away "hacker tools" > from sysadmins and software developers will decrease the security > of the swiss IT infrastructure. It is like outlawing vaccination. Exactly. (As already outlined in the Wiki page.) In the meanwhile, I hope you all already sent your responses to the hearing? Tonnerre pgpHQsClLHPQb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
