Hi Christa
 
> (do you have any decision procedures?)
I guess that the only decission would be, who pays you the beer/drink/prosecco or whatever.
;-)
 
Cheers
Günti


From: swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] On Behalf Of Christa Pfister
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:22 PM
To: swinog@swinog.ch
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: swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch im Auftrag von Daniel Roethlisberger
Gesendet: Mi 18.03.2009 15:45
An: SWINOG
Betreff: Re: [swinog] "Hackerparagraph" (fwd)

Andreas Fink <afink@list.fink.org> 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
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog