THe convention on cybercrime allows for the law to require a minimum of security features implemented by users as a pre-condition to prosecute for hacking... So that for WI-FI, users are required to be cautious could hardly be surprising. However, two things trouble me here: first, it's not the Government which set up the requirements, but the ISPs; certaintly consumers have a contract with ISPs but I find this unilateral change problematic given the indirect consequences it can have on criminal law, even if those consequences are unwanted. Second, to which extend the ISPs are refusing to engage into providing security features, I wonder? because I suspect it is easier to pass the burden of building good security that doing it themselves.
UK ISP Claims It Will Disconnect Any Customers With Open WiFi (3 November 2008)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
The Convention also enables international cooperation in combating crimes such as child sexual exploitation, organized crime, and terrorism through provisions to obtain and share electronic evidence.The Convention is open to states around the world. It represents a truly global response to a global problem.
---------
smithsan
promoter
Well, I guess I was not clear enough. My point was less about the Convention than the way the clause in the Convention was used in this particular case. It's fine to require people to have a minimum of security features; it's more of a problem if it's an argument for others to escape their own liability in providing adequate security
Post a Comment