[ccwg-internet-governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] ITU circumventing Budapest Convention?
sam at lanfranco.net
Mon Nov 28 01:49:25 UTC 2016
Since there is a sense of urgency here I am quickly posting the
following which may be additional useful information.
It may be good counterpoint to what is proposed in Vanuatu... I will
compare contents but that will take a day or so.
The European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)
is a centre of expertise for cyber security in Europe. It has just
published a 60 page booklet Good Practice Guide on National Cyber
Security Strategy. The booklet (in English) can be downloaded at:
ENISA published its first National Cyber Security Strategy Good Practice
Guide in 2012. Since then, EU Member States and EFTA countries have
progressrf in developing and implementing their strategies. This guide
is updating the different steps, objectives and good practices of the
original guide and analyses the status of NCSS in the European Union and
EFTA area. The aim is to support EU Member States in their efforts to
develop and update their NCSS. Therefore, the target audience of this
guide are public officials and policy makers. The guide also provides
useful insights for the stakeholders involved in the lifecycle of the
strategy, such as private, civil and industry stakeholders.
On 11/27/2016 6:35 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I am forwarding this email which is of considerable interest on
> several levels.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Dan McGarry* <dmcgarry at imagicity.com
> <mailto:dmcgarry at imagicity.com>>
> Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:01 PM
> Subject: [Internet Policy] ITU circumventing Budapest Convention?
> To: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>"
> <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>>
> As a media professional and technologist with over 2 decades'
> experience, I am deeply concerned about Vanuatu's proposed cybercrime
> bill, due to be voted on in the 2nd Ordinary Session of Parliament.
> I'm not the only one with concerns. This report for the Council of
> Europe raises concerns that the new bill is a step backward, not forward.
> This is one of dozens of engagements between ITU-funded consultants
> and small states in the developing world. The report suggests that the
> ITU's offer of 'technical assistance' is effectively an attempt to
> subvert the Budapest Convention, to poison the well where
> international cooperation on cybercrime is concerned, and to use
> 'child protection' as a lever widen the ITU's own mandate and powers.
> The effects on the ground are worrying to say the least. As near as I
> can tell, the proposed bill (linked on the article's page above)
> knocks holes in human rights protections, and creates alarming search
> & seizure and surveillance powers for the state. Effectively, we're
> one bad magistrate away from having a secret police if this becomes law.
> I'm happy to fight my own battles of course, but I'm raising the issue
> here because it appears that this is part of an international campaign
> against a free and open internet as those of us on this list might
> imagine it.
> I'd encourage anyone with technical/legal expertise to take a look at
> the link above, and the cybercrime bill itself, and either to raise
> any issues here or contact me directly.
> The CoE report on which the story is based can be found here:
> Dan McGarry dmcgarry at imagicity.com <mailto:dmcgarry at imagicity.com>
> Photos: http://humansofvanuatu.com/
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ccwg-internet-governance