treaty
Latest
Treaty would force Facebook to share encrypted chats with UK police
A cross-Atlantic political agreement could put social networks in an awkward position. Sources for The Times and Bloomberg understand that the US and UK will sign a treaty in October that would force Facebook and other social networks to hand encrypted messages to UK law enforcement. The measure would be limited to 'serious' cases like pedophilia and terrorism, but it could still leave social sites either handing over effectively unusable data (if they can't decrypt chats themselves) or weakening security through backdoors.
Treaty ending use of planet-warming HFCs takes effect in 2019
The treaty phasing out the use of Earth-warming hydrofluorocarbons now has an official start date. Sweden has become the 20th country to ratify the Kigali Amendment, invoking a clause that has the measure taking effect on January 1st, 2019. From then on, wealthier countries (less fortunate nations have until 2024 or 2028) must cut back on use of the greenhouse gas in everything from air conditioning to refrigerators. Ideally, this pushes companies to use and develop eco-friendly coolants.
US and Europe reveal how they'll protect your personal data
The US and EU have published a big pile of documents that spill the beans on the pair's replacement for Safe Harbor. The new provision is known as the EU-US Privacy Shield and is designed to limit how much personal data the NSA (amongst others) can access. The files also call for the creation of an independent regulator that'll handle complaints from users which will be funded by contributions from internet companies. The most interesting factoid we've spotted so far is that firms like Facebook can choose if it wants to be subject to American or European data protection law -- although it'll default to the former.
The US and China want to set ground rules for cyberwarfare
Arms control treaties already do a lot to prevent extreme abuses of real-world weaponry, so why shouldn't they apply to virtual conflicts? The US and China certainly think that makes sense. According to sources speaking to the New York Times, the two countries are negotiating a deal that would set limits on cyberwarfare attacks. It's not clear exactly what this agreement would entail, but it would offer a "generic embrace" of a UN code of conduct that, among other things, bars attacks on critical infrastructure like power grids and cellular networks. At the least, these nations wouldn't be the first to resort to these assaults.
Weaponizing code: America's quest to control the exploit market
When the US Bureau of Industry and Security published how it plans to implement the sections on hacking technologies in a global weapons trade pact called the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) last week, it ignited an online firestorm of meltdowns, freakouts, and vicious infighting within the most respected circles of hacking and computer security. That's because the new rules change the classification of intrusion software and Internet Protocol (IP) network communications surveillance -- setting in motion a legal machine that might see penetration-testing tools, exploits and zero-days criminalized. Some suggest the new classifications also seem designed to give the US a market advantage over the buying, selling, import and export of certain tools used in cyberwar -- a currently black market, in which the US government is already the biggest player.
ITU treaty negotiations collapse as US, Canada and UK refuse to sign
As anticipated, several countries pushed to expand the UN's authority to regulate the internet and the US, along with many of its allies, have said they will not sign the updated treaty. Interestingly, the collapse of negotiations began when language was added to the new rules about "human rights obligations," which predictably met with stiff resistance from nations with spotty records on that front, including China and Iran. But the complete failure of the delegates to reach a consensus on updating international telecommunication laws seems to hinge primarily on the push by countries like Russia open the internet to additional UN regulation, that could cover everything from security to the assignment of addresses (something currently handled by ICANN). The US, along with Canada, the UK, Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and the Czech Republic have refused to sign the treaty over to the proposed expansion of powers. The proposed change would, in effect, give the UN and other nations regulatory control over content. The concern is that it would open up the web to broader censorship and abuse from oppressive regimes seeking to control information and squash dissent. For now it seems as if the status quo will continue, though, any internet treaty coming out of the UN would likely face stiff opposition from the US, even without the content-related language.
Google says ITU is 'the wrong place to make decisions about the future of the Internet'
The International Telecommunication Union has been in the news a fair bit as of late, tackling everything from patents to the future of HDTV, and it's now set to be at the center of a particularly contentious issue. As BBC News reports, the ITU is holding a conference in Dubai next month where government representatives plan to tackle a new information and communications treaty -- one that at least some countries hope will shift some oversight responsibilities from US-based groups like ICANN to an international organization. Those plans unsurprisingly aren't going over well with everyone, including Google, which has now come out strongly against the proposed changes. To that end, it's launched a new Take Action website, where it details its opposition and asks folks to sign a petition to back them up. Among other things, Google is criticizing the "closed-door meetings" and "secretive" nature of the ITU, and says the "proposed changes to the treaty could increase censorship and threaten innovation," adding that "the ITU is the wrong place to make decisions about the future of the internet."
Don't bring your computer viruses to Japan, because they're illegal now
Tired of getting swamped with spam and malware? Just pack your things and catch the next flight to Japan, where computer viruses are now considered illegal. Under the country's new legislation, anyone convicted of creating or distributing viruses could face up to three years in prison, or a maximum fine of ¥500,000 (about $6,200). It's all part of Japan's efforts to comply with the Convention on Cybercrime -- an international treaty that requires member governments to criminalize hacking, child pornography, and other terrible things. Privacy advocates, however, have already raised concerns over some stipulations that would allow investigators to seize data from PCs hooked up to allegedly criminal networks, and to retain any suspicious e-mail logs for up to 60 days. In an attempt to quell these fears, the Judicial Affairs Committee tacked a resolution on to the bill calling for police to exercise these powers only when they really, really need to.
