index.html

<html>
<head>
<title>Defaced by DataSurge</title>
<!---Becky, I'm mad about you.  Watching Titanic AGAIN made me relise how much I really care about you.--->
<!---Respect to the hackers out there trying to make a real difference.--->
<!---What colour is your hair?--->
</head>

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div align="center">
  <p><img src="ds.jpg"></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="2"><b>The International Cybercrime Treaty</b></font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">This defacement is being made as a follow up to our recent defacement which you can view <a href="http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/12/11/freya.grainger.uiuc.edu/">here</a></font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">We raised our objections to the cybercrime treaty in our last defacement on the grounds that
it appears to be ill thought out, and indeed the repercussions of the act could be negative rather than
positive.  Apparently our view is shared by many other people, as seen in this article from the BBC
also available <a href="http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1072000/1072580.stm">here<a>.  Our thanks to the BBC and Mark Ward for this article.</p>

<p align="left">
<FONT SIZE="2"><b>Cybercrime treaty condemned</b> by Mark Ward</font></P>
<p align="left">
A draft European treaty on cybercrime <b><i>has been condemned as "appalling" by civil liberty groups around the globe</i></b>. </p>
<p align="left">
In all, 23 organisations have signed a letter warning that the treaty <b><i>will do serious damage to civil liberties </b></i>under the guise of helping law enforcers catch computer criminals.
</P>
<p align="left">
They warn that if the treaty is adopted it will <b><i>dramatically restrict the free flow of information and ideas</b></i>.
</P>
<p align="left">
British signatories to the protest letter say the treaty goes further than the controversial UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in <b><i>giving police powers to snoop with impunity</b></i>.
</P>
<p align="left">
<B>Draft details</B>
</P>
<p align="left">
Since 1997, the 41-nation Council of Europe has been working on the Cybercrime Treaty, which tries to harmonise laws against malicious hacking, virus writing, fraud and child pornography on the net.
</P>
<p align="left">
It also aims to ensure that police forces in separate countries gather the same standard of evidence to help track and catch criminals across borders.
</P>
<p align="left">
Late last month, the Council released the 22nd draft of the treaty for perusal by interested groups, and <b><i>immediately won condemnation from civil liberty groups for its draconian tone.</b></i>
</P>
<p align="left">
Thirty-five organisations co-ordinated by umbrella organisation the Global Internet Liberty Campaign urged the Council to change the treaty saying: <b><i>"The draft treaty is contrary to well-established norms for the protection of the individual."</b></i>
</P>
<p align="left">
<B>Critical mass</B>
</P>
<p align="left">
Last week, a new draft of the treaty was released, which the Council claims, answers many of the criticisms made of the treaty in the hundreds of e-mails, letters and faxes it received after the initial posting.
</P>
<p align="left">
But many of the organisations which voiced concern over the first public draft say the new version does little to allay their fears.
</P>
<p align="left">
The treaty "continues to be a document that <b><i>threatens the rights of the individual while extending the powers of police authorities"</b></i>, they say.  The groups believe that unless significant changes are made, the treaty will have "a chilling effect on the free flow of information and ideas" on the internet.
</P>
<p align="left">
The GILC claims changes to the treaty have only been made to mollify US concerns about conflicts with the First Amendment rather than because of any concerns for fundamental civil rights.
</P>
<p align="left">
<B>Closed doors</B>
</P>
<p align="left">
"No-one is opposed in principle to an international treaty," said Caspar Bowden of the Foundation for Information Policy Research and one of the signatories to the protest letter. "But there's all sorts of things wrong with this one."
</P>
<p align="left">
Mr Bowden said one of the most worrying aspects of the treaty was the fact that it had been drafted behind closed doors and gave no forum to organisations keen to contribute. "There's no intention to have a public conference where the differences of opinion can be thrashed out," Mr Bowden said.
</P>
<p align="left">
Those signing the protest letter say the treaty rides rough shod over privacy concerns by giving law enforcement agencies wide-ranging snooping powers they can use without getting the permissions required when domestic surveillance is carried out.
</P>
<p align="left">
The snooping powers can also be invoked for much more mundane crimes than those typically thought to justify invasive surveillance.
</P>
<p align="left">
The treaty also allows people to be charged with computer crimes even though the country where they live does not consider what they did as a crime. </P>

<p align="left"><FONT SIZE="2"><b>What we said....</b></font></p>

  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">The
    fact is, the Government are scared of the Internet. They are
oblivious to
    it. They can't control it... and that scares them.</font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">New
    Labour are 'control freaks' so to speak. They are attempting to
police the
    Internet in a way that they would their own country. It just won't
work.</font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">Countries
    need to research very deeply into the impact of these decisions
BEFORE
    implementing them.</font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">Software
    companies rely on security holes and patches being released by
hackers in
    order to make their software as secure as it can be. Exploits are
an essential asset for the
    administrator both to help their understanding of the security
flaw and in order to test their systems for the
vulnerability.</font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">All
    pretty harmless and very useful security related sites which
Administrators
    rely on to make sure their servers are up to date with the latest
patches
    would be illegal.</font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">Bugtraq, Alldas, Attrition, etc. and even the discussion of security
    holes and exploits would be deemed as illegal if this Cybercrime Treaty is
    passed.</font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#FF9933">The
    reason for this defacement is to make people, the media, etc. aware that their
    Government's are trying to strip them of their freedom and privacy by attempting
    to monitor their every move.</font></p>
  <p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">&quot;Why
    even bother? You won't make a difference.&quot; you may ask.
Simple... Because
    we can, and we will. There is no harm in trying to make a
difference and it's
    better than just sitting back and doing nothing at all.</font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1" color="#999999">-</font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1"><a href="http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/projets/cybercrime24.htm">The
    Draft of the International Cybercrime Treaty</a></font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1"><a href="http://www.gilc.org/">Global Internet Liberty Campaign</a></font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1" color="#999999">-</font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">Thanks
    for taking the time to read.</font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#FF9933">We
    are back.</font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="2">- <b>DataSurge</b> -</font></p>
  <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">[<b>Note to Administrator</b>: No damage to your box was caused, your
    old index.html is renamed to indexold.html - simply rename it back to return your
    normal page back]</font></p>
<!--Go have a read: http://www.infowar.com/hacker/hack_082898a_j.shtml-->
</div>
</body>
</html>

<!-- www.attrition.org web hack mirror - watermark or something -->
	<html>
	<head>
	<title>Defaced by DataSurge</title>
	<!---Becky, I'm mad about you. Watching Titanic AGAIN made me relise how much I really care about you.--->
	<!---Respect to the hackers out there trying to make a real difference.--->
	<!---What colour is your hair?--->
	</head>

	<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
	<div align="center">
	<p><img src="ds.jpg"></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="2"><b>The International Cybercrime Treaty</b></font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">This defacement is being made as a follow up to our recent defacement which you can view <a href="http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/12/11/freya.grainger.uiuc.edu/">here</a></font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">We raised our objections to the cybercrime treaty in our last defacement on the grounds that
	it appears to be ill thought out, and indeed the repercussions of the act could be negative rather than
	positive. Apparently our view is shared by many other people, as seen in this article from the BBC
	also available <a href="http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1072000/1072580.stm">here<a>. Our thanks to the BBC and Mark Ward for this article.</p>

	<p align="left">
	<FONT SIZE="2"><b>Cybercrime treaty condemned</b> by Mark Ward</font></P>
	<p align="left">
	A draft European treaty on cybercrime <b><i>has been condemned as "appalling" by civil liberty groups around the globe</i></b>. </p>
	<p align="left">
	In all, 23 organisations have signed a letter warning that the treaty <b><i>will do serious damage to civil liberties </b></i>under the guise of helping law enforcers catch computer criminals.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	They warn that if the treaty is adopted it will <b><i>dramatically restrict the free flow of information and ideas</b></i>.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	British signatories to the protest letter say the treaty goes further than the controversial UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in <b><i>giving police powers to snoop with impunity</b></i>.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	<B>Draft details</B>
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	Since 1997, the 41-nation Council of Europe has been working on the Cybercrime Treaty, which tries to harmonise laws against malicious hacking, virus writing, fraud and child pornography on the net.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	It also aims to ensure that police forces in separate countries gather the same standard of evidence to help track and catch criminals across borders.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	Late last month, the Council released the 22nd draft of the treaty for perusal by interested groups, and <b><i>immediately won condemnation from civil liberty groups for its draconian tone.</b></i>
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	Thirty-five organisations co-ordinated by umbrella organisation the Global Internet Liberty Campaign urged the Council to change the treaty saying: <b><i>"The draft treaty is contrary to well-established norms for the protection of the individual."</b></i>
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	<B>Critical mass</B>
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	Last week, a new draft of the treaty was released, which the Council claims, answers many of the criticisms made of the treaty in the hundreds of e-mails, letters and faxes it received after the initial posting.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	But many of the organisations which voiced concern over the first public draft say the new version does little to allay their fears.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	The treaty "continues to be a document that <b><i>threatens the rights of the individual while extending the powers of police authorities"</b></i>, they say. The groups believe that unless significant changes are made, the treaty will have "a chilling effect on the free flow of information and ideas" on the internet.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	The GILC claims changes to the treaty have only been made to mollify US concerns about conflicts with the First Amendment rather than because of any concerns for fundamental civil rights.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	<B>Closed doors</B>
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	"No-one is opposed in principle to an international treaty," said Caspar Bowden of the Foundation for Information Policy Research and one of the signatories to the protest letter. "But there's all sorts of things wrong with this one."
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	Mr Bowden said one of the most worrying aspects of the treaty was the fact that it had been drafted behind closed doors and gave no forum to organisations keen to contribute. "There's no intention to have a public conference where the differences of opinion can be thrashed out," Mr Bowden said.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	Those signing the protest letter say the treaty rides rough shod over privacy concerns by giving law enforcement agencies wide-ranging snooping powers they can use without getting the permissions required when domestic surveillance is carried out.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	The snooping powers can also be invoked for much more mundane crimes than those typically thought to justify invasive surveillance.
	</P>
	<p align="left">
	The treaty also allows people to be charged with computer crimes even though the country where they live does not consider what they did as a crime. </P>

	<p align="left"><FONT SIZE="2"><b>What we said....</b></font></p>

	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">The
	fact is, the Government are scared of the Internet. They are
	oblivious to
	it. They can't control it... and that scares them.</font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">New
	Labour are 'control freaks' so to speak. They are attempting to
	police the
	Internet in a way that they would their own country. It just won't
	work.</font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">Countries
	need to research very deeply into the impact of these decisions
	BEFORE
	implementing them.</font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">Software
	companies rely on security holes and patches being released by
	hackers in
	order to make their software as secure as it can be. Exploits are
	an essential asset for the
	administrator both to help their understanding of the security
	flaw and in order to test their systems for the
	vulnerability.</font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">All
	pretty harmless and very useful security related sites which
	Administrators
	rely on to make sure their servers are up to date with the latest
	patches
	would be illegal.</font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">Bugtraq, Alldas, Attrition, etc. and even the discussion of security
	holes and exploits would be deemed as illegal if this Cybercrime Treaty is
	passed.</font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#FF9933">The
	reason for this defacement is to make people, the media, etc. aware that their
	Government's are trying to strip them of their freedom and privacy by attempting
	to monitor their every move.</font></p>
	<p align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">"Why
	even bother? You won't make a difference." you may ask.
	Simple... Because
	we can, and we will. There is no harm in trying to make a
	difference and it's
	better than just sitting back and doing nothing at all.</font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1" color="#999999">-</font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1"><a href="http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/projets/cybercrime24.htm">The
	Draft of the International Cybercrime Treaty</a></font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1"><a href="http://www.gilc.org/">Global Internet Liberty Campaign</a></font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1" color="#999999">-</font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">Thanks
	for taking the time to read.</font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#FF9933">We
	are back.</font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="2">- <b>DataSurge</b> -</font></p>
	<p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
	size="1">[<b>Note to Administrator</b>: No damage to your box was caused, your
	old index.html is renamed to indexold.html - simply rename it back to return your
	normal page back]</font></p>
	<!--Go have a read: http://www.infowar.com/hacker/hack_082898a_j.shtml-->
	</div>
	</body>
	</html>

	<!-- www.attrition.org web hack mirror - watermark or something -->