zlacker

>>janand+(OP)
I actually like article 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. It requires banning the development and sale of things like Pegasus, rootkits etc.

If your software is only intended to demonstrate the existence of a security flaw but contains no payload, then it is less obviously criminal. Still technically so, I suppose, but not so obviously that you couldn't make some kind of argument.

The collection of traffic and 'content' data is not beneficial though, so I suppose the treaty has to go for that reason.

>>imposs+D9
> If your software is only intended to demonstrate the existence of a security flaw but contains no payload, then it is less obviously criminal. Still technically so, I suppose, but not so obviously that you couldn't make some kind of argument.

I do not see anything criminal at all in writing some malware or exploits. _Applying_ them to a system, where they might cause damage however, that is a completely different matter.

You don't go after the blacksmith or manufacturer of kitchen knifes or guns either. You go after the one using them for the wrong purpose.

>>zelphi+hj
It's often the intentions that matter. Doing X may not be a crime, but doing it with the intention to commit crime could be. And while outsiders can't know the true intentions, courts are often happy accept the intentions seen by a "reasonable person" as the truth. Which means that if you want to write malware, you should look like a respectable person and not do anything too shady.