Interview: Unisys on the cybercrime treaty Australia is working through the long process of acceding to the European Convention on Cybercrime. It’s a process that causes significant angst. Privacy advocates are concerned at the convention’s intrusive nature; ISPs worry about how much data they’d have to carry. Unisys is an advocate of the convention, both in Australia …
I read this far;
El Reg: The convention is intrusive on individuals, and it’s onerous on ISPs. If we’re to accept those characteristics, it needs public debate. But there’s a lack of information to support that debate.
Fisher: I would say that what I’ve read and seen for Australia no different from other countries
And realised that these Unisys guys have an agenda and will spin and evade untiul they get what they want.
What Fisher basically said is "sure no-one knows what the legislation says, but all the other countries don't know either so it is OK.
What a crock.
Anyone who uses "Cyber" as many times as these twunts do in this interview is trying to massage the fears that the general public have about stuff that they don't really understand so that they can push their secret agenda through.
I don't know what Unisys agenda in all this is, but it's probably just that they they reckon they can make a lot of money supplying all the hardware and support to enable this if governments push this legislation through.
There's nothing like government mandated IT spending that gets companies like Unisys all excited.
Is it time for the Revolution yet?
I got as far as the next section:
"In the UK four weeks ago, they published the cost of cybercrime in the UK for 2010, and it came to $27 billion pounds".
This bogus report was comprehensively demolished here:
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2011/02/17/why-the-cabinet-offices-27bn-cyber-crime-cost-estimate-is-meaningless/
If society needs idiots regurgitating bullshit, surely there's a cheaper option than politicians.
re:
"El Reg: If I look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics data on personal fraud, I can see that the total fraud when the report was published [in 2008] topped a billion dollars, but Internet-based fraud was under $100 million. Aren’t people worrying about the wrong thing – giving all their attention to Internet fraud when other kinds of fraud are bigger?
Fisher: I understand those figures, but they’re dwarfed by the total figure of cyber-crime. In the UK four weeks ago, they published the cost of cybercrime in the UK for 2010, and it came to £27 billion pounds."
What does the rate of virtual crime in the UK have to do with the ABS' data on personal fraud? Also, did the ABS do a report on institutional fraud?
...that it didn't take long for them to wheel out a "think of the children" argument when El Reg's statement clearly illustrated that arrests had taken place internationally without it.
As for the "people are happy to give up a little privacy/freedom" statement, that's because most of these people are sheep and do what the politicians tell them. It'll only be some years down the line when they've given up the majority of their privacy and freedom that they'll whine about it and that'll be after the point of no return. It's called sleepwalking into an Orwellian scenario.
ElReg: Aren’t people worrying about the wrong thing – giving all their attention to Internet fraud when other kinds of fraud are bigger?
Unisys: Ah, yes.. well .. Oh, but it's a big problem in the UK
Me: In that case the UK can sign but Australia shouldn't bother.
Unisys: But then we wouldn't get our names in the paper ... Oh wait .. Think Of The Children(tm)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
