*UPDATED* Microsoft's Brad Smith Calls For A "Digital Geneva Convention"

[Guest Kloaked]

THIS LINK IS GONNA BE YUUUUGE, BELIEVE ME

 

 

 

UPDATED WITH VIDEO SPEECH:

 

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer calls for a "Digital Geneva Convention" of sorts in a blog post on Microsoft's blog subsite. If you don't know what the Geneva Convention is, have a glance here; the intention basically is to guarantee civilians, prisoners and wounded combatants certain rights during times of war, and more. This "Digital Geneva Convention" as Brad Smith puts it in his blog would attempt to bring about an on-paper rule (because everyone follows those) that renders internet backbones and other essential services to the web untouchable as well as other rules that would in theory be beneficial for everyone, especially the end user.

 

 

A snippet from the blog:

 

Quote

We should start by acknowledging that no single step by itself will be sufficient to address this problem.  Of course, each of our companies needs to continue to do more to protect and defend our customers around the world, and at Microsoft we’re focused on doing precisely that.  So are others across the industry.  But in addition, the time has arrived to call on the world’s governments to implement international rules to protect the civilian use of the internet.

 

Let's just point out right now what everyone on this forum is going to rush to their keyboard to talk about: Microsoft's hypocrisy with privacy. It's no secret that Microsoft's products such as Windows 10 itself, Cortana, Xbox Live and so on are constantly sending data about you to Microsoft every time you take a breath. Telemetry isn't a new thing as this kind of system was intended to automate error reporting. While it still does that, this kind of system is now sending more data about you back to Microsoft (or whatever software and/or device you're using that has an internet connection) so that companies can learn more about you in how you use the product, how to sell you more things, and so on. As implied though, this isn't exclusive to Microsoft.

 

Silicon Valley's constant virtue signaling is gross.

 

One more snippet from the blog:

 

Quote

There is strong progress on which we can build.  For example, we at Microsoft have been collaborating with other leading cloud companies like Amazon and Google to combat cloud abuse such as spam and phishing sites.  We’re working together on a common abuse reporting schema to accelerate the reporting of abuses we may see on each other’s networks.  On issues such as customer notification of potential nation-state attacks, we’ve all learned from important work where Google and Facebook have been early and impressive leaders.  More broadly, there is good work and common collaboration springing up everywhere, from new startups to the industry’s largest companies.

 

This guy praises Google and Facebook for being leaders in the tech industry. While true, this blog is about a "Digital Geneva Convention" and I don't think Google and Facebook should even be involved in this. Google specifically does impressive engineering work, Facebook does impressive webdesign in terms of what not to do when building a website; none of these companies should be the ones deciding what a "Digital Geneva Convention" is, in my opinion.

[Orangeator]

If this ever goes through and is agreed upon... It will be years down the road.

[JSind11]

Interesting, but I do not see this happening for a long time.

I also am not sure who would "enforce" such a system??

[Ryujin2003]

24 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

"Let's just point out right now what everyone on this forum is going to rush to their keyboard to talk about: Microsoft's hypocrisy with privacy."

Actually, I don't think so. My main concern is the linking to "Geneva Convention". The Geneva Convention's doesn't appear to be legitimate any more. Who enforces other countries or groups to follow it's rules or guidelines? What international humanitarian or military organization is going to be the one to enforce the rules? Enforce following the guidance? Yes, this would be great if we lived in a perfect world; however, I don't think there is enough to "enforce" this and provide for legitimate repercussions.

 

And I agree with your counter on Facebook. Seriously, I wouldn't view them as a legitimate power house. They are very good at herding sheople, but that's about it.

 

In order for something like this to be legitimate, the Internet would need to be "free". No free as in cost, but as far as access. This means no State control, IE: China, Russia, Iran, only to name a few.

 

Yes, it sounds great. I like the concept, especially since the internet is becoming an important aspect in warfare. However, since we cannot even tell who hacks power plants and the DNC..../s... How are we supposed to hold the world accountable?

 

And since a lot of this seems very specific, I'm pretty sure that countries/states that are guilty of these actions will most definitely not sign off on anything like this. Instead, they will likely feel very targeted. And if they don't agree, you cannot hold them accountable.

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Actually, I don't think so.

What I was saying was more in response to the specific snippet of the blog post where the guy talks about how important it is to protect customers, and I know people here gawk at the thought that Microsoft has a heart for end users' data.

 

2 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

My main concern is the linking to "Geneva Convention". The Geneva Convention's doesn't appear to be legitimate any more. Who enforces other countries or groups to follow it's rules or guidelines? What international humanitarian or military organization is going to be the one to enforce the rules? Enforce following the guidance? Yes, this would be great if we lived in a perfect world; however, I don't think there is enough to "enforce" this and provide for legitimate repercussions.

From my understanding, the United Nations and the nations involved are responsible for it.

 

I'm with you on the rest, though.

[Prysin]

guess the third companies tha will never sign this "convention"...

A: Facebook

B: Twitter

C: ?????

[goodtofufriday]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

guess the third companies tha will never sign this "convention"...

A: Facebook

B: Twitter

C: ?????

linustechtips.com

 

Those bastards would never sign it.

[Granular]

Man with a tonne of nukes preaching nuclear non-proliferation.

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, Granular said:

Man with a tonne of nukes preaching nuclear non-proliferation.

Digital nukes.... I c.... so this is how we get Keyboard backlight..

[SpaceGhostC2C]

10 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Actually, I don't think so. My main concern is the linking to "Geneva Convention". The Geneva Convention's doesn't appear to be legitimate any more. Who enforces other countries or groups to follow it's rules or guidelines? What international humanitarian or military organization is going to be the one to enforce the rules? Enforce following the guidance? Yes, this would be great if we lived in a perfect world; however, I don't think there is enough to "enforce" this and provide for legitimate repercussions.

I think most people misunderstand the Geneva convention. They take it as a normal law, which would requires enforcement, but if you are already at war then what kind of "consequences" can really anyone impose. It's not even feasible to expect neutral countries to enter war with you just because of alleged violations of the convention (how could anyone truly verify the accusations in the middle of a war?). It sounds absurd.

 

However, people behind the convention knew that was absurd: the convention wasn't meant to act the way in-country laws work. Instead, it was just a way to pave the legal way of things like the international court or the Nürnberg trials: by signing the convention, you become liable for any of the acts covered there, regardless of any special laws you may pass during a war. Of course, any application of the convention will happen after the fact, and only to the losers. So no, it's not like wars are going to be nice  But making rules for war is obviously stupid. The point was just to avoid situations like 1945, where many nazis had a strong line of defense as most/everything they did was within the legal framework of nazi Germany, and only became illegal after the war (i.e., after the fact). WW2 winners had to make some legal twists and philosophical bends to basically say "we don't care, it's tarrible and you're getting hung" without being plainly despotic. The Geneva convention provides a basis to prevent a similar situation in the future (among its participants, at least - so participating works as a sort of signal).

 

With that in mind, Microsoft's blogpost makes no sense to me.

[Ryujin2003]

18 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

What I was saying was more in response to the specific snippet of the blog post where the guy talks about how important it is to protect customers, and I know people here gawk at the thought that Microsoft has a heart for end users' data.

 

From my understanding, the United Nations and the nations involved are responsible for it.

 

I'm with you on the rest, though.

It's more of a way to set guidelines to have more humane ways of killing each other.  like not dressing as civilians and not using gas, stuff like that. I'm pretty sure I saw Russia on the list of nations for the Geneva Conventions, but I'm pretty sure their brutality during war violates a lot of the rules and guidelines. No repercussions.

10 minutes ago, Prysin said:

guess the third companies tha will never sign this "convention"...

A: Facebook

B: Twitter

C: ?????

And I totally didn't even think about this until I saw your post, but this is totally a corporate way of protecting themselves. Let's distance ourselves from our host/parent nations. If war happens, we still want to make money, so please leave us alone. No we can make warfare corporatized. You can capture our soldiers, but they still have the right to Tweet and create Vines....

 

 

 

After doing some more digging, I'm super positive this doesn't even apply to Geneva Conventions, but instead International Humanitarian Law, which applies to non combatants. Geneva Conventions is for the human treatment of combatants.

 

Like, Holy crap, I know this MS guy doesn't want to "Google" the meaning of things, but at least "Bing It" beforehand. Nice tray though.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

After doing some more digging, I'm super positive this doesn't even apply to Geneva Conventions, but instead International Humanitarian Law, which applies to non combatants. Geneva Conventions is for the human treatment of combatants.

 

Like, Holy crap, I know this MS guy doesn't want to "Google" the meaning of things, but at least "Bing It" beforehand. Nice tray though.

Yes, I'm wrong as well: everything I said applies to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Geneva convention.

So, ignore me  

[Bouzoo]

I like their "Limit offensive operation" and "No targetting of tech companies". 

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/microsoft-wants-you-to-trade-your-macbook-air-in-for-a-surface-pro-3/?comments=1&vs=b

 

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/700916/Microsoft-Surface-Pro-4-Advert-Apple-iPad-Pro

[LAwLz]

Since we are already throwing shit at companies, I think I am not alone in thinking that Microsoft should stay as far away from agreements that "benefit consumers", because they have time and time again shown that they do not give a fuck about that. They would rather use illegal methods to lock users into using their products for some quick bucks, than to actually help the industry move forward.

 

So if you ask me, this should be left to organizations like EFF to write. Not Microsoft, Google, Facebook or whatever other company which will probably just make this to protect themselves. Non-profit organizations which actually exist to help people.

 

But to be honest, I don't see the point of this. Would anyone actually follow a piece of paper that says "please don't use security holes in our products, okay?".

[Bouzoo]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But to be honest, I don't see the point of this. Would anyone actually follow a piece of paper that says "please don't use security holes in our products, okay?".

While we're at it, I personally don't think there is a convention or a set of rules that a horde of multi-billion dollar enterprise lawyers can't outplay.  

[Trik'Stari]

How about "you must have a reason to collect consumer data" or "no selling of consumer data to marketing companies".

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Since we are already throwing shit at companies, I think I am not alone in thinking that Microsoft should stay as far away from agreements that "benefit consumers", because they have time and time again shown that they do not give a fuck about that. They would rather use illegal methods to lock users into using their products for some quick bucks, than to actually help the industry move forward.

 

So if you ask me, this should be left to organizations like EFF to write. Not Microsoft, Google, Facebook or whatever other company which will probably just make this to protect themselves. Non-profit organizations which actually exist to help people.

 

But to be honest, I don't see the point of this. Would anyone actually follow a piece of paper that says "please don't use security holes in our products, okay?".

I agree. While I trust Google to be well, "smart, intelligent, self serving evil that knows not to get too bad or it will die", I do not trust MS or Facebook AT. ALL.

 

Google is like, moderate evil. It wants money, it's going to get it, but it's not going to be so stupid that it ends up giving people a good enough reason to leave (or demand that it be shut down)

[SansVarnic]

Good luck 

[iamdarkyoshi]

10 hours ago, Orangeator said:

If this ever goes through and is agreed upon... It will be years down the road.

No, as soon as someone finds a loophole.

[laminutederire]

13 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

While we're at it, I personally don't think there is a convention or a set of rules that a horde of multi-billion dollar enterprise lawyers can't outplay.  

Those are ethics rules. If they do not respect it but still get away with it, they'll leave with moral sanctions which can be arbitrary. It's more about, play by our rules or go play somewhere else.

Screw civilians and we'll ban the fuck out of you so fast your CEO will whine back at home like a child.

 

12 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I agree. While I trust Google to be well, "smart, intelligent, self serving evil that knows not to get too bad or it will die", I do not trust MS or Facebook AT. ALL.

 

Google is like, moderate evil. It wants money, it's going to get it, but it's not going to be so stupid that it ends up giving people a good enough reason to leave (or demand that it be shut down)

Protecting civilians here is not about what their business model is. It's about  protecting them in times of war. Like don't use our software flaws to screw up banks, railroads, airports, power plants, telecommunications or even hospitals and critical businesses like postal services, or part of the food industry.

You know so that you don't put into jeopardy innocent people.

[JoseGuya]

"Oh snap, we can't hack this, is against the digital Geneva Convention" - No hacker ever. 

[Trik'Stari]

14 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Those are ethics rules. If they do not respect it but still get away with it, they'll leave with moral sanctions which can be arbitrary. It's more about, play by our rules or go play somewhere else.

Screw civilians and we'll ban the fuck out of you so fast your CEO will whine back at home like a child.

 

Protecting civilians here is not about what their business model is. It's about  protecting them in times of war. Like don't use our software flaws to screw up banks, railroads, airports, power plants, telecommunications or even hospitals and critical businesses like postal services, or part of the food industry.

You know so that you don't put into jeopardy innocent people.

How about "don't provoke a war by exposing or violating the security of the private information of our citizens"?

[AresKrieger]

So.....he wants to collude with other companies..............................................................................................No, this will end up like the damn isps, no good can come from this for us no matter what they promise

[laminutederire]

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

How about "don't provoke a war by exposing or violating the security of the private information of our citizens"?

That's something they can act upon indeed.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

That's something they can act upon indeed.

To be honest, I just want a universal internal bill of human rights.

 

freedom of speech, no spying without a warrant from an actual judge, a clear understanding that an IP address does not equate to a person, no preventing the use of adblock (for security purposes)