U.S. Senate Ratifies Cybercrime Treaty 192
espo812 writes "A story from Washingtonpost.com says, 'The Senate has ratified a treaty under which the United States will join more than 40 other countries, mainly from Europe, in fighting crimes committed via the Internet.' Ars Technica says it's the 'World's Worst Internet Law.'" From the Ars story: "According to the EFF, 'The treaty requires that the U.S. government help enforce other countries' 'cybercrime' laws--even if the act being prosecuted is not illegal in the United States. That means that countries that have laws limiting free speech on the Net could oblige the F.B.I. to uncover the identities of anonymous U.S. critics, or monitor their communications on behalf of foreign governments. American ISPs would be obliged to obey other jurisdictions' requests to log their users' behavior without due process, or compensation.;"
I've Had It! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've Had It! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've Had It! (Score:2)
Re:I've Had It! (Score:2)
Re:I've Had It! (Score:2)
what qualifies you to determin this?
Re:I've Had It! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've Had It! (Score:2)
Re:I've Had It! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether (Score:5, Insightful)
anoNet is a full IP network with many users, an IRC network, wiki, SILC, email, web, PGP, and much much more. For more information: http://www.anonet.org/ [anonet.org] or http://anonetnfo.brinkster.net/ [brinkster.net]
Re:Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether (Score:2)
Privacy is not a shield behind which to hide illegal activity
Ahhhhh! Now I get it! We cannot permit criminals to use privacy as a shield to hide illegal activities, therefore we must make it criminal to have and use privacy at all as a shield to hide anything. If you try to have any privacy as a shield to hide anything, we must make you a criminal because someone else might be a criminal.
If y
Re:Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether (Score:2)
Of course it is, because the only way that privacy could not be so used is to eliminate privacy for all purposes, legal or otherwise. That is implicit in the way or legal system and law enforcement have traditionally dealt with personal privacy: it can be violated, if necessary, but only upon good and sufficient cause. Granted, that is changing and not for the better (as in "no cause whatsoever.") Furthermore, this focus on eliminating personal
Re:Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether (Score:2)
Re:short memories (Score:2)
Remember when google and others attacked publically by the usa for following Chinese laws?
Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
-
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Instead of them treating Orwell's 1984 as a warning, they're treating it like a guidebook on how to run the Government. "Look, a HOWTO!"
Scary times indeed, where $9B goes "missing" in Iraq, after being hand-flown there (google it), and where 11 MILLION people marched on their state capitols to protest this conflict in Iraq (not a "War", since Congress has not declared war against Iraq), and Bush cal
Being in the UK... (Score:2)
Antarctica! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Antarctica! (Score:3, Funny)
No, not Antarctica. (Score:2)
Sure enforcement is sort of hard, but the law itself is still there.
Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately our courts are not so easily bought (Score:3, Insightful)
"From the article: '...researchers found, for instance, that "judicial nominations" have consumed steadily more Congressional attention between 1997 and 2004. "
As they say, this too, shall pass.
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:5, Informative)
"The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has nonetheless taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_law_o
AFAIK, the constitutionality of any treaty has yet to be tested. As in matters of military law, SCOPUS might be very reticent to take on a treaty case involving international agreements.
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
It's just a goddamn piece of paper (Score:2)
Hmm. I see. You must be new here. [lewrockwell.com]
Not lawful, is it? (Score:2)
Let me illustrate. Hacking into a website and vandalizing it, that would be illegal in both countries. Posting something on a message board that is physically located on a server in a foreign country which has freedom of speech restrictions, well, although illegal in the fore
Re:Not lawful, is it? (Score:4, Interesting)
RandomTotaliarianGovernmentX declares that avowing oneself - publically - to be a homosexual is a crime.
American goes on craigslist and says he wants to hook up for some play. Some girl decides she wants to try her hand with another girl.
Enter the US State Dept. which contacts RTGX and says "Hey, you know how we have those sanctions on you? We'll drop 'em if you agree to insist that we extradite all the publically avowed homosexuals to you..."
Think it's crazy? They cane you for spitting in Singapore...
Re:Not lawful, is it? Spitting in Singapore (Score:2)
Re:Not lawful, is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:already happened (Score:2)
By the way, I like the idea of Jerusalem becoming it's own nation (kind of like the Vatican is it's own nation). (Not sure if my grammar is correct in the above.)
Re:already happened (Score:2)
Re:already happened (Score:2)
Any ways, it wasn't sarcasm, it was pure ignorance. Maybe because the CIA factbook i usualy reference [cia.gov] doesn't list it as a country. This is fascinating.
I always though the vatican was just some religous camp who played too much into politics and peoples lives.
Re:already happened (Score:2)
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
They even have their own country code.
http://www.va/ [www.va]
Also, I'm a bit surprised no one has tried bringing up the Indian nations in America. America, the swiss cheese country, as I could call it.
To get back on topic, like I said, make Jerusalem it's own country. Let the people physically residing in it make it's own laws. Freedom of religion, of which acts do no harm, would be very important.
What about this? (Score:2)
Please read that article involving what they are doing in China.
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Did you forget the most important part?!?!
IANAL
Because it's obvious you aren't.
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
When two things that are said to be the supreme law of the land ... they must be balanced by the courts. Explain, in your expansive legal expertise, why I am wrong.
Furthermore, IANAL, but constitutional law is of interest to me and I do have some basic k
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Actually, that's quite wrong - there's lots of case law on the subject of treaties and executive agreements WRT the Constitution, and it's generally quite consistent. Start with Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957), and work your way backwards.
The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rights (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I'm not new here, but people need to RTFM, including the submitter. From the Ars article, just a little further than halfway down:
Re:The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rig (Score:2)
But good point, thanks.
Re:The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rig (Score:2)
But the big question is: how long before "political gain" becomes "essential interest" in deciding whether or not to turn over someone who is critical of the administration? Valerie Plame makes for an illustrative point of the dangers involved in being near to someone critical of policy. Her colleague's lives were endangered for no oth
Re:The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rig (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words you retain your right to free speech as long as the executive wants you to have it.
Re:The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rig (Score:2)
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:4, Informative)
Given these safeguards, fears of political persecutions seem overblown, as do concerns that these requests will simply be issued directly from Beijing (which is not a signatory) to Comcast HQ without court oversight.
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2, Informative)
Remember Guantanamo? Our illustrious leaders might "choose" not to enforce unconstitutional requests...but they don't *have* to. That's what makes it obscenely scary. They're more likely to enforce it selectively, as power is *always* wont to do.
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2, Insightful)
You cannot have it both ways.
We are waiting for USA to ratify the extradition treaty under which they extradited the UK folk on, so we in UK can nail over 430 persons in USA who financed terrorism on UK soil.
Treaties trump Bill of Rights (Score:2)
That means that if a foriegn country wishes to screw over our free speech rights, and the US government agrees with them - then the constitution becomes irrelavent.
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Other nations have stricter laws obviou
Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue (Score:2)
Now, i'm not going to claim that courts are going to strictly enforce the constitution so you might be right to worry, it isn't set in stone. This is especialy troubling were the debate around federal and supream court apointies hang alot on and apointe's
It's like Wikipedia... (Score:3, Interesting)
Can treaties be considered unconstitutional? It seems to me that the whole point of the constitution was to limit what laws could be made, with anything not permitted prohibited in the light of the inherent rights of mankind. This unlimited law-by-treaty seems rather destructive to the whole point of the constitution.
Ryan Fenton
Re:It's like Wikipedia... (Score:2)
Treaties can be unconstitutional. The League of Nations [wikipedia.org], the precursor to the UN, was formed by the US, but Congress ruled that the US could not join it (some issue of constitutionality). Without the support of the US it didn't last long as I understand.
And the Wiki thing seems about right, except you can't remove contributed content without closing up the whole Wiki (just think how bad Wikipedia would look if you couldn't remove vandalized content).
Re:It's like Wikipedia... (Score:2)
Well, let me giev an example where the US Supreme Court may very well look at international law and social perspectives.
The Constution forbits "cruel and unusual punishment". But what is exactly "cruel and unusual"? When those words were framed, executing criminals for a wide variety of offences was viewed by many people - in many countries, too - as not being cruel nor unusual. But now, the US is one of the few (or the only?) western countries that has, and regularly uses, the death penalty. So what is
Re:It's like Wikipedia... (Score:2)
Sigh, Slashdot editors win again! (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps they should make it an international Internet crime to post stories without checking even the most basic facts (ie, first two paragraphs of the document you link to).
Re:Sigh, Slashdot editors win again! (Score:2)
Re:Sigh, Slashdot editors win again! (Score:2)
Best line from the article... (Score:2)
All the laws in the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Aka - you don't stand a chance in HELL to police the internet. Anyone who think so ought to get their brain examined.
Data is like fluids, you can't filter everything - it's bound to get in everywhere at some time. And the number of data you'd have to filter is increasing with such a speed that there's no chance that ANY law system would be able to hire enough personnel or create software to control it all.
Want a real life example? Take spam - you can't control that either, and we have laws on it already almost EVERYWHERE - but does it work? Didn't work 10 years ago, not 5 years ago - doesn't work today, won't work in the future. Fluids will get in everywhere anywhere anytime.
Best way to filter is utilizing the individuals using the computers, mind filtering --> the no 1. filter in this world. The very same filter can also be used to FIND the content you really want rather than looking trough heaps of endless useless information (spam).
Even if they DID control the net (or the way we access the net) they would be unable to do so - because information always finds a way just like fluid, another net - wireless or by wire...doesn't matter. You can't stop the flow of information now, way too late! And thank goodness for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All the laws in the world... (Score:2)
Of course not, but that really goes without saying.
The point is that they're trying to shoot with a shotgun into a crowd with millions of people, sure - the stray bullets will hit some, but this kind of random law-"hope we catch'em all"-giving won't hit the people they're after, it will most likely just make the masses feel worse, make it
Re:All the laws in the world... (Score:2)
They make liquid Spam now? No wonder it gets through the filters more easily. This could be useful, though. Whenever I try to make Spam Smoothies, I can't suck it through a straw and have to use a spoon.
The US aren't the ones that "export" laws. (Score:2, Interesting)
The WIPO and WTO actually call for laws much more strict than what the US has. Those "super DMCA" laws that other countries have are really just falling inline with what the
Re:The US aren't the ones that "export" laws. (Score:2)
The Nation State.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. When companies the size of GE and Microsoft run into hassle with different laws in different jurisdictions, they just lobby for harmonisation. And that's what they've gotten. I expect to shortly have what rights I have on the internet reduced to the abysmal level of those living in the US and UK, and what the hell, Iran. All in aid of the children or rich yuppies or whatever. This is why you need proportional representation.
Re:The Nation State.... (Score:2)
Re:The Nation State.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Government without the power to legislate and/or regulate the markets, cannot be used as a tool of special interests to legislate/regulate in their favor. This is one of the main principles behind libertarianism. If the government doesn't interfere in the marketplace, then it can't give anyone a government-granted advantage.
And... it works both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, in the U.K. they could be extradited without the evidence even having to be disclosed to a judge or anyone else due to a treaty (supposedly to be only for terrorist cases but recently used on a fraud charge) with the U.S.A. which the U.K. has ratified but the U.S.A. has refused to. Now, that's scary!
Not for long, though (Score:5, Insightful)
Not for long, I think. In fact, the whole post-9/11 draconian government thing is rapidly dying in the UK, Tony Blair just doesn't realise it yet (or at least doesn't admit to realising it in public).
Yes, there was the recent case of three banking executives who were transferred to the US under dubious circumstances. However, that caused a huge political storm, because the "anti-terror" legislation was clearly being used for something that had nothing to do with safeguarding the land from terrorists. In this case, I suspect that either the US will ratify the treaty and agree the reverse as well very soon, or the UK government will be forced to pull out.
It's the same story elsewhere. Just this week, Walter Wolfgang, the long-standing Labour party member removed by heavies from last year's party conference for daring to heckle Jack Straw over the war on Iraq and then denied re-entry under anti-terror laws(!), was elected by the party membership to their national governing body. Not only does he get to speak at the next conference as a result, it seems he's guaranteed the chance to do so from the same platform as Blair et al.
ID cards and the National Identity Register... Ah, yes, New Labour's greatest threat. Except, of course, that even those people who would like to be involved with it as a lucrative business opportunity are openly questioning whether the government's scheme can even be implemented, never mind bring the claimed benefits. Both the significant opposition parties in England oppose the scheme. The Information Commissioner (our quasi-independent guardian of data protection and freedom of information issues) has issued some of his most damning comments ever on the subject, and ruled against the government several times on information disclosure issues. The timetables are obviously slipping badly, but no-one will admit how badly. The costs are huge, but no-one will disclose how huge. Sooner or later, the whole illusory stack of cards is going to collapse, and all Tony Blair's big "it's be a centrepiece in our next election manifesto" rhetoric is doing is digging his successor's grave early.
Likewise, a bill described as "Blair's (latest) enabling act" because of its attempt to reduce Parliament to pretty much a rubber stamp was quietly all but dropped a few weeks ago.
The government has been ruled against yet again in the past few days over the whole restraining order/detention without trial thing. This is one of those awkward issues: it's a good bet that a high proportion of the people subject to restraining orders really are nasty bits of work, but I think the principle of freedom from arbitrary detention transcends the importance of removing some liberties from a small number of individuals who may or may not pose some level of threat. It would be far better, if the government really has enough good intelligence to believe these people pose a current threat to our security, that the government should bring charges against them in a suitable court of law and make its case properly. In any case, one of the most senior judges in our land has now said outright that if the Home Secretary wants to impose this sort of thing, he's had ample time to consult Parliament since some of these suspects came to light, and therefore he can't just award himself new powers without scrutiny to do as he sees fit. (This on top of one of the most damning judgements in recent legal history from the High Court during the previous round of the case, which pulled few punches as far as telling the government it was way out of line.)
Personally, I increasingly think this is Gordon Brown setting Tony Blair up to take the fall for al
Re:Not for long, though (Score:2)
I thought the commonly held belief is that tony blair intends to hand gordon brown a poisoned chalice.
If only Mr blair would just go, hand over the leadership to his successor (probably gordon brown) and give him a chance to repair some of the damage caused by Mr Blair and his policies and impliment a few of his own.
maybe it is the fate of all politicians to initially do some positive things and progressively
Re:Not for long, though (Score:2)
That's certainly a common belief in some quarters. However, I've noticed a distinct cha
I can see it now... (Score:2, Funny)
That's what I really think this will lead to.
VOTE the BASTARDS OUT! (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, guys; I got nothin'...looks to me like we're fucked.
Re:VOTE the BASTARDS OUT! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:VOTE the BASTARDS OUT! (Score:2)
Let's hope a viable party C emerges real soon now.
Re:VOTE the BASTARDS OUT! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a two way street people, drive it! (Score:2)
Re:It's a two way street people, drive it! (Score:2)
No problem. Tony Blair admitted the other day that he gets one of his children to load his iPod for him. Would anyone like to take a guess about whether every single track was legitimately copied onto that machine?
Do we still have one? (Score:2)
This is an hilarious PR statement, especially in light of the illegal behavior by our own citizens in currently in office. Given our recent track record, this is nothing more than some semantic sugar used to cover the foul taste of political corruption.
When you thought it could get no worse... (Score:2, Interesting)
Following 9/11 the US government, as we all know, molded the Patriotic Act and the Homeland Security Act to their needs. These later kick started the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board in to high gear. In 2003 the FBI formed Computer Intrusion Squads or Computer Hacking
Re:When you thought it could get no worse... (Score:2)
Thats what monica said too...
Obligatory... (Score:2)
"FREEDOOOOOOOOM"
All those bad other countries (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, since torture is illegal in the US, maybe those countries can be of use after all. Better not get our agents in legal trouble. What countries are those anyways? Are they US allies in the fight against terror and for a free and democratic world, like Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Columbia or rather evil countries like Venezuela and France?
Obvious Why They Did It (Score:3, Funny)
Obvious.
Don't know why they didn't think of this before - outside of the known use of the Echelon system by each country that is a part of it to allow other countries to spy on their citizens and share the info. The NSA doesn't spy on us (well, supposedly they didn't USED to!), they just let Britain do it and tell them about it.
They just extended the principle with this treaty.
What other countries are signatories? (Score:2)
Can anyone provide a list?
Not just cybercrime.... (Score:2)
coward's way out (Score:2)
Do you even know what a treaty is? (Score:2)
No shit, Sherlock! The treaty may be evil. It may suck ass. But that's what a treaty is. When two states sign a treaty they give up a bit of their sovereignty. Read up on what a treaty [wikipedia.org] is at Wikipedia. Or better yet read the US Constitution [wikipedia.org]. You'll be a leg up on the Bush administration who'd rather wipe their collective asses with it.
"They hate us for our freedom" (Score:2)
One world order (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad there are few places you can go to to escape this 'melding' of the worlds governments to the least common denominator.
Between things like this and the WTO, a independent country will no longer h ave any sovereign rights at all.
And before you say anything about being hypocritical, i don't care who's law 'wins', Its wrong. just wrong, even if its mine.
Senate Outlaws Itself (Score:2)
Does anyone believe that your personal rights have any value to the US government when it invokes "essential interests" to protect some US jurisdiction from this treaty? Or
Global Broken (Score:2)
The Convention at least gives us a place to start."
So we haven't even figured out basic answers to the first problems of international Internet "crimes" at the local level, so we're enforcing those broken laws in a global framework on billions of people. France and Germany are part of the EU, relat
Yeah, Ars Technica actually thinks this is GOOD (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. The Ars Technica article put "World's Worst Internet Law" in quotes for a reason. In fact, it flat out DISAGREES with EFF, even, and says that, "Given these safeguards, fears of political persecutions seem overblown," and that "the Convention provides enough safeguards to prevent the worst kinds of abuse, and additional protocols can always be negotiated if problems become insurmountable."