U.S. Senate Ratifies Cybercrime Treaty

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!

That's it! I've had it with the draconian laws put onto us by the US! I'm moving to Canada! Oh, wait. Shit.

Re:I've Had It!

Its sad but true that running away wont help. People need to stop talking about leaving the country and start standing up for what is right at home.

Re:I've Had It!

Im sure it is terrifying to the current government to imagine people standing up for themselves.

Re:I've Had It!

No, the majority of the population is too stupid to know what's best for them.

I believe you meant, "the majority of the population is too stupid to care what's going on".

Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether

you think the Internet, as it is now, is a good thing or a bad thing. If your intent is to make the Internet simply too risky for ordinary people to use, then this is an excellent law.

Re:Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether

For those of us who disagree, there is a movement called anoNet that created a seperate internet. In early 2005, a few people fed up with the way the Internet was heading, began in earnest to create a large wide area network that was secure and lived in its own space. On this new network anyone would be free to do as they saw fit - roam about, host services, or just be social without fear of being monitored or even worse censored. The first step to bring this network to fruition was to encrypt the information that normally travels across the Internet.

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]

Hmm...

I believe that what's happening now is the result of someone reading 1984 and thinking "hmm, good idea!"

Being in the UK...

I for one am glad that... ah, nevermind... move to Canana... shit, sibling poster ruled that one out too.

Antarctica!

I hear Antarctica is remarkably tolerant when it comes to laws of this nature... or... any nature really...

Re:Antarctica!

But the laws of Mother Nature are pretty tough down there.

Clearly a Constitutional Issue

An international treaty is considered law here, but that does not mean it is immune from constitutional questions. This treaty must be balanced with the bill of rights, so there is obviously lots of litigation in the future if it is actually enforced ...

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

Indeed, the framers intended for the Congress to make law, not enforce it. That is left up to our executive branch. Well, shit we are screwed 2 ways there as the NSA case has already shown us. Fortunately our courts are not so easily bought, or so we hope.

Fortunately our courts are not so easily bought

Lookie here: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/ 0 8/04/055227 [slashdot.org]

"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

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

Interesting information from Wikipedia:

"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_of _the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

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.

It's just a goddamn piece of paper

An international treaty is considered law here, but that does not mean it is immune from constitutional questions. This treaty must be balanced with the bill of rights

Hmm. I see. You must be new here. [lewrockwell.com]

Not lawful, is it?

This isn't lawful, is it? The American government cannot simply give up one of it's own citizens to a foreign country just because he or she committed a crime on the Net. Maybe it if matches an American law, sure, but not a foreign one.

Let me illustrate. H

Re:Not lawful, is it?

Let's make it even more scary...

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?

I don't see why not. We expect other countries to extradite [adamsmith.org] their [techworld.com] citizens [smh.com.au] for breaking US laws. It seems only fair. While in most cases they've broken the law in both countries, that's not always true.

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

An international treaty is considered law here, but that does not mean it is immune from constitutional questions. This treaty must be balanced with the bill of rights, so there is obviously lots of litigation in the future if it is actually enforced ...

Di

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

Article VI of the Constitution

"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"

The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rights

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:

The goal of the treaty is not to let the Chinese crack down on dissidents living in America, however, and so countries may refuse to cooperate with requests that involve a "political offence" or if a country believes the request would "prejudice its soverignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests." The US Department of Justice has already announced [securityfocus.com] that "essential interests" would allow the US to refuse any request that would violate the Constitution.

Re:The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rig

Color me stupid .. I didnt read the Ars article, only the post. That is a little better. However what the DoJ says is constitutional and what the courts have decided is constitutional is not really always the same.

But good point, thanks.

Re:The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rig

may refuse

In other words you retain your right to free speech as long as the executive wants you to have it.

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

From TFA: The Convention on Cybercrime does recognize this, and to its credit provides a set of exceptions to mutual assistance that should help prevent the worst abuses. The Convention does require members to adopt similar legislation on the following issues: illegal access, illegal interception of computer data, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, computer-related fraud and forgery, child pornography, and copyright violations "on a commerical scale." The goal of the treaty is not to let the Chinese crack down on dissidents living in America, however, and so countries may refuse to cooperate with requests that involve a "political offence" or if a country believes the request would "prejudice its soverignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests." The US Department of Justice has already announced that "essential interests" would allow the US to refuse any request that would violate the Constitution.

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

From what I see that is outside the scope of the intended function of the law. A more contemporary example is child pornography. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, pornography that is neither obscene under Miller or produced by exploitation of children

It's like Wikipedia...

Sounds like this law is somewhat like Wikipedia, just without the editors or limited content control. Any nation can add their own contributions to things that people should be punished for, and have it be law everywhere.

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...

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.

Sigh, Slashdot editors win again!

It wasn't Ars Technica that said it's the "World's Worst Internet Law" - that's the EFF. The only time Ars Technica uses that name is in quoting the EFF's opinion. If you RTFA, Ars Technica actually has a less worried view.

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!

Well, to be accurate, I didn't call it the world's worst Internet law in my EFF piece, either. The piece was titled "The World's Worst Internet Laws Sneaking Through the Senate", and was meant to convey the key problem with treaty: that this isn't just one

Re:Sigh, Slashdot editors win again!

The editors need to have the final responsibility of making sure approved posts are correct. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Best line from the article...

Sure, because the left hates human rights and privacy, and it wants nothing more than to spy on ordinary Americans who haven't committed a crime. Oh, wait. :)

All the laws in the world...

...can not reach the bits'n'bytes of the ever growing net.

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:All the laws in the world...

And what is the conclusion after that? BJust because you won't be able to catch each and every offender does not mean you should not try to catch as many as possible.

Re:All the laws in the world...

Data is like fluids, you can't filter everything ... Want a real life example? Take spam - you can't control that either,

They make liquid Spam now? No wonder it gets through the filters more easily. This could be useful, though. Whenever I try to make Spa

The US aren't the ones that "export" laws.

A lot of people out there like to accuse the US of forcing other countries into enacting laws that are draconian, such as the DMCA and 90 year copyrights. However, the US is actually adopting these laws, such as the DMCA and the CTEA, as part of the WTO an

The Nation State....

....is in decline. No this isn't some random rant. The sad fact is, multinational corporations really do wield influence that surpasses that of governments. This law is undoubtedly for their benefit, so that laws across the globe will have to defacto become harmonised to avoid all the legal toothaches this will cause.

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....

This is exactly why government should be limited!

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 libertaria

And... it works both ways.

If a citizen in one of the other countries is accused by the U.S.A. of committing a crime which isn't illegal in their country the same rules apply.

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

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, 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

I can see it now...

"OMGOMGOMG SOMEBODY H4X0R3D MY MYSPACE PAGE ARREST THEM!!11"

That's what I really think this will lead to.

VOTE the BASTARDS OUT!

Oh, wait; I forgot about diebold. Um, wellll...vote democrat? Oh, wait, they suck the ??AA teat too....
Ok, guys; I got nothin'...looks to me like we're fucked. :-(

Re:VOTE the BASTARDS OUT!

If you assume your vote doesn't count anyway, you might as well vote libertarian.

Re:VOTE the BASTARDS OUT!

I wish everybody would think (and do) that.

More bullets in demand

I guess that means we can't talk smack about China anymore huh? I might get my IP logged on slashdot and shipped off to a firing squad.

It's a two way street people, drive it!

Find out who the major politiicans and business men are in those 40 countries and claim that they maybe infringing on your copyrights... and then get thier ISPs to track them. Use the information garnered to become fabulously wealthy and powerful.

Do we still have one?

The US Department of Justice has already announced that "essential interests" would allow the US to refuse any request that would violate the Constitution.

This is an hilarious PR statement, especially in light of the illegal behavior by our own citizens in

All those bad other countries

Those countries that torture people, throws them in jail without as much as a charge, monitor their citizen, prosecute children...

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

In the process of helping another country violate our laws, OUR law enforcement gets to violate our laws.

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.

One world order

Phfft.

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.

Yeah, Ars Technica actually thinks this is GOOD

Ars Technica did not say it's the "World's Worst Internet Law." The EFF did. Poster needs to go RTFA.

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."