Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government News

Implications Of The International Cybercrime Treaty 114

Saber Taylor writes: "Lots of good .signature material in this analysis: 'The treaty imposes criminal liability on businesses if they fail to supervise users who commit potentially illegal acts.', 'If you cable together two computers, you could be forced to comply with investigations that originated in Sofia or Riga.', etc." Maybe this is what's meant by "entangling alliances." Worth reading, wherever you fall on the paranoia scale.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Implications Of The International Cybercrime Treaty

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    until we're all criminals by definition. (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,...)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Switch off all scripting and you can read it. Really sucks that they force cookies on you.
  • Mmmmmm I'm thinking of Minnie Mouse(tm) shoving a bottle of Pepsi(tM) up her ass all to the tune of Metallica's "Sad But True". ANd I'm thinking these thoughts without any permission from the IP holder.

    This shit has to stop now. What we need congress to do is create a Copyright Bill of Rights, to spell out exactly what copying (and tools to accomplish that) cannot be outlawed and preempt all software licenses. Kinda like how the Betamax case explicitly allowed timeshifting, but extended to other forms of copying.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    They drafted a brilliant foundation for a successful country, but they didn't put any stop measure in to keep it from becoming infinitely beauracratic and corrupt.

    Actually, they did. It's called the Second Amendment.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Tell that to Jim Bell.

    Tremble, weep, gnash your teeth, folks, we now have a police state. Hitler won, after all. Our masters are just careful to break out the jackboots only when it looks like they'll rack up brownie points for it.

    I expect this will come to bloodshed, insurrection, and, yea, even terrorism, at some point in the near future. That's what the Feds want, so they'll have an excuse not to have to take such pains to disguise the obvious from the sheep, and they'll recruit people to do it if they have to. Can you say Marinus Van der Lubbe? Timothy McViegh?

    I am ashamed to be a citizen of this country right now. To think this is happening in the land that Paine, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al. founded. It's an outrage that this treaty is even being considered.

    I don't want to have to hide behind cyrpto or pseudonyms just to fucking speak!

    Fuck you, Louis Freeh. Fuck you Janet Reno. Fuck you John Ashcroft. Fuck you, whining, spoiled fellow citizens trading away your rights to fucking legislatures for an illusory security, and letting the courts walk all over what's left of them. I'd say fuck you W., but the president doesn't even count for anything anymore.

    Fuck all you bastards. Excuse me while I go fucking puke.

    Rogue Bolo
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The "real world" is too big to effectively police, or hadn't you noticed that despite enormous expenditures of money and manpower, and assistance from the military, the United States has been unable to stem the flow of illegal drugs and firearms into the country?

    The UK is a much, much smaller population, but its armed forces could not stop the estimated 200 members of the IRA from accomplishing repeated terrorist attacks on civilian and military targets, nor can they stem the flow of illegal firearms into the country since their disasterous Firearms Act of 1997.

    Even occupying armies cannot stop the people of invaded countries from breaking the laws imposed upon them, if the people have the will. Look at Afghanistan, which was occupied by the Soviet army for a decade, and yet found ways to construct and use firearms against them.

    I broke the speed limit on my way to work this morning. I also did it yesterday, and the day before that. I've been breaking the speed limit for almost twenty years now, and I've been pulled over and ticketted exactly twice in that time. Oh yeah, real effective enforcement of the law there.

    The police cannot enforce even simple traffic laws. They don't have a chance in hell of enforcing internet regulations!

    -- Guges --

  • by Bill Currie ( 487 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:33PM (#295164) Homepage
    the MPAA, RIAA and BSA, our three favourite orgs. Just that in itself is scarey.

    Bill - aka taniwha

  • Of course if you don't drive, that's not a problem.

    Don't drive in Europe? Still have to register.
  • ...I can't help but fear the sort of warrants that could come *out* of the US.

    We Canajuns don't have a DMCA or equivalent (yet) and our courts seem to be labouring to maintain sanity in things like child porn laws. There's even a whiff (but *just* a whiff) of enlightenment in our drug laws.

    The scariest thing for me, reading that article, was not what might come from Uzbekistan or Latvia, but the thought of a bunch of Mounties showing up with a warrant from the FBI to seize my computers 'cause I linked to the DeCSS gallery or sent some anime to a friend south of the border. Or to seize my house 'cause I ordered some mushroom spores (legal here) from south of the border.

    I used to scoff at libertarians who claimed that the UN was becoming the World Government that would take away their freedom. Now I see my nation's sovreignty threatened a little at a time (through trade agreements etc.) and I fear instead that it'll slowly become impossible to govern any country the way the people want - we'll be too wrapped up in international agreements that are too disruptive to change or cancel.

    Dammit, how am I going to sleep tonight?

  • I mean, really, we don't live in singapore. We don't need to be flogged everytime something bad happens

    But that's pretty much what you're suggesting.

    Them: "Hey pal, you didn't release that code fast enough for us - you get fined."

    Us: "But I've been working 16 hr days as it is... it's not done yet..."

    Them: "Oh, missed our deadline? Prove you weren't dragging your feet or we send you to jail."

    How are you going to prove you couldn't have worked any harder or smarter to fit some bureaucrats' deadline? If we have to pass a government audit everytime we release an app or make a change to a webserver config then I'm going back to making cheesesteaks.

    If you don't like MS, then don't use them. If you use a service, check up to see they do things the way you like. But don't encourage some Congress-critter to get up my butt because *somebody* in the world may be able to crack my system. Why not just fine everybody who gets robbed for having an attractive nuisance?

    Cop: "Hey, you had unprotected windows. Any 'rock kiddie' could break them. You expect us to find them? Not until you cover every entrance with a bomb-proof steel door and put bars on all your windows."

    Would your house pass the test?
  • Living in a free country was nice. I wonder where I can move to so that I might experience it again?

    I think you can experience that pretty much everywhere in Europe.
  • That BSA is not your father's Boy Scouts of America, the BSA is Microsoft's personal National Guard []. Have a grudge against your current employer? Give them a call. The BSA has the legal rights to fix them up real good.
  • Don't worry! I'll turn your hack of their sophisticated technology into a Perl script, or maybe a big prime number, and broadcast it around the net! The djinni is out of the bottle on this one!
  • by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:19PM (#295171)
    Good thing these defenders of peace and freedom require cookies before you can use their site. Otherwise, some hippie with cookies turned off might get to read the secret documents!
  • by Kope ( 11702 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:23PM (#295172)
    The problem, once again, is that the sheople don't understand what is being legislated, so they by and large don't care what the law says or does. People in the USA, at least, have a horrible "if it doesn't effect me I don't care" attitude when it comes to laws effecting privacy and personal liabilities.

    Hopefully AT&T, AOL, and the other big players who would be negatively effected will be able to effectively lobby against this. However, don't count on it. The supporters have just as much cash, and the people aren't going to voice their oppinion one way or another.

    An interesting aside - what will we do when McCain/Feingold makes it illegal for AT&T to lobby to stop this kind of abuse?! Are we going to suddenly develop a civilly active, well educated populace that researches pending legislation and calls the appropriate representatives? Somehow I doubt it. I bet we get lots of this crap shoved down our throats once we make it illegal for interested parties to lobby.

    Living in a free country was nice. I wonder where I can move to so that I might experience it again?
  • Now the Borneans will be able to prosecute me for trying to take over thier country from my Network.
  • offensive spelling, you're my hero! One might say you're a spelling vigilante, even :)

  • Yet another useful method of seperating the US Taxpayer with his hard-earned money... We are going to end up footing most of the expense behind this one... (as always) 8^(


  • Unenforceable laws are the most dangerous kind, because they invite selective enforcement.

    Say, you're in the US and piss off somebody in the US. You also use PGP. So, the evil powers make a phone call to, say, French (where encryption is illegal) to cook up a warrant for your "alleged" use of it on the French territory (Oops, Your Honor, it just got routed that way!). The next thing you know, feds are not only rummaging through your dirty laundry, they're also threatening to extradite you to France.

  • Just like with HRS, when it comes to computer crimes, you are guilty until proven innocent. If it is believed by law enforcement that your computer is being used for any kind of illegal purpose, they come and take it all. To make matters worse, there is no magic line in the sand which says where what they can take stops. If you think I am paranoid, consider what is happening with MS and licenses. Companies are assumed guilty and must prove their innocence.Think of the students who were gaming in New York (and to think we once did squirt gun battles on campus). The equipment and stuff is taken until they have convinced themselves there is nothing hiding on it somewhere.In some sense it is like a cop stopping you because you are speeding, a dog sniffs out your wallet which is full of money and because the money smells like drugs you loose it. It does not matter that you just came from a flea market where all the transactions were in cash and you were selling used computer equipment, you are out the money. It occurs more regularly than you think, but it is ok because so far it has not happened to you. The US is not what it used to be because of the freedoms we have allowed to be taken away in the name of safety.
  • We rarely apply patches here because

    a) NT has a history of breaking under large SP's

    b) we have to REBOOT everytime there is a patch.
  • at least in my state(texas) you have to change the addy on your drivers license when you move--what do you call that?
  • Huh?! European nations are the ones drafting this treaty, and allowing themselves to be the cat's paw of the FBI. How exactly is moving to Europe going to INCREASE my freedom?

    I'm asking seriously. I am TIRED of people not caring about the Government's abrogation of their rights. Is Tibet any better? Maybe I can move there...

    Oh, no, that's China now. My bad.

  • by ajs ( 35943 ) <> on Friday April 13, 2001 @07:23AM (#295182) Homepage Journal
    The referenced article (despite it's cookie sillyness) is a very good evaluation of the dangers of the situation. I'm pleased to see lawyers taking some responsibility for the ethical well-being of thier country.

    Here's one bit that both terrifies me and makes me mad:
    The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation are using a foreign forum to create an international law-enforcement regime that favors the interests of the feds over those of ordinary citizens and businesses. Their goal is to make it easier to get evidence from abroad and to extradite and prosecute foreign nationals for certain kinds of crimes.
    Also, the report cites supporters, MPAA and RIAA because they're trying to use INTERNATIONAL LAW to force the US to make copying their material a criminal, not civil offense. Cool shit. :-(

    Be afraid.
  • He wasn't "arrested," he was "detained." I don't think he was ever formally charged, merely questioned to a pulp.

    You drunken bastard.
  • Oh dont worry this kind of shit happens all the time. Thats why I'm under curfew right now (Cincinnati), because some people are piss-heads, everyone gets punished.

  • And just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me...
  • >An interesting aside - what will we do when McCain/Feingold makes it illegal for AT&T to
    >lobby to stop this kind of abuse?! [...] I bet we get lots of this crap shoved down our throats
    >once we make it illegal for interested parties to lobby.

    So... You think the number of situations in which Big Business lobbies for something that helps Joe Average Citizen exceeds the number of situations in which Big Business lobbies for something that royally screws over Joe Average Citizen?

  • I just hit the back button after I got to the "no cookie" page, and it took me back to the article.

    Of course this means I just circumvented an access control device in violation of the DMCA, and am now compounding my crime by describing how I did it...

  • McCain/Feingold will outloaw the use of soft money during elections. It has no bearing whatsoever on inter-election money usage. Yes, it could impact AT&T's ability to sway the next election, but that's the whole point, right?

    From what I've seen the point of McCain/Feingold is to ensure that incumbents never have to fight well-funded opponents or deal with negative publicity. With regards to this topic, McCain/Feingold would in fact prevent AT&T from running announcements close to an election saying "we support candidate Foo because he opposes this treaty which Senator Bar is in favor of". What's worse is that it would prevent nonprofit groups from doing the same thing. McCain/Feingold is a blatant assault on the 1st Amendment, which is not surprising since its sponsors are authoritarians on the right and left respectively.

  • "This is a binding treaty with another group of nations, and it will be much harder for the american people to get out of it."

    IANAL, but AFAIK Int'l treaties signed by the US are not valid if they conflict with US law. So unless this is passed as a US Federal law you onl yneed worry about parts that have US counterparts.

    If Int'l treaties did apply there'd be more lawsuits trying to get UN Charter on Human Rights enforced.
  • There is a means to "reboot"the American government. It's called the Constituional Convention. It's covered in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights under the rubric of amending the Constitution. Theoretically, you could amend the Constitution to such an extent you throw it out.

    However, since there has only been one "Con Con" it is doubtful such a thing would be done. Since there is no laws on how such a thing would be carried out (indeed some people claim all laws would be suspended) there's no guarantee that you wouldn't end up in a country where the RIAA and MPAA aren;t the government.

    There's a related movement called the Fully Informed Jury Association that argues that jury trials are to be used to not only determine guilt or innocene of the accused but whether the law under which the defendent is being tried is worth enforcing at all. If such a thing were possible you could bet things would indeed be very different.

    For more info on FIJA see:
  • > It's not a document of much controversy
    > among most civilised nations.)

    Have you ever actually read it? Obviously not! There are so many loopholes and exceptions that even the most oppressive government such as China is in complience.
  • Most of the articles of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" have this loophole:

    The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals

    Which basically means the government in question can pass any law they want and say is is to preserve public order or for national security. The devil is in the detail. The U.S. Constitution says you have freedom of speech. It doesn't say freedom of speech except when .... This means the government has to be very careful when they try to surpress that right. Every now and then the government oversteps the boundaries and the courts slap them down. With the U.N. Covenant, it's far too easy for a government to take advantage of the loopholes.

    What it boils down to is the covenant only guarantees you the rights unless your government says you don't have those right. I'm glad the U.S. refuses to exchange our slightly flawed Constitution for an empty promise. I have the freedom to criticize my government (and do every chance I get). In China, if you criticize the government, they will arrest you using the national security loophole or they'll just run your sorry ass over with a tank.

  • One other thing, at least I have the balls to post with my real name and email address. You are just an Anonymous Coward. Perhaps you are posting as AC because your government might not approve of your actions and you have no real protection of free speech?
  • Whoa, the US Government creates a program and funds it with U.S. taxes paid for by U.S. Taxpayers! What did you think they were going to do, magically create more money and spend that instead? 99% of the United States government is paid for by U.S. citizens. The Taxpayer has already been separated from his dollar-- it's just up to the government to decide *how* to waste it.

  • Oh geez. I guess the only way I can have any privacy anymore will be to get up from my computer, leave the cell phone at home, and go TALK to somebody.

    Hey, that makes me think, let's have a meatspace napster. It'll be a huge party in the town square where we all go and see if anyone is singing the songs we like :)

  • The framers put in all kinds of checks and balances to prevent the US from becoming infinitely bureaucratic and corrupt.

    Sadly, the people are always clamouring for more laws, and the politicians appease them.

    Then FDR came along and created all the alphaphet-soup agencies who can create new laws (err, regulations) without Congressional input (he might as well have shredded the Constitution on the White House steps), and then, well, you were pretty much screwed.

    Now corporations can just out and out buy laws with generous campaign donations, which just accelerates the natural decay of the system.

    All these factors together have made the US a country that the framers wouldn't recognize if you dropped them into it. If you had told them that in less than 200 years the Federal Government would have made war on a third of the States in order to increase it's power, that governments consume an enormous percentage of the GDP that they collect through hundreds of taxes, they wouldn't have bothered doing what they did. Hell, they thought they were building a nation of Liberty that would at least last longer than Athens.
  • People in the USA, at least, have a horrible "if it doesn't effect me I don't care"

    It beats the "It's for the children" or "Oh my god Nazis" attitude.

    As for criminalizing lobby groups...

    The 13th Amendment did just that. But it was lost. And then it was found.

    It would change everything. But people have to act.

    Arbitration is the job of the FDA, BAR, and all sort of professional practice licensing agencies.

    ICANN has no qualifications in any of those fields.

    Get these thieves out.
  • Athens (the fabled one) lasted about 200 or so years. Frankly, if I knew a bit more about history, I'd say it was a great reenactment.
  • Don't UCITA and the standing WIPO treaty structures render this moot?

    CorpAmerika runs the world, and they won't EVER let this stand. Don't need an 'informed populace' when you live in a litigious society. There's not a General Counsel in the world who would advise their Board or Stockholders to buy/improve their computer systems if this were allowed to pass or be ratified in the US. If it was law you'd probably see them pushing for a return to abaci.

    Besides, who'll enforce it? Who's clueful enough given the laughable exploits of those Keystone Kops in the NIPC and its ilk overseas?

    As to your .sig: move to FreeZone...oh, wait, they'll sink that. Better stock up on guns and ammo with the rest of your Kompassionate Konservative Klavern.

  • That was the exact same article
  • This article was a Slashdot story when it was first written, posted a few weeks ago at:

    Reading the Fine Print on the Cybercrime Treaty []

  • The reason this type of legislation will go forward is because, in it's final form, it will overwhelmingly reflect corporate interests. In that form it will essentially be another US corporate driven intrusion on individual rights in the interests of making money. As the article says, the MPAA, RIAA and BSA are in favour of it. And "the primary architect is the US Department of Justice". This is not so much AOL worried about the rights of its customers, as it is a minor squabble about how to balance an intrusion on individual rights by one set of corporate interests (copyright holders) so it is not a cost on another set of corporate interests (ISPs).

    I particularly love this quote: "the United States alone 'couldn't stand downhill in front of the snowball and expect to stop it'". This is truly absurd. Treaties only have force in a country to the extent that the relevant nation is willing to sign them, so the analogy is wholly specious. The US can decide, entirely on its own whether these kinds of treaties will apply to US citizens. And the US has a strong history of simply refusing to sign or ratify such treaties, even on the most fundamental issues of human rights, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the US has still yet to ratify.

    (For those who aren't familiar with the ICCPR, it's the international treaty that accords such basic rights as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, freedom of thought and conscience etc. It's not a document of much controversy among most civilised nations.)

    In any case, the idea of asking whether a country which is the architect of something could stop it is beautifully orwellian in and of itself. Did anyone else notice that?
  • by Cire ( 96846 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:19PM (#295205)
    This is aweful. It treats all net users as if were a bunch of thugs who are out to get pr0n, pictures of little girlies, and while we're at it, run DOS attacks on servers just for fun.

    Maybe they should concentrate more on forcing companies who provide servers and services to make sure things are secure. How about forcing MS to put out security patches for NT/2000/IIS as soon as they find out there is a problem. Then making sure that these patches are readily available. How about making sure companies like verisign don't hand out certificates to anyone claiming to be MS.

    I mean, really, we don't live in singapore. We don't need to be flogged everytime something bad happens. It should be the governments role to make sure companies make secure products, not to turn the internet into a police state.

  • This really depends on what you consider freedom. In most (if not all) European countries, you have to register if you want to move from one town/county to another. I don't really see that as being free. Robert
  • The problem with signing this or any other similiar treaty is that it gives smaller nations the ability to effectively enact legislation applying to the U.S. without the due process required of the Senate and House.

    For example, Islamic countries could declare both Christian and homosexual websites obscene, and force websites in the United States down because of this treaty. In effect, by signing this treaty, the U.S. will cede legislative control to each and every small country that signs it.
  • by JesseL ( 107722 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:36PM (#295208) Homepage Journal

    I think you misunderstand the danger. This could potentially have the effect of (companies with net access, ISPs, portals) in the US being held partly liable for actions of their users that are considered crimes outside the US.

  • "Now corporations can just out and out buy laws with generous campaign donations, which just accelerates the natural decay of the system."
    That's exactly what's happening I wonder what's going to be the point when the system collapses.
  • Maybe if I code a virus on my palm 7 and upload it to the internet then I will be ok... But if I hot sync via com port on the palm III then the full weight of the law cometh down on me... Hummm sounds like futher enhancment of the digital divide.
  • because pandering to corporations helps generate re-election funds.

  • I agree with most of your post, but I have to point out that McCain/Feingold will *not* outlaw corporate lobbying of anyone. People who saw it will are just trying to paint apocalyptic scenarios to scare people into opposing what, in my opinion, is a good bill.

    McCain/Feingold will outloaw the use of soft money during elections. It has no bearing whatsoever on inter-election money usage. Yes, it could impact AT&T's ability to sway the next election, but that's the whole point, right?

  • Hi, Ben Franklin here, I've come back from the grave to address your concerns...

    With all the pure BULLSHIT that has infected our lives, I really wish there were a "reboot" button on society. This is what the Founding Fathers were able to do. They drafted a brilliant foundation for a successful country, but they didn't put any stop measure in to keep it from becoming infinitely beauracratic and corrupt.

    Thanks, we did our best. We added checks and balances to avoid direct abuses of power. We reserved all rights to the states in areas not spelled out. We even provided a list of rights that apply to all men. Based on what I've seen in the last two hundred years, I think we would have added a few clauses devoted to personal privacy, taxation, and corporations. Still, even the stuff we spelled out clearly somehow got messed up, e.g.:

    • Thanks for messing with free speech.
    • While we were mostly concerned with political speech, your court cases show "artistic speech" is worthy of coverage. Good, we like this. Why did you make it a felony to talk about encryption circumvention? Why did you make it a felony to talk about having sex with minors? Why did you make it a felony to burn the flag? What part of freedom of the presses did you not understand?
    • Right to bear arms?
    • Damn, what's the point of the whole thing if you can't oppose what you feel is unlawful force. Where did we say "unless you are a convicted felon," or "unless you live in New York City?"
    Don't get me started on warrented versus warrentless arrests. Um, police can come in and take your Babbage-machines as "evidence" without you being able to sue them? We thought we had this issue nailed down pretty clearly.

    These are meant to be simple, absolute, minimal rules. Why are you "reinterpreting" them?

    Corporations "re-engineer" themselves all the time. Wipe the slate clean, terminate all policies (laws), everything.. Then assemble a team of top notch leaders and visionaries and recreate everything from scratch.

    Don't go there, citizen! Almost every "re-engineering" attempt leads to more short-sighted rules, not less. What percentage of companies successfully "re-engineered" themselves? Our country's strength is that we did not re-engineer our country during World War II, the McCarthy era, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Napster war, or anything else.

    I'll go back to my coffin now... thanks for your time.

  • McCain-Feingold won't last 5 minutes in the Supreme Court. I don't think I've ever heard of the court handing down sentences in a case like this, but if they did, here is my suggestion:

    Set up blackboards in the rotunda of the Capitol. Have every legislator that voted for it write "I will not vote for obviously unconstitutional bills" 1000 times on the blackboard while the tourists mock them.

  • The short-sightedness of elected officials (or humanity at large) is frightening sometimes.
    The internet is the medium in question in this article; So what? This is about cultural and social issues, folks.

    In the United States, there is a reason states are allowed to pass their own laws. Even within the SAME COUNTRY there are regionalized pockets of persons with differing opinions from the "national average." Nevermind the entire WORLD, with it's dozens (hundreds) of vastly different cultures.

    The German government has a throbbing exposed nerve concerning neonazi or nazi era material or propaganda on the internet due their unique obvious historical perspective. Does this mean that a college student in Oregon should be denied the opportunity to study the rise of the Third Reich? If a [flaming idiot] white supremacist in Florida wishes to publish a neo-nazi website on a local ISP who agrees to host the material, doesn't the FIRST AMENDMENT of the UNITED STATES guarantee his or her RIGHT to publish this material? Are we missing something here?!

    Had I been born in a different corner of the world, I'd probably (if I had net access) be composing this while sporting a stylish 2 foot long PENIS SHEATH with my buttcheeks flapping in the wind as I strode off. In my society this would be no more unusual than wearing DOCKERS. Does this mean my smiling picture on my homepage should set off your NET NANNY? Would it be PORNOGRAPHY in YOUR COUNTRY?

    Once again, nearsighted politicians have ignored common sense. Even given the broad diversity of culture, within the Human Experience there is a framework for agreeing on what is generally 'right or wrong'. Someone r00t1ng your webserver and defacing it is most likely ALREADY illegal in the G-8 nations. This legislation would appear to open an entire CRATE of ethnic/religious/political/cultural worms that NOONE will be satisfied with.

    Let the Germans shut down nazi/neo-nazi sites in their own country or prosecute persons owning this material in GERMANY.

    Let the Americans prosecute persons posessing child pornography. If the content is legal in the country of origin, who are we to go storming after their ISP's?

    For god's sake, someone dig up Ben Franklin and clone him; We need more humanists in the world.

  • The person committing the crime, by all means get the warrant and look into the computer, drives, etc. But the companies? I know the feds can intercept mail if there is reason to believe the crime IS BEING committed, but has there ever been a search warrant for the post office for AFTERWORDS? I doubt it. Some things really need to be directly taken from the physical world to cyberspace in terms of rights and leave alones.

    Cav Pilot's Reference Page []
  • Doesn't a treaty have to be executed within the authority of the United States? Which would imply it would have to be constitutional? Can anyone clear this up for me?
  • It's amazing. The ones who should be yelling about this the most are those that fund some of the supporting organizations...RIAA and MPAA. Talk about short-sighted greed. As the analogy used the screenwriter conversing with someone in germany and they're in hot water. The music and motion picture industry habitually use the 1st amendment when criticized. Wait until they wake up and find they are calling their lawyers to be bailed out because they publish a clip of their movie or song in the internet in an advertisement and find it violates a law in 'name that country', and it got viewed there. We just spend 11 days with US folks in China. People here regularly criticize them on human rights issues. During their little uprising years ago, the fax is one thing that got information out, and now it's the internet. What happens the next time, when somebody their communicates with someone here via email discussing ... say... Tibet. Undoubedly that'd be illegal there, probably considered terrorist activity. That person here would have no protection from their laws, it seems. Freedom of speech is rare, and the 1st amendment wouldn't protect anybody, nor would the other amendments. Take a reporter covering the next yugoslovia. He communicates with a dissdent. In that country it's treason to do so. So what's to protect the reporter? It's amazing places like France would support something like this too, with their uproar over the 'mysterious' eschelon. Talk about cooperation of gov't agencies. FBI wan't to tap somebody here? Can't get warrant under us law? get their friends in the brit agencies to say 'that person violated our laws, tap his communications and rummage through his house'. And any recourse against the foreign agency? I can't see where that's protected. For the reverse, someplace wants access to their citizen. Can't get it under their laws, call the FBI and say 'we need you to send us a warrant for suspicious activity under one of your laws'. And it's on its way. If it's an international treaty, I see little that allows our courts to get involved in any way to protect the individual. These idiots need to take off the blinders. The article is right-on in saying one needs to ask the 'what ifs'.
  • by plover ( 150551 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:23PM (#295219) Homepage Journal
    A law professor was speaking on NPR this morning, and he made several claims that have been repeated here before:
    • The internet is too big to effectively police
    • Law enforcement officials are not clueful enough to track "cybercriminals"
    • Jurisdiction is often a problem
    His suggestion was for victims of cybercrime to take a more vigilante approach: 'hack unto others who hack unto you.'

    While this is of course fraught with all the problems of vigilanteism, until a treaty allowing the RIAA to kick down doors in Uzbekistan is approved, it seems to be the most practial approach for effectively "getting some justice done."


  • the consesnus here seems to be that this "law" runs from the ridiculous to the unconstitutional. Well, now that we are decided, what are we going to do about it?

    The Global Government (which either doesn't care or is too dumb ot realize that all of their meetings for the past 18 months have been massivly disrupted) is set to have yet another meeting soon. This one is in Quebec City, and if you are too far away to make it, I suggest you demonstrate in your local town (if you are lucky enough where such actions aren't liable to get you stuck in a basement with electrodes stuck to your testicles)

  • I'd better stop that ddos process against France!

    Tell me what makes you so afraid
    Of all those people you say you hate

  • heh, silly person. Microsoft [] does provide patches for its software, 99% of the time, at the release of the security bulletin. Patches, called hotfixes, are then all rolled together into Service Packs, which typically come out every 6-8 months. You can always find the latest status at Microsoft's Security Page. [] I would also suggest you subscribe [] to the email notification service, and read Where to Find Security Patches []

    You could also follow the NT Bugtraq and Win2K BugTraq lists. []

    The thing is, most people are like you - they don't care to apply the patches. There are far more Windows NT and Windows 2000 machines on the internet, then there are Linux. There are good reasons too, but if I went into them, I'd be labeled a troll..

  • Most of the comments so far seem to be of the opinion that other countries (Germany and China seem to be favorite targets) will attempt to use this to enforce their laws against US citizens in the US. I think it's more likely that the US (or more specifically, US corporations) will use this to harass/arrest/attack people in other countries, especially considering that they've already done it. Or am I the only one who remembers the MPAA-sponsored arrest of a certain Norwegian programmer?
  • The best part about the BSA's site, is the fact that when you click on "Our Privacy Policy" from their registration page [], you get a page not found error []. That sure makes me feel good about THEIR ethics, while they claim to be a moral authority themselves.
  • Now one nation can DOS (or a few can get in league and DDOS) any U.S. corporations they care to. Just issue so many requests for information that the corporation is spending more time and money on compliance than on actually running their business.

    Of course the U.S. could do the same.

    This could wreak havoc with economies. In countries where the ISP/Telco is a branch of government, this drains the national coffers directly.

    This opens up a new level of economic "warfare" somewhere in between diplomacy/trade wars and hot shooting wars.

  • If the most oppressive member of the international Council of Europe may prosecute citizens of member countries, then the rights enjoyed by those citizens are non-existant when using the Internet. Now, instead of France suing eBay for selling Nazi memorabilia, they can extradite the American citizen posting it as well.

    Be a lot scarier if there were any chance in hell of it passign a constitutional challenge, but there's not. The Supreme Court will not uphold a treaty provision that surrenders US sovereignty.


    IIRC, Treaties are allowed to break the Constitution. That's why the DOJ is trying to get this done outside the country, rather than from within.
  • It's a statement within the Constitution itself, that treaties and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. It is unclear what the preference is if they come in conflict.

    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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  • "What if an islamic member nation makes it a crime, a legal crime, for women to not wear their veils etc, and then tried to enforce their weirdo ideas in *other countries*?"

    The nation that does that could find its population in a very curious undertow. Suddenly it will find that not just is its own population seething against the local governing authority, but much of the rest of the world - the most educated, wealthy and computer-literate rest of the world at that - is really bothered by them, and doing what it can to help bring the offending government down.

    Perhaps what it comes down to is the old notion of culture hacking: we've got to get busy and truly undermine and subvert all large entities which stand against human (not to be confused with corporate and government) freedom. The currently fashionable notion that it's okay for people to be Muslim fundamentalists in their 'own' land - or Christian fundamentalists in the swamps of the American South - or Marxists in China - because gee whiz we've got to respect other cultures and beliefs....

    Well, if we respect cultures and beliefs in this way we're going to get stifled at home; conversely, if we don't get stifled at home we're going to spread notions of freedom to Iran and China and the American South that will seriously shake up business as usual. So this is what's in play: either we get real busy figuring out how to help those on the ground in Iran and China and Texas pull their governments down, or we're gonna find ourselves sat on.

    We're not talking digital entertainment here, we're talking one of the bigger puzzles going: how do you create societies which promote radical freedom in the psychology of their citizens? Can this even be hacked? Well, don't imagine for a minute that decades of research at the CIA and elsewhere have shown no progress in methods to hack cultures to move the other way. They hacked the Iranians to want to stupidly follow authority, for instance, and look what they got! Okay, this gives them pause, the technology isn't perfect yet.

    But freedom should be easier, right? Isn't it simpler to break things down than to build them up, assinine authoritarian systems included? Probably not, but it's the only game we've got, and losing sucks.

  • Can you imagine being dragged away for hate crimes against the Chinese government because of you criticism of them.

    This is a really bad idea, because it gives everyone sovereignity over everyone else. The Absurdity of it is mind boggling, and it is ripe for abuse.

    1984 never looked so good. We got to start writing snail mail now folks.

    While the idea of a world government could be made to work in some way, This is NOT the way to achieve it. It is a stupid as a way to achieve it as is possible. This keeps up, and I'll start praying for an asteroid.

    Check out the Vinny the Vampire [] comic strip

  • No it is liability issue. Someone can sue you and
    have more chances to win now if offending traffic
    has originated from your network and you don't
    have any measures/time to trace such data, back
    in time meaning logging of every fucking byte
    that traverses your network to outside.
    It is a blind sighted attemt to do something by
    authorities who do not have any understanding of
    of the internet(technology, communities, everything)
    Think of it as a fat elephant trying to catch a
    mouse. While it is is afraid of it, it has to
    catch it, while it is really unable to do so,
    because it has neither physical ablities nor cranial
    functions to do that. So you get elephant that
    jumps around as if it is own tail chasing, doing
    whole lot of havoc around itself. Trying to calm
    it would probably not work, using bare hands, so
    all you can do is stand aside, whatch and be
    amused. It is however not so amusing when elephant
    is in small room jammed with entities, trying to do the same.(food for thought)
  • By and large, "real world" law enforcement is effective, even if you want it not to be to support an argument about law enforcement on the Internet. Sure nobody cares much about the odd bit of speeding, but by and large it is really not easy to get away with serious crimes like rape and murder. The unabomber was caught, Timothy McVeigh was caught, most serial killers are caught (even if it takes some time). I don't know what the statistics are, but it really isn't that easy to get away with such crimes. I remember reading somewhere that there are something like over 30 common oversights made by murderers that police can look for when investigating a murder to find the murderer. Personally, how do you rate your chances of robbing a bank and getting away with it? How do you rate your chances of murdering someone and getting away with it? How do you rate your chances of breaking into someones house and stealing a whole bunch of stuff and getting away with it? How do you rate your chances of stealing a car and getting away with it? These are all fairly "common" crimes. Do you believe that you have anywhere near as good a chance of getting away with these as you have of getting away with speeding? If you *really* believe that the real world is too big to effectively police, I challenge you to commit one of each of the abovementioned crimes. Think you can get away with it? I doubt it.

    Above and beyond that, my whole point was that it is far far easier to police the Internet than it is to police real life. So even if "real world" policing is "only" something like 30% effective, Internet policing can easily be 70% effective or more. Say what you like about anonymous remailers and anonymous ISP services; the fact is, it is damn near impossible to really do anything anonymously on the Internet. And this is *now*, when the technologies are all still "new" and "raw", and law enforcement agencies have only really begun to learn about them, install snooping devices etc (e.g. Carnivore). I don't know about the states, but I live in a developing country (South Africa), and even here it is essentially impossible to log on to the internet "anonymously" - none of the ISPs offer the ability to connect "anonymously" to begin with (the way AOL does in the states with the AOL cd's), you *have to* first sign a contract with your full banking details, credit card number etc. And even if you do use someone else's account, or you forge your details, its still easy enough for the police to find out where you dialled in from. Basically, you've got one fat chance in hell of getting away with breaking the law on the Net (e.g. posting child porn or whatever). Your best (and only) shot at anonymity is to be an experienced hacker, who can either dead-end the "paper-trail" (logs, wiping logs) or leave a long enough "paper-trail" to make it too difficult to get caught.

    The police don't enforce simple traffic laws because its not a high enough priority and their resources are limited, yes. But the Internet is much cheaper and easier to monitor than the roads are. Once the capability of fully monitoring the internet is in place, it will be as easy to detect "petty crimes" as it will be to detect serious crimes.

  • Sorry, but I think thats crap. The internet is not too big to effectively police, not by a long shot. Firstly, the "population" on the Internet smaller than the population of Earth by a factor of about 50, and I don't see the "real world" as being too big to "effectively police". Secondly, the Internet is far far far easier to monitor. As opposed to real life, where the logistics and costs still make it very difficult to do, on the Internet you can monitor anything and everything that goes on, and for relatively cheap. Just look how cheaply and easily the FBI has gained the power to monitor virtually any Internet traffic in the USA. The vast majority of Internet traffic goes through the equipment of a very small number of telecomms companies and ISPs. Most internet activities are either already logged, or are very easy to log. The problem with logging requiring way too much data to store has quickly become a non-issue thanks to cheap data storage (really, if dejanews can archive the entire usenet (apart from binaries), do you *really* think the FBI and other authorities can't? Get real. And it's only getting cheaper and easier to do it. The techically illiterate public might see the Internet as some huge, mysterious place, but technical people should know better.

    The argument that law enforcement officials are not clueful enough to track "cybercriminal" probably has some truth in it, but it's incredibly shortsighted and naive to just brush off the authorities completely as being too ignorant to be useful. This is a double-edged sword. Firstly, there are many clued up law enforcement officials, and there will only be more and more in future. Secondly, law enforcement officials who are clueless, of which there are many of these too, are also incredibly dangerous to have policing the online world - do you want somebody who doesn't even know what "source code" is prosecuting you for some cybercrime that you did not commit?

    Jurisdiction is "often" a problem? Well if you're falsely accused of something you did not do, or if you're being prosecuted but it's effectively a violation of your human rights, you better "just hope" that jurisdiction "just happens" to be a problem wherever you are. Sounds like a crapshoot to me. Why not just not have stupid laws and treaties to begin with?

    Really, to just casually brush off dangerous treaty's and laws by making a few broad statements about the Internet (with no evidence, arguments or proof to back them up, as well as no attempts whatsoever to try to see what technology will be like in the next ten or twenty years) is incredibly dangerous, shortsighted and naive. The fact that these claims come from a law "professor" might fool some people into thinking the arguments carry a lot of weight, but hopefully not enough people to be duped. I know it isn't really the 'american way' for the sheeple, but try to think for yourselves rather than letting some appointed "expert" on TV do all the thinking for the majority of the population.

  • ... in effect, define the rights of Internet users to be no more than those rights enjoyed by citizens of the most oppressive regimes.

    If the most oppressive member of the international Council of Europe may prosecute citizens of member countries, then the rights enjoyed by those citizens are non-existant when using the Internet. Now, instead of France suing eBay for selling Nazi memorabilia, they can extradite the American citizen posting it as well.

    Very scary!


  • I thought that the beauty of the internet was the idea that it could be the New melting pot for ideas, religions, beliefs, etc... I don't have to agree with what you do or believe, but just becuase I don't agree with it, doesn't mean you have to take it down!
    If it's the children we're worried about then create a .kids or .cool and have someone actively police who and what can be posted there. Heck, there's a lot of groups to do that for free.
    But when you start policing the internet as a whole, that is wrong.

    An example: One country doesn't like what is being said about it --> for whatever reasons be it political, or just joking.... The server is held in another country where there is no law against this.... Now what? Should the second country take the site down so their neighbors don't have hard feelings? If so, where do we stop?!

    The web is being cencored and in the worst way!
    Are people that afraid of different ideas?

  • And meanwhile your system rots on an evidence shelf for two years.
  • Authorities *love* unenforceable laws; especially the unavoidable breaking of such laws... if we are all law-breakers, then they can harrass, threaten, punish, or lock away anyone who annoys them. But you weren't going to catch anyone's attention or annoy anyone importatnt, were you?
  • by Kasreyn ( 233624 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:48PM (#295238) Homepage
    I don't even know where to start...

    So let's all just let the most uptight, law-beridden nation in Europe dictate law enforcement in any of the other member countries. There are no checks on this that I can see; this is completely based on trusting the other nations to have sane laws. What if an islamic member nation makes it a crime, a legal crime, for women to not wear their veils etc, and then tried to enforce their weirdo ideas in *other countries*? That wouldn't be appropriate, and thank god it's not happening yet; so why is it appropriate to do the same sort of thing vis. computers and the internet? I'm sorry to inform you, but I am a United States Citizen, Mr. German Prosecutor, and under my freedoms of speech is included the freedom to spout Nazi hate if I so choose.

    You know what, you can take your fucking terrorism warrant and shove it. U.S. Prosecutors already have enough on their plates dealing with the criminals we have HERE, breaking OUR laws. The last thing our courts need is a wave of "criminals" whose only f-ing crime is that they broke a law which they were never advised of, which is only a law in a country they've never heard of, under the terms of a treaty they were also never advised of!! Talk about being arrested out of the blue!

    What's even worse is that the american public is not even being TOLD. At ALL. Now I understand that our nation has so many laws that only lawyers, those who have dedicated their lives to the law, can hope to understand the vast, bloated beast it has become. However, I don't believe in making laws and never explaining them to the populace before enforcing them. This isn't like a bill in congress, where the representatives who made it can be voted out afterwards, and the bill struck down by the Supreme Court. This is a binding treaty with another group of nations, and it will be much harder for the american people to get out of it.

    This entire thing just sickens me. It really does.


  • Oh, I understand that... But how would even the liability be enforced across boundaries. If the US doesn't recognize the law (or vice-versa), would it still apply?

  • by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:18PM (#295240)
    This is virtually unenforceable. I mean, is the Fed going to constantly monitor every machine attached to the Net? Nah. And what about networks in countries that don't recognize this? The Net is just too large and too mis-understood by gov'ts all over the world. They can pass this, but I really doubt it'll stick any more than any other 'International' laws governing the Net.

  • Cire has a very valid point- perhaps the police are targetting the wrong thing. From other posts the general consensus appears to be that even if laws were passed, they would be virtually inenforceable as the net has just grown too large and complex. So perhaps instead of targetting the users, if the servers and services were made with stricter security and patches made more available to the every day user, as opposed to the slightly more advanced user who understands how to carry out downloading patches etc, then the problems surrounding individual users could be more easily overcome. We cannot start to hunt for individual users until there is a much more efficient way of narrowing down the "suspects" and this can only be done by ensuring the safety of the servers and equipment which everone uses.
  • Why do you think it takes so much funding to unseat an incumbent right now? Might it be because incumbents have (as well as name recognition) access to lobbists with lots of money and the ability to garner huge donations from people and companies by giving them governmental access?

    McCain/Feingold is a great idea that's about 25 years overdue, but it's going to get hammered in the courts.
  • In no way are we living in a country where we elect people that do what we want them to do. Please disabuse yourself of that notion right now.

    People DO want these kinds of laws. The Justice Department, the military, select big corporations ...
  • You know, we're supposed to be living in a country where we elect people that do what we supposedly want them to do. They're our representation.

    Why are they making stupid lawas that no-one wants then?

  • "make a phone call to, say, French (where encryption is illegal) to cook up a"

    I am not sure if you just used France as an example but, to the dissapointment of Reno and US chums, hard crypto has been recently legalized in France.
  • I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but it looks to me like this treaty will make systems like Echelon and Carnivore legal on a global scale.
  • And it's because of stories like that and treaties like this that I'm putting the ACLU on my speed dial.

    $man microsoft

  • So, I put up an informational site about the rise and fall of Hitler, and somewhere in there put something that pisses off the Germans and they come after me. Big deal, they can spin their wheels all they want. The thing is, they can't do anything to me without breaking my constitutional rights. First they submit me to unlawful search and seisure, and thereby suppress my freedom of speech. There's no way this would get by an American court as soon as I appeal it. The American Constitution has to be held for me because I committed this crime" in America. To deny me those rights and subject me to German law would call into question the sovereignty of the United States. If I commit a crime that's illegal in America, that's one thing. But to subject me to some other country's law when it's not illegal in the country I did it in, that is simply erasing the boundaries of the Nation State. Perhaps this is what was meant by the nationless world.

    $man microsoft

  • Was done by someone and submitted to Cryptome. So here's the link []

  • Just because a law is unenforceable now doesn't mean it won't be in the future. How can anyone know what technology will enable governments to do in ten years?

    As another poster correctly pointed out, the DMCA is an implementation of a treaty. Treaties are the "Supreme Law of the Land" and whether that means "with" the Constitution or "secondary to" the Constitution is not entirely clear to me.

    Treaties are inherently dangerous in that they provide a "workaround" for our government to pass legislation with the authority of the constitution without having to amend the constitution.

    Collectively, all of these treaties being negotiated year after year scare the Shite out of me. People don't stop to consider how much weight they carry nor what effect they will have 50 years from now. "If it doen't work, than later we'll change it." does not work with treaties. They last forever.

  • The way I read this, if I trasmit encrypted Nazi propaganda to another computer on a LAN in the USA, could I be arrested by 1) Germany for distibuting Nazi propaganda 2) AND france for useing encryption in a crime? I feel like writing to anyone and everyone that represents me in the government.(Just on principle I oppse this) I am an american citizen not a french and german citizen and I don't care a words worth about their laws espically concerning my LAN!!
  • Where did you get that idea. This treaty is being developed in Europe. The EU is adopting laws that are every bit as restrictive as the DMCA and in most European countries your right to speak out against these things isn't nearly as strong as in this country. Get over it. There isn't any freadom anymore, anywhere. We can bend over and accept it or we can start fighting back. Remember folks in the end you get the government you deserve. Take a stand or buy a lot of vasoline, your choice.
  • You forgot the most important part: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
  • > Tremble, weep, gnash your teeth, folks, we now have a police state. Hitler won, after all.

    Very saddening indeed, but true. Considering this involves the whole world, there will be no recourse. If this international governing body decides to take away freedom of speech, no matter where you run, that freedom is gone. If the law says you have no rights, run where you may, you have no rights. If it does away with personal privacy, consider that history. If it says "All your income are belong to us", well, ...

    Fundamentally, this would be nothing new. Throughout history, the God-given rights of humans have been violated. Just ask the Jews in Germany, or the blacks in the United States. The only thing that will be new - and the very thing that makes this of utmost importance - is that it would be on a scale more grand and more pervassive than ever; that it will cover all humans, all territories.

    In light of this very sobering point, we must fight for our basic and essential rights and freedoms. In failing to do so, we only place both ourselves and future generations at risk and do a disservice of magnanimous proportions to all humanity. I have a strong feeling that there will be an international governing body (not just the US-run UN, but one that monitors the everyday activities of netizens) someday. When that happens, we must ensure that the basic and fundamental rights and dignity of every human being are respected and protected.

    Do not be complacent, and do not be fooled into thinking otherwise. We are in a war, and the entire future of humanity rests on the outcome.
  • First of all, if it is an international governing body, they need not pay any heed whatsoever to the U.S. constitution.

    Secondly, even if it is unenforceable, who can tell them that it must not be done, for that matter, if there is no system of checks and balances in place, and they are the law makers, law enforcers, and only law in town (actually, the world.)

    However, I'm not so sure it's unenforceable. They don't have to look at absolutely everything (afterall, cops don't have to catch every single speed demon to give be able to give you a ticket), but when they find something they don't like, they can come after you. They may not know whence it originated, but - and here's the catch - they have made it the responsibility of the company to know who and what is on their networks. When an issue arises, they go after the company, who then gives them your name. Nothing new. Even federal taxes, which at first may seem unenforceable, work similarly. Don't check them yourself. Have them rat on each other.
  • With all the pure BULLSHIT that has infected our lives, I really wish there were a "reboot" button on society. This is what the Founding Fathers were able to do. They drafted a brilliant foundation for a successful country, but they didn't put any stop measure in to keep it from becoming infinitely beauracratic and corrupt.

    Corporations "re-engineer" themselves all the time. Wipe the slate clean, terminate all policies (laws), everything.. Then assemble a team of top notch leaders and visionaries and recreate everything from scratch.

    If the private sector can do it, why not the public?

    (sigh) if only there were another "new world" that we could colonize and invent a new government for. No, I will not move to Mars. That planet looks horribly and unbearably BORING.

  • by Invisible Agent ( 412805 ) on Thursday April 12, 2001 @12:33PM (#295264)
    Allow me to decode:

    United States interests want another way to enforce copyrights abroad. This treaty is just another tool to exercise power outside of U.S. borders in order to keep the money flowing into the correct pockets. That stuff about Germans serving warrants on U.S. citizens talking to neo-Nazis is pure fantasy.

    Just follow the money:

    After the United States and other nations signed and ratified the WIPO treaty, Congress crafted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as implementing legislation. Congress did not seriously debate the most controversial aspects in part because of the perceived need to implement the treaty. One of those made it unlawful to tamper with anti-copying devices and software.

    Oh look, it's the DMCA.

    Invisible Agent

Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan