European Cybercrime Treaty 1.1

(eternal_software) writes: "Reuters is reporting that the world's first cybercrime treaty is being redrafted after Internet lobby groups assailed it as a threat to human rights that could have 'a chilling effect on the free flow of information and ideas.'" The Council of Europe has added new passages to clarify, according to Reuters, "that 'cracking' computer systems to test security is legal and that ISPs would only be asked to store specific data related to a suspected crime."

Comments

"Related to a suspected crime"? WTF?

[brassman]

"ISPs would only be asked to store specific data related to a suspected crime."

Is that like Dilber's boss saying "I want a list of all the unexpected problems we expect through the next quarter"?

Now let's try with patents

[mickwd]

If the comments on this treaty have made the Council of Europe rethink, anyone who cares about the European position on patents (the EU's plans to introduce American-style patents on computer programs and business methods) should make their views clear. A good starting point is to sign the petition here.

Also make sure to respond to the UK patent office's request for opinions. And they explicitly ask for opinions for people with experience of the US position.

If Europe accepts the American position on patents, how is America ever going to change it ?

Remember, the Reuters report says they were "inundated" with only 400 e-mails.

Wishful thinking, but try anyhow...

[isaac]

...the reason it's possible for individuals to shape this process is that big money is not at stake. The current insanity in patent, trademark, and copyright law, is supported and lobbied for by some of the richest companies on the planet.

That doesn't mean one shouldn't try and change the system, but I don't think a promising sign in this particular matter will translate to other issues with greater economic footprints.

-Isaac

Re:Please justify your assumption

[Ian Schmidt]

Excellent point, Bruce. Unfortunately it seems to be common now to "supercriminalize" Bad Things That Society Cares Deeply About which continue to happen in spite of already being illegal.

Everything from drugs to murder is getting extra layers of law added to make it "more illegal" as though it would actually help. In reality, I think all this helps is lawyers (since nobody else can understand the laws pertaining to a specific situation now) and Congressmen (who can claim to have taken a "tough stance" on cocaine or hate crimes or whatever).

Please justify your assumption

[Bruce Perens]

You are assuming that we need this treaty and the follow-on implementing law at all to prosecute criminals. I haven't seen that there's any problem prosecuting them now, without a new treaty and new law.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Cracking == legal?

[Bruce Perens]

That would still be a crime. But we don't want a new treaty and its implementing national laws to outlaw the tools we use to test if our systems are secure - which happen to be "cracking tools" in themselves.

Thanks

Bruce

Does this call drug related sites a crime?

[dopevector]

Seeing as how I don't live in europe, I was wondering: do any of the europeans out there know if this treaty considers drug related websites a crime? I'm sure slashdoters out there remember some of the recently failed bills in america that tried to make the distribution of drug related information (and even linking to information) on the internet illegal, not to mention sites that sell drug related paraphernalia. Often these clauses are tacked on to unrelated bills (like bankruptcy law reform). For those that don't know, check out this bill.

So my question is, basically, what is the situation like across the pond? Here, even buying hydroponic equipment for legit reasons gets you put on a list to be watched. Is this treaty going to make it even harder to get the facts people need to make informed decisions?

A proposal to solve "rewritten" laws:

[Anne Marie]

When laws and treaties are rewritten like this, the original is discarded and completely overwritten by the new; it's not accomplished by amendment -- it's by rewritten out of whole cloth. The new law may no longer be objectionable, but at the same time, its brief tyrannical status is not preserved for posterity. That job is today delegated to the media, who cannot be asked to maintain an archive of knowledge once its value for click-throughs and ad-supplements is exhausted.

What we need is for laws to be maintained in a CVS tree like most free software. We need to see what the law was before it became what it is today, because otherwise, we cannot hold our elected officials responsible for what they could have done if not for our eternal vigilence.
It would solve many judicial issues of "legislative intent", and it would allow a truly free society not to be blinded by nascent tyrrany. People are much less willing to give up privileges and rights they knew once existed (except for minor things like a 12-year-old age of consent in Victorian England) if they are made truly aware of what they used to have "in the good old days".