Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Considering Ratifying Cybercrime Treaty
waytoomuchcoffee writes "SecurityFocus has a new article on the Council of Europe's "Convention on Cybercrime". The U.S. has already signed the treaty, but it has not yet been ratified by the Senate (although President Bush has written a letter urging the treaty's passage). This treaty, among other items, would require the U.S.
to "cooperate with foreign authorities" in conducting surveillance on American citizens who have committed no crime under U.S. law, but may have broken another country's law (selling historic Nazi posters on Ebay? Germany might have you wiretapped), prohibiting the "production, sale or distribution of hacking tools", whatever that means (would Nmap be illegal?) and require the U.S. to pass laws to "force users to provide their encryption keys" and the plain text of their encrypted files. Canada is a signatory as well."
nothing.can.stop.me.now
Aren't we suppose to cooperate with a foreign investigation under current international laws? I can't imagine the USA standing up to a request from the British investigative branch when they're on a lead.
So they're gonna ban carpenters' tools? You know what they say... when wood screws are outlawed, only criminals will have wood screws...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I remember when the US was trying to get a guy out of Australia (can't remember who or find the article - sorry) and people said that the US would never do anything like release someone who had comitted a crime over the internet, breaking a law in another country.
Proves you wrong.
Canada is a signatory as well.
There! Happy now? Slashdot finally mentioned Canada, but it turns out you're a bunch of facists like the rest of us. W00t!
Do they have to find evidence on you first? I mean, they won't just go around asking for everyone's encryption key, so that they can find the evidence can they?
Encryption are the walls of my digital home. Anything I encrypt is private property. I feel this might set a very bad precedent if we are required to give the gov't our encryption keys..
The net is like the wild-west.. with no laws or very little.. I think we are coming to an end of that time, soon we will need corp authorization to write e-mail and have to pay to put any content only.. sad day. Also, how.. realistically could we even provide them with our encryption keys? Also couldn't they be used for political gain??
Now not only do you have to keep track of the laws in the country which you live in but also the laws of all countries who've signed this "Cyber treaty".
I remember reading here before about how you make a lot of laws and reinforce them selectively depending on who you want to take down to earth. Well it just got even easier.
That's ok, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway
this seems to be an infringement of the freedom of speach (posters?), and our privacy
Ha, how ironic! After years of imposing their IP laws on the rest of the world, the USians complains about this??? Not that USians understand irony....
And by "written a letter" he means "signed a letter that someone else wrote," right?
Mike
Fire up the neocon black helicopters!
Can't go to the USA, Europe, Canada, Mexico, Australia or China.
Well, I guess if Russia doesn't work out for us liberty loving types we can always head for Mars.
Beep beep.
"production, sale or distribution of hacking tools"
Assuming that includes DeDRMS, it's a good thing that Norway's not part of Europe!
(Oh no it isn't).
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
This breaks democracy in so many ways! Is this even constitutional? Does this circumvent the constitution?
This is too unreal to be possible.
This really doesn't sound like that bad of a bad thing...
:)
- If you're selling Nazi-era items on eBay, you might as well just put "Offer void in Germany and where prohibited by law, bids from such places will be disqualified." in your description. You just can't sell that kind of stuff to Germany, so don't even try.
- The encryption keys issue sounds fair to me. If you have the keys to an encrypted file and you refuse to decode it and a judge issues a warrant for that data, you have to turn it over or pay the penality for obstructing an investigation.
- The NMAP issue seems like one of FUD to me. The word "hacking" is nowhere in the actual text of the document. Of course, Slashdot would run a story that debates a treaty with a link to the treaty language itself because we reject all government actions without even needing to read what they're proposing.
If one is arrested under any charge and found to have tone dialers, packet sniffers, port scanners, etc. one can be found to be in posession of "hacking devices." (This has happend in the past to Bernie S and others.) Essentially the government has no real evidence of any crime and uses it as a catch-all or as a way to increase sentence time. The annoying part of this is that sysadmins use sniffers and scanners quite often as part of their job. It would appear this "treaty" is just to strengthen previous laws and help to catch those evil hackers...er um hopefully not sysadmins?
:(){
In the past people immigrated to the country of the free (USA) to gain true freedom, democracy and basic human rights. When those rights have been removed to increase the profit of corporation US. Will people move to Norway? No EU, no cyber treaty and they've also got their own oil! What else is there to ask for?
...our new French overlords.
Geez... in the good old days, other countries turned their citizens over to us for crimes commited abroad. Now what happens if Poland decides to start a war on cyber hax0ring?
Need a Catering Connection
Does _any_ US citizen have to give up his keys? What if Iran captures a CIA agent and demands that he gives up the keys to his secret communications with headquarters?
I remember there is a way to fax or send an email to my senators or representatives using a useful web page (which is not my senatros' one). Does anyone know the address? Thanks...
Isn't this the same guy who did not want America (especially soldiers) to be under the thumb of international and UN courts? I fucking hate the UN and agree on that part, but then to turn around and give our rights away to other countries wholesale?!
It seems that this whole notion of using treaties for anything other than marking out jurisdiction over the lands and seas, or codifying who gets what at the end of a war is a huge threat to a nation's sovereignty, and, in a democratic country, the ultimate sovereignty of a country's citizenry.
The Kyoto treaty, NAFTA, and all other economic treaties are ways of sneaking in through the back door (in the United States) laws that would never be passed through legitimate means. The House of Representatives is totally left out of the loop, bypassing our most democratically representative body.
Now, apart from economic treaties, the U.S. will play handmaiden to the enforcement of foreign criminal statutes (while other countries do likewise).
This is bullshit!
Politicians are at a loss to know what to do in the face of a world rapidly being transformed by technology, and international communication and commerce; but, in an effort at being seen as "doing something about the problems of today's world" are rushing to pass laws, the consequences of which can neither be foreseen nor easily undone.
And we're the ones who are going to have to live with it.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
...that all those arch conservatives who berate the anti-Bush faction here at Slashdot still believe -- as all supporters of repressive laws do -- that it won't apply to them!
They always seem to assume that they'll be issued with an I Voted for GWB windshield sticker, which will get them saluted through the random police roadblocks and checkpoints, and they'll be given some amazing new technology which will mark their network packets as One of Us: Do Not Sniff...
I can't wait to see their faces when they are standing naked in line next to the rest of us awaiting the body cavity search...
In Canada, where we don't have the death penalty, we have used this same logic. How can we send a person to the US to possibly suffer a punishment that we don't feel is just?
The US government is being consistent on this. Their arguement tends to be - you committed (or possibly) a crime in a particular country and you should follow that countries rules.
I am not sure I totally agree with this. And it is certainly open to abuse. But so are lots of recent US laws.
is here
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Most of Europe has NEVER been free; hence the waves of emmigration two centuries ago to the new world; in the US there is much theoretical freedom, much of which is VERY well protected by the Constitution; the problem is with the legal system which makes these rights (a) difficult to enforce against the government and, (b) slow and uncertain to enforce for all, see all the IANAL jokes. The remedy, in the US, is in your own hands and at the ballot box.
um since most "hacking" is done via phone (social attack). do we have to get rid of phones?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
But when it comes to the privacy and free speech rights of American civilians, he could give a shit. Say, why do we have soldiers again?
Funny me, I always thought it was to protect our Freedoms(tm).
That's like giving a cop the keys to your house. It makes no sense legally.
Please cite the section that makes it criminal to posess a "hacking device".
This seems to fit the bill:
[Begin Quote]
Article 6 - Misuse of devices
1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:
a. the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:
b. the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 - 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches.
[End Quote]
Note that this also applies to passwords and other data. Interesting.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Make siren sound. This is the Cyber Patrol; Move your curser to the side and relinquish control. prepare for insertion. Hehe good ole American freedom gotta love it.
A tool is not ony used for one thing, folks.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
It is still the wild west. In a large number of westerns, the town sheriff is the leader of the band of outlaws.
The thing I find most interesting in the first article is:
In ancient history, there was a strange notion called rights. The idea was that people had rights. There was even once a Bill of Rights, and that these human rights would be the deciding factor in how the government related to the people.
The US was a weak Democracy in a world run by kings and emperors. Rather than trying to say what is right or wrong, our policy was pretty much to look after this nebulous thing called "national interests."
As anything on a global media has the potential of being global, we get to flip things around and make the concept of "essential interests" override the forgotten antiquated notion of rights. Leo Strauss would approve of this transition.
look like our "Free speech" still stands...
"Betty Shave, who heads the Justice Department's international computer crime division, admitted that the treaty mostly lacks so-called "duel criminality" provisions, but she countered that other language in the pact would prevent abuses. One clause in the treaty allows a country to refuse to cooperate in an investigation if its "essential interests" are threatened by the request: Shave says that would allow the U.S. to bow out of a probe targeting free speech or other actions protected by the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, political offenses are specifically excluded from some types of mutual assistance requests available under the treaty."
Lets just hope our polititions & lawyers, use that wisely... one can only hope...
Mod parent "-1, right wing loony tin foil hat brigade"
[...]
I have broken no US laws, right? Because I wasn't in the US at the time?
This is an inappropriate metaphor for two reasons:
1) This story is talking about something that is a "crime" in only one of the two places involved. Murder is a crime in both the US and Mexico.
2) The death ocurred in the US, even if you fired the gun in Mexico. Even if murder wasn't illegal in Mexico, the US would definitely charge you if it could get its hands on you, since the target was on US soil.
A better metaphor for the argument at hand would be:
I go to Amsterdam and buy some marijuana in a store (legally). I come back to the US and get busted for posession (of the pot I bought in Amsterdam). When interrogated as to who my dealer is, I give them the name of the guy who runs the pot bar in Amsterdam.
USA charges guy in Amsterdam with a crime. Does the Amsterdam police force make an arrest and extradite the shop owner?
--The Rizz
"Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana. The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are." --Matt Lauer
Does that mean we have to turn over all the Americans who have been swindling their distinguished embassy officials in that well-known scam? Oh, wait, they were doing that to us... Never mind.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Betty Shave, who heads the Justice Department's international computer crime division, admitted that the treaty mostly lacks so-called "duel criminality" provisions, but she countered that other language in the pact would prevent abuses. One clause in the treaty allows a country to refuse to cooperate in an investigation if its "essential interests" are threatened by the request: Shave says that would allow the U.S. to bow out of a probe targeting free speech or other actions protected by the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, political offenses are specifically excluded from some types of mutual assistance requests available under the treaty.
Basically it is saying that the only way they would lift a finger to stop a foreign country from grabing you is if you are someone important. Unfortunetely most of us don't fit that catagory.
Requiring that someone provide encryption keys would likely be construed as a violation of a U.S. citizen's Fifth Amendment rights: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." If the hard drive had incriminating evidence of ANY crime on it, then the person would be within their Constitutional rights to refuse to provide the encryption keys to access the data.
From a practical standpoint, "I can't recall" is a very effective three words sentence in such a case. It's not like any of us can honestly say that we've never forgotten a password or encryption key, so the prosecution would be hard-pressed to convince a judge and jury that such a claim is preposterous.
Is that someone who discriminates against people on the basis of their face?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Germany said so isn't probable cause, nor is Nazi memorabilia makes people sad.
They can pass all the bullshit laws they want. They'll never find the support to amend the constitution without lowering the threshold for doing so.
... we citizens can be held liable for our actions outside our borders, but the military can't?
Bush is the guy saying we can't sign any international treaties for an international war crimes tribunal because our military could get unfarily prosecuted, but when it comes your average Joe? He couldn't care less.
What a jerk. Kerry in 2004.
... but what are the Europeans thinking?
Sure, some Americans might have their rights side-stepped by Germany, but the US could use all of its crazy IP laws to prevent any European company from developing things like "method for clearing memory storage space ('memory') by filling said space with null digits ('zeroes')" and a multitude of common knowledge pieces of software covered by ridiculous patents.
True story.
All I can say is that the day that netcat, nmap, tcpdump, and ethereal, etc. become illegal, and I am required to give the government a copy of any private key I make, I am going to start becoming an active proponent of radical political change in this country.
Oh, and I'll be doing this from a country where I have the right to use these things -- assuming such a country still exists.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
"If you have the keys to an encrypted file and you refuse to decode it and a judge issues a warrant for that data"
I would, of course cooperate by producing the plaintext of every encrypted file on my hard drive. I'll be keeping a complete mirror of Project Gutenberg on my hard drive. You never know when having an archived copy of the United States Constitution might prove useful. Like where it says that I'm entitled to a trial by jury within the state where I allegedly committed the offense. I think I could convince a jury that an act that is not a crime under our laws should receive a verdict of Not Guilty. In fact, a good lawyer could probably find grounds to sue the foreign government within our jursidiction.
ARTICLE THREE
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States; --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
...hooray?
i'll just be putting strong encryption on everything thats private and going to furthur lengths to be anonymous when i wish to be so all laws like this will do is ear tag the clueless and drive the rest of us futhur underground
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will be "legalized" if this passes.
I've looked through this treaty, and it appears that the only explicit mention of encryption is that each participating country must ensure that if they have encryption keys needed to help another participating country, they should hand them over (i.e. Country A got Mr. Baddy's RSA key during an investigation and he is being tried in Country B for another offense. Country A should give the key to Country B to help them). Presumably, the key must be obtained by legal means in country A before it can be given to country B. They also mention that encryption should be used, if necessary, to ensure secure communications between the governments... I would hope this is the case anyway.
This treaty doesn't expand the definition of computer crime really. All it is is a promise between countries that if someone commits a crime in another participating country, the other countries will turn over the criminal. To me, this makes perfect sense-- think about it. If someone from a european nation stole your credit card information, for example, you would want them to be accountable for their damages, even if you were an american, right?
====
Crudely Drawn Games
When big brother denies your fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination and demands the key or you rot in prison, hand over the key that decrypts the decoy text and say, "See. It was just some stupid email about my car."
Of course you'd have to encrypt everything to be consistent, but that's not really a bad idea anyway.You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
prohibiting the "production, sale or distribution of hacking tools"
So they are about to ban all computers, eh?
Due to lack of math education, lawyers and authorities simply cannot understand what an universal computation machine is, a math abstraction. So they really want to outlaw a class of abstract algorithms. I would call that idiocy, but I wan't be moderated down troll so I call it ignorancy.
So at the 2024 we who keep around all open source packages ever touched, will be all using Quake 13's "scanning mod" feature instead of illegal nmap...
If it goes really, really wrong with the law, we can always implement a Turing machine with cells represented by file names of silly word documents in a single directory. Written in shell or cmd, it could still be faster than mainframes were 30 years ago.
With that, say HOW one can distinguish DATA from CODE, if one cannot grasp the semantics?
Or example for an underground network: today's sending a tcp packet would be equivalent of emailing little stego message perfectly fitted with up-to-day security content check standards. TCP over email on broadband will be faster then modems we had 10 years ago.
There is only way out: Force authorities to make world a better place for living, not for doing bussinesses only.
There you are, staring at me again.
Thank you for the succinct and non-belligerent reply. I wish there were more people who could clearly express the thoughts of the Conservatives/Libertarians without resorting to name-calling. Your post was a Burmese tiger trap, and I loved it. Again, thank you.
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
(Currently) stable democracy, first-world infrastructure in many parts, excellent climate, favourable exchange rate, relatively low cost of living, a modern, liberal constitution that protects/upholds people's rights, good-looking women, (mostly) friendly people. Sure it's not perfect, but it's good.
If one had a safe, and said safe was completely uncrackable, and there was a good likelyhood that the critical piece of evidence to a crime was inside it, could the owner of the safe be forced to divulge the combination? This is how I envision encryption keys. Honestly, under the fifth amendment, I'm not sure.
If this were passed, would countries that don't have annoying 4th and 5th amendments be able to force Americans to divulge their keys or risk extradition?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Why, this invasion of privacy is outrageous! I'm going to use my new Gmail account and email everyone I know about it.
Well, they might as well round up all our guns at the same time, give us identity chips for our own "security," officially revoke the Bill of Rights, and set up a UN shrine with mandatory attendance, so there will be no more doubt to anyone what they're all about.
Then all the crazies can retreat to the hills with their shotguns and claymores, and finally have that Armageddon they've been waiting for.
I'm not saying that this WILL happen this way, since I think that the powers-that-be are way too subtle for that. They know all too well that a frog will jump out of boiling water, but will allow itself to be cooked if done so gradually.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
of this is not so much what it allows other governments to do to US citizens, which will probably not end up amounting to much in a any case (can you imagine, for instance, the US cooperating with the Chinese govt on prosecution, if the Chinese were to sign this treaty? No way). The interesting aspect of this is that it will strengthen the powers of the US to conduct surveillance on non-US citizens in other countries which have signed the treaty. This, of course, is the reason Dubya wants it ratified.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
The summary of the subject has been enough to inspire a response before I know anything about the subject.
Unless physical harm or theft occurs, nations should ignore "crimes" that occur in other countries. Regardless of explanation, this will doubtless open me to flaming so please pause a moment while I don my asbestos underwear.
Germany's "anti-Nazi" laws are a source of humor to rest of the world as a sign of being unable to admit their history. Get over it.
Every country has stupid, foolish, dated, retarded, outdated laws on their books. Do you want to be held to the social standards of Mozambique? Do you want the narrow-minded laws of France to be a community standard? What about the many laws of American books regarding outdated sexual customs? (Oral sex is actually a crime in many places!?)
This post has rapidly deteriorated from the cerebral imagings with which I began. Flame on.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
(selling historic Nazi posters on Ebay? Germany might have you wiretapped)
Up to your big headliner tricks hey again Timothy. You'd probably like Nazi propaganda Timothy. Much like your articles, they're very emotive and designed to manipulate opinion. Provoking outrage is a popular subject. Sound familiar to you?
The reason why Nazi posters are banned in Germany was because of the war against the "Nazis". It was called "World War 2". It happened to kill a great deal of people. In fact, most people who read these posts have probably lost at least one relative to that war. If you want to learn about "World War 2", search for the term on Google.
It's banned for the same reason as why Japan has no real army, as the Japanese at the time committed such gross atrocities, they were not deemed to be trusted to ever possess an army again. It keeps them well behaved when they get ideas about their Emperor and nationalism even today.
Yesterday was ANZAC day in Australia, where we commemorate Australia's War dead. I don't think many people yesterday or today are concerned about the forfeited rights of German people to buy Nazi memorobelia in Germany on ebay or any other way.
In any case, Nazi posters have very little to do with new cyberlaws, as the laws already exist.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
When will u all be willing to pick up arms and fight these Fascist tyrants?
Right, the Senate passes treaties -- my whole point exactly.
The Senate is designed to be somewhat insulated from the vagaries of popular opinion: they are up for election only once every six years. Moreover, as a body of only 100 members, they are supposed to be able to act more decisively.
The House, by contrast, is made up of many more members, each of which is up for election every two years. By design, the House is supposed to be more representative.
Together, the House is supposed to represent popular opinion, and the Senate is supposed to cool the passions of the masses; together, along with the President, laws are passed -- in theory, at least, balanced laws.
Treaties, by contrast, are ratified by the Senate after being presented by the President. The House is left totally out of the loop. As treaties enjoy the full force of law, this creates a tendency for more elitist, less populist laws.
Now, because you had to start with your "who modded this idiot up" nonsense, I have had to give you a lesson in U.S. government -- so much so that I myself would be tempted to mod this whole thread down as a "troll."
Think before you shoot that idiot mouth of yours off, next time.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
it allows us to go after spammers, fraud, and others(419). Then it might be ok, otherwise NO. The invasion of privacy would be intolerable.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
... the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states at Paragraph 11 that and person charged with an offense has a right to:
c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; and
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
I'd be hard pressed to believe that turning over encryption keys wouldn't make me a witness to my own criminal proceeding.
The main points are:
1. A provision of a treaty, which conflicts with this Constitution, shall not be of any force or effect.
2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation, which would be valid in the absence of a treaty.
Click for more details.
I'm sure it does. I guess I'll have to wait till they accuse me of attempting to take control of the world, again.
Daddy Bush was fond of establishing a "New World Order". Do you suppose that his son is carrying on in the illustrious tradition of the family business? What's really amusing is how the freepers were all up in arms about Clinton establishing a "New World Order" with his "jack booted thugs". Now where are those same complainers?? I ask you, does this not seem like the beginnings of a "New World Order"? It most certainly does to me. No matter, as I noted in my JE today. Humans crave freedom from oppression and this November, we will be freeing ourselves whether at the polls, or afterwards in a revolution.
Who is Twirlip of the Mists?
Often jurisdiction over a crime is held to exist if the result of the crime occurs within the jurisdiction. At least, that's how it is in some US states. I, for instance, was prosecuted for a crime in Idaho, despite the fact that I was not in Idaho or even within the US during any time when the crime was taking place. So, for instance, if someone in Germany puts up material on their website which violates US copyright law but not German, and someone within the US downloads it, the German would be indictable under US law because the result of the crime occurred in the US.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
No really, I forgot the password! Sorry...
I was just thinking about this... I would absolutely hate to have the RIAA/MPAA breathing down our necks here in Canada for people swapping music in the same nature that they do so in the US. Not to start an MP3/legal/illegal debate, but as was ruled here in Canada, file swapping doesn't prove a crime has taken place under Canadian law. Apparently in the states, it does, so...
Think about it...
Why Bush is considered a republican?
Amendments to the constitution, reduced civil liberties, eliminating state rights, huge deficits...Oh yeah, thats right he's a fucking religous nut.
In other words, constitutional law is coequal with treaties. Under the rules of "statutory construction", all else equal, more specific recent rules trump more general older ones.
Now, the treaty, as I understand it, calls on us to make laws, which presumably would be trumped by the Constitution, but I wouldn't be sanguine -- we came very close to losing privacy for our encryption keys before 9/11 (at least on exported items) and it is now "a different world" to hear some of the pessimists talk.
The US government is being consistent on this. Their argument tends to be - you committed (or possibly) a crime in a particular country and you should follow that contries rules
The United $tates has NOT been consistent on this matter. Do you remeber what happened when a U$ kid went to Singapore with a can of spray paint an graffiti tagged something (I believe it was an overpass or a bridge).
...has a pretty good idea where all the major nodes are, and the trunks, etc.
With that said, I think it would be quite fair to assume that they have contingency plans that immediately before, or concurrent with a major "crack down" into fuller despotism (a real or staged-real terrorist incident, for instance), they will have enough willing "order followers" to assume physical control of those facilities. All of them. Count on it.
And for those that say they couldn't run them even if they did, think again. They already have on the books laws that they can use to "draft" you on the spot,for specific work related duties, plus for the assumption of "ownership" of just about anything you can name, and refusing or trying to refuse becomes an automatic serious felony, and the penalities can be whatever the emergency military governor deems them to be. They can be quite severe, BTW. In such a situation it wouldn't requite too many examples to get folks back to the consoles working, and sabotage would be eventually found, leading to some more "examples", and etc.
This government has never been shy of "collateral damage", and this government, either directly or via contracted or coerced proxies, kills people daily and has done so as far back as I can remember.
People really need to read the homeland security act, patriot acts, and the model states health emergency act(there's more, those are crucial to grok though), the latter actually being much worse civil liberties-wise than the previous two, but much less known about or talked about.
As a side issue, as far as I am aware of now, all commercial radio and television stations have government "take over" boxes in them, that the government can activate automatically and remotely and completely control what information is being broadcast. In short, they have the clear potential to have an almost total lock on the dissemination of information on their whim and schedule. Not 100% complete, but so close as to make the exceptions be statistically insignificant. It doesn't take much to see the abuse potential here, of course, It's sold as a public service and they "promise" to be nice guys all the time and not lie or be less than honest, etc. Really. They promise.
uh huh
The above article is a further refutation to those who always spout "eww, that's tin foil hat". The one step at a time, slow boiling frog approach is the technique they use for..well, coming total enslavement to be frank about it, a master/serf technofuedalistic styled society of complete surveillance and control (and exploitation) of your lives. the ancient fiuedalistic system, just with advanced technology. Quite possible, many references showing that's what they desitre broadly speaking, and the evidence shows that is the direction they are headed, ie, history is repeating itself, ni\othing new there, because humans tend to not want to learn from history, it's.... too hard, interferes with day to day life and entertainments and ordinary hassles. So, it gets ignored.
That's their goal, and so far every step of the way that HAS been implemented has also been WARNED ABOUT in advance by people who were told they were wrong, when in fact, they have been consistently correct in this extrpolative position and series of observations and analysis."They" want a form of world government with total control over the population of the planet, and nothing less than that. It's still a ways off,not too far but a ways, but looking back 20 years and seeing how things have changed, anyone may look forward, contemplate it in the fact of a variant of "moores law" being applied to all aspects of technology and governments insatiable use of same, and see what is happening now and their bent, to make a fair assessment of what is coming.
Failure to do so is ill advised, failure to *do something about it while you still can* is suicidal.
can be used by hackers to write malicious scripts to insert in emails.
meh
example :: under certain conditions, you could consider a hammer a burglary tool.
the problem, most of the time, is the ignorance of the ones making the law and also the ones upholding (and interpreting) it.
now think about nmap, nessus and so on and so on...
hell, even a computer can be seen as a tool for comitting cybercring.
Privacy is terrorism.
You have no "right" to drive you have a license to do so. If you don't submit to blood or breath tests you can be made to face the punishment because you agreeded to as part of getting licensed.
The judge and the lawyer defending you in a US court will point out that a jury may not infer guilt by you not testifying in a trial in any other type of case. Not providing a key may not be used infer your guilt or to increase your punishment.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Oh, you want the... Well, sorry sir, but I accidently dropped the magnetic medium my one-time pad was on on top of this here supermagnet. Sorry; Hope you got a few centuries spare on a Cray. Don't scare me like that next time!
Sorry officer, I always keep my floppies together with magnets. Oh... You mean magnets erase floppies? Oops...
This is rediculous.
I used to think the guys with tin hats were crazy, but its starting to look more and more N.W.O-ish every year. Whats up with these US politicians?
You Americans can turn your country into a 1984 shit hole if you want, but mind not draging others along for the ride?
Yours Truly,
The Rest of the Fucking World.
Well considering the US spies on everyone else with disregard for our rights (because we're not americans) it seems like poetic justice that you guys should see how it feels
It always astounds me, to see people attempt to justify misfortune or undesirable circumstances. As if any ability to understand the disagreeable situation will result to it resolving your way.
At home, watching TV, a commercial interrupts my program. As many people do, I often decide that I don't want to be bothered by such a pathetic thing and I flip the channel. If that company wants to get it's message to me, they better bust through my door, destroy my remote control and pin me to ground facing the TV and insist my life depended on my viewing and accepting the advertisement.
When a small crowd forms outside a politicians office, or a CEOs office, well, he can't flip the channel but he can close his blinds. The problem here comes from Americans actually believing these people gives a rats ass what the public thinks. No, they don't, if noone voted a President, Senator, Congressman, Sheriff would still be put in their respective positions.
Words, nomatter how truthful they are, are nothing more than subtle sound waves traveling through the air. But the decibels released from a hammer smashing ontop of a solid oak wood desk, now that's a little difficult to ignore. If a politician, as so many often do, flutters their blinds, tie your message to a rock; you can figure out what to do next.
Bottom line, if your beliefs aren't so strong that you are compelled to physically protect them, then anything to the contrary is not really a problem.
Here's the real kicker:
When I view history, I am disgusted. The conditions everyday citizens of France endured just before the French Revolution, the horrid degrading circumstances the Germans endured just before Hitler came to power. How can people let so much go by before standing up for themselves? It's almost enough, to say those everday people deserved nothing more than to starve to death, even requesting it by nature of tolerance.
In America, where the media has pounded pacificism into the minds of it's citizens, the tyrannical corporations and puppet so-called-democratic governments of this world is going to rape and pillage us all. And it's sickening to foresee how much farther they are likely able to go.
of the American Constitution requires that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
In a 1996 paper Greg S. Sergienko explains that in America, the Fifth Amendment would give a suspect the right to refuse handing over encryption keys.
I agree with that analysis.
Therefore, I think that any legislation based on Article 19 of the Cybercrime Treaty would only enable law enforcement authorities to request encryption keys from third parties who run no risk to be prosecuted themselves. Article 19 should not be constructed as requiring self-incrimination.
Lenz Blog
"Last time I checked, it seems the only rights you have in the U.S. are to privacy and to not be offended.
:).
Neither of these are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."
Then it is time to make it apart of the constitution. Enough with this penis-vagina anti gay people amendment no one needs, lets get a useful privacy amendment started.
This is what I really didn't like from the summary:
"...pass laws to force users to provide their encryption keys and the plain text of their encrypted files"
That is insane. If someone has documents in which they would be embarrased to have shared (yes, I'm looking at your direction the pro-animal necrophilia crowd) then what business is it of government's that they have them.
One interesting solution to having to hand over your pass keys is provided by the Phonebook Encryption Project. This program encrypts a file to have TWO keys which will decrypt into TWO different files. One key decrypts the file to reveal the beastiality porno, one key decrypts the file for pictures of barney the dinosaur
Also those that say Freenet wouldn't be necessary in North America, I thought the same for the Phonebook project just yesterday. Now I am very glad both Freenet and Phonebook are here.
If this law is ratified in the US, I will show my opinion by hence forth encrypting every single bit of email I send, even if its my mother's brownie recipe. And to steal another group's motto, the government can have my encryption keys when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
We got bozos, they got bozos, bozos for all!
One interesting solution to having to hand over your pass keys is provided by the Phonebook Encryption Project. This program encrypts a file to have TWO keys which will decrypt into TWO different files. One key decrypts the file to reveal the beastiality porno, one key decrypts the file for pictures of barney the dinosaur
But I don't want to have to re-encrypt all of my lesbian snuff films! Oh well...stupid government. <sigh>
I am scared, government is going crazy.
After (if) Kerry get's it lets get the Green party (or make our own) to fight against all this bullshit.
Adgenda:
-Unsign this piece of shit cyber crime treaty
-Revoke DMCA
-Revoke the 20 year copyright extention
-Put copyright to 30ish years
-Outlaw any kind of lobbying
-Law (and amendment) to guarentee privacy
Anything else? Brain storm here, post your ideas (use anonymous coward if you want). I'll leave a link later for other interested people.
Just tell the kids, that the words dont really matter,and a discounted constitution is really progress.
It's plainly obvious the power elites (big business owners, government bureaucrates etc) from accross the globa are banding together to enslave the globe for their own profit and control.
What do you think all the 'anti-globalization' protests are about? They are about maintaining local autonomy and control, in the hands of THE PEOPLE.
Check the fifth amendment. Government has to prove you are guilty of a crime, 100% on their own. You do not have to testify for them, or say anything. They can and will physically seize your stuff,look for the key someplace, but you don't have to cooperate with them *technically* according to the fifth. And without looking I can guarantee almost that someplace is a ruling saying I am wrong, but not according to the original wording and intent.
The constitution now is mostly ignored by the government, they like to say that word out loud, and that's about it. They like to "swear an oath" to it, said oath lasting a few seconds or minutes when they go back to work. They frequently violate the true law and charge you with this or that,this is true, But the original intent is there, and all the delineated born-with rights were written in english, the words defined in websters first dictionary, so the meaning wouldn't be lost and so that you didn't have to be a lawyer to understand them.
Man, that's LONG gone. Laws written by mostly professional lawyers,obvious conflict of interest tolerated blindly, hardly ever rescinded, already at the 15 million on the books level and climbing daily. It won't ever end until it collapses, it's too far gone now, IMO.
But there ya go for a glaring example. Want another biggee? Supposedly government cannot seize your property "for the common good" without fair and just compensation, this is supposedly an inviolate right, but under the endangered species act, they have done this to a huge degree, seizing billions in property with no reimbursement to the private owners.
someone needs to explain that because I sure can't, but it's "legal" by their definition..some normal passed legislation can "trump" (to use their weasel words) the constitution.
Mainly, I guess, because they got the guns and the goons who will follow any orders given to them. More or less how governments act once they are on the decline throughout history. Right before they collapse they burn supernova with despotism and restrictions. All of a sudden they get frantic with external and internal "threats" that have to be dealt with. their economies usually get so bad they have to expand outwward into large scale looting. That's a good sign they show when they are about to implode.
sound familiar?
Same old tune, new band all the time, same old tired tune gets played.
bunch of them
Funny how they'll sigh this thing, but won't agree to stop using landmines ...
...
Yeah, I know they're not related but somehow cybercrime just made me think of landmines
http://www.icbl.org/country/usa/
I have a very small mind and must live with it.
-- E. Dijkstra
I run Uberhacker.Com, a site primarily focused on PHP security. We also run a section in our Forums dedicated to Fighting the CyberCrime Treaty. Please visit the forums if you are interested in the topic, check out the forums and sign up.
If this treaty passes, I think it would be time for a revolution. A completely legal one though, vote out your senators of your state, when they run for re-election, vote for the other guy even if he is part of the opposing party, anything is better than someone who helped ratify a treaty like this. Get support for your cause and let people know about this treaty.
> This treaty, among other items, would require
> the U.S. to "cooperate with foreign
> authorities" in conducting surveillance on
> American citizens who have committed no crime
> under U.S. law, but may have broken another
> country's law (selling historic Nazi posters on
> Ebay? Germany might have you wiretapped),
> prohibiting the "production, sale or
> distribution of hacking tools", whatever that
> means (would Nmap be illegal?) and require the
> U.S. to pass laws to "force users to provide
> their encryption keys" and the plain text of
> their encrypted files.
Anybody know what the EFF's position on this is?
I don't have much faith in the EFF. They seem to
be *very* selective in who and what they think
qualifies as protected speech and activity.
It doesn't matter who you 'vote' in, they get co-opted by big money and big business. If you get the grassroots support to even do this, why not abolish the type of government we have and setup a more just, people based system. And why not abolish the corporate system while we're at it. Have a real revolution.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I have an idea for a way to fuck the government over with encryption keys.
step one : change key daily. make sure it is at least 30,000 pages printed out
step two : make the government pay for the printing of your key <B>Every<B> Day.
step three : watch as government fills wharehouse after wharehouse with your encryption keys
step four : ???
step five : profit
(Did i mention to use a barly readable font when printing your key?)
This already happens. International law allows for extradition in the case of real crimes.
This treaty will jams all bad laws down on everyone. The logical result is that everyone will have to live by the most restrictive of everyone else's laws. It's like a selector for the worst of breed! How typical of government.
Let's examine some of the things US citizens will lose. Right now, it's not a crime in the US to say nice things about Nazis, sell "memorabilia" or war spoils or post pictures of naked Nazi babes on the internet. These things are crimes in Germany, France and many other countries. Here we consider it futile to use government money to supres speech. In fact, it's considered an explicit right to run presses anonymously, as anonymous speech is an essential part of free speech and speech that is limited in its expression in anyway is not free.
What did I gain for that? Nothing? Oh thanks.
What does everyone else lose? Everyone outside the US will learn how stupid US IP laws are. That's just what Microsoft and other big dumb companies wants. Your right, it does make perfect sense.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Sadly, you already have to go Russia to find a rocket that could get you to Mars. They need the money, but I don't think of Russia as a libertarian haven. It's still a place where government is abused for personal enrichment and is without proper civil law. A government that does not perform its proper functions can still be busy doing a great deal of harm.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Only over my cold dead body will they pry my passwords from me.
No time to read the article (I'm becomming a good /.er) or most of the comments - finals and such - so I apologize if another has said this. One of the cases I read today is the one Yahoo! filed in response to the French ruling [Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme, et al. (CA, 2001)]. It was only a Cal. case, but the court said something very basic which the feds will have trouble with: even if a person in the US does something on the internet which violates laws in another country, so long as that action is protected in the US (such as under the first amendment), US courts cannot enforce any foreign judgement.
Since treaties are subservient to the Constitution, I think selling Nazi posters is gonna remain a US right.
The internet is loosing its freedom.
Not "loosing".
"losing".
One "o".
The Internet "loosing" its freedom would mean something almost the opposite of what you meant to write.
You should see the equipment to get into a locked house sometime. My personal favorite is a shockwave gun that knocks the pins up and into place. There is also the freezy-heaty gun that freezes the pins in an upward position, then heats the lower pins until they fall into position. Neither of these will allow anyone to know they have been hacked. Then there are traditional lock picking techniques, which take longer. In a pinch, you can always just pound down the door with a piece of concrete, or break a window.
They don't want a copy of your house key because they don't need your house key to get in your house. That data is not secure. Even picks for those nice, safe-looking round locks can be had for about 400 dollars. But what they can't do is break strong encryption. If you put a good system on your computer with a well-chosen key, and make sure there isn't a keylogger installed on your keyboard, or a trojan, or a camera pointed at your fingers... Well, OK, there are ways around it. But after they catch you the only way to open that data is in your head. This violates their whole "hit it with something large until it opens" strategy, so they need that key from you.
That's why they're going for your encryption keys, but not your house keys. It's not because encryption keys aren't sacred, but because your house protection is trivial.
The ______ Agenda
Oh boy, emacs will be illegal!!!!
Now I am sad.
I agree, voting doesn't matter in America. As the Merovengian tells Morpheus and crew in Reloaded, Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those with out.
;-)
The only way out is through a type of revolution the prevailing authorities do not expect. Going by THIER laws will get you no where, you must break THIER laws to show the fundumental flaws with in THIER laws.
Sadly, many Americans are so damned lazy, ignorant, and complaisant that as long as we feel "safe" we are willing to give away our freedom to a ever increasing goverment.
Which reminds me of a quite, paraphrased, from Benjamin Franklen, who, when asked by a women what kind of goverment they created he said "A democracy, if you can keep it."
We need to rid ourselves or souless corperations that have more rights than mere mortals do. Companies are not humans, they are run by humans, which means the are inherently IMperfect. To keep those imperfections to a minimum we need goverment to step in and "govern".
Sadly, this will never happen under this or any other administration. Our politicians have been bought and will continue to do the will of there corperate powers.
Revolution, the kind that we had a little over 200 years ago, is the only way we will be able to bring goverment back into balance with the people, and even then, a little revolution here and there would be a good thing to keep any kind of goverment in check.
Though by posting this now at this time, rest assured, if I have not been target already, I have been now but Rumsfeild and crew.
I need to retreat and stock up on some tin foil!
America considers as its right to interfer in the affairs of all countries on the planet, yet refuse everyone else the right to do the opposite.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Politicians are at a loss to know what to do in the face of a world rapidly being transformed by technology, and international communication and commerce; but, in an effort at being seen as "doing something about the problems of today's world" are rushing to pass laws, the consequences of which can neither be foreseen nor easily undone.
And we're the ones who are going to have to live with it.
I agree with you.
But I want to point out that politicians are also citizens, subject to the laws they pass.
Yes, there are exceptions -- the High and Mighty can sometimes evade the law.
But I assume that the majority of politicians have to live with their own laws.
The phrase "we're the ones who are going to have to live with it" should reasonably include most politicians as "us".
-kgj
-kgj
Which, given Ashcroft's history will probably be fine by them....
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
The Ninth goes hand in hand with the Tenth:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words:
The Ninth: Even if we didn't mention them, you have your rights.
The Tenth: If we didn't talk about it, the Feds can't do it.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
The parent post is not "informative." It is wrong. You can use your 5th amendment rights at any time and not just when you are on trial or being interrogated. You can use those rights when you are a witness at someone else's trial. There is no law requiring that you have a perfect memory or one allowing a judge to put you in prison to see if you remember something after enough suffering in jail. Saying something authoritatively does not mean that what was said was true.
and with all the sex on the internet it's waiting for a crime to happen.
As we have seen in the past again and again, the answer to this question is "yes". The Dutch government will bend over, and then ask to have it done to them again.
In one case, a person who had merely visited the USA was accused of trafficking drugs by an anonymous prisoner (who had his sentence reduced thanks to the accusation) and was prompty sent to the US for trial. Effectively this means that as a Dutch citizen, I could suddenly find myself on trial in on the other side of the globe, merely because an unnamed crook has heard of my name. One would expect ones own government to be more caring about its own citizens, but evidently that is not the case here.
I find this situation utterly unacceptable. However, rather than jumping with joy at this reversal, I find it simply another step in the wrong direction.
From the available information, the bad ideas in it came straight from the DOJ representatives who sat in on the conferences at which the treaty was drafted. Did a published article on this for 8wire back in 2001. Unfortunately, 8wire is out of business. From the SecurityFocus article, it appears that everything that was wrong with it back then still is.
Judging by all the anti-American trolls here on Slashdot, you would think that such legislation was only possible in a land corrupted by people like Jack Valenti and John Ashcroft.
By and large, the bad ideas that the EU government is rushing to adopt are MADE IN USA. The DMCA clones (see EU Copyright Directive) that the EU has mandated for adoption by EU nations are a good example. The only purpose is to protect the Hollywood content cartel.
Doesn't it make you proud to be an American?
Tech Public Policy stuff
although President Bush has written a letter urging the treaty's passage
That must be a mistake. You either meant that big US corporations wrote a letter on Bush's behalf, or that Bush sent the European Council a crayon drawing of his dog.
-Colin
It seems to me that ultimately there are only 2 choices: Either all information is free, or it isn't.
I think most of us can agree that eventually WiFi (or something like it) will be so widespread that nobody can actually control the network technologically. Then, the only choices become either a) allow all use, including encryption, or b)DISallow all use, including encryption. There's really no way to prevent people from using strong encryption to access or share whatever data they want, unless we have complete surveillance, a la 1984, or shut down the network entirely, and destroy all the hardware.
It's really like Prohibition - it can't work, because everyone breaks the law - except that a chip fab is harder to hide than a still.
The parent wasn't saying the US was great. The parent was saying that the US would use this treaty to be able to snoop on its citizens without review. And don't say Europe won't cooperate because this exact thing has happened in the past starting with the US-UK agreement or whatever it was that made ECHELON "legal".
Why are you all so scared of being monitored ? The usual reason is that your doing something that you know isn't strictly legal i.e. storing pornography, breaking copyrights, driving slightly over the speed limit. We like to be able to bend the law without anyone noticing but lets face it if you asked anyone who has lost a family member to terrorist acts I'm sure they would happily surrender these minor infractions to know that they're neighbour can't gather the ingredients to build a bomb without being noticed. Why does Big Brother have to have an evil connotation. Many good things can come from being monitored e.g. if your mugged the police can be sent and evidence provided against your attackers. There may be less children abducted, less women raped. I agree the politicians have very self serving interests most of the time however one thing we all have in common is not wanting to be blown up, and if they can crash a plane into the pentagon don't tell me bush isn't just as worried for his family as you are for yours. To truly defeat terrorism we may all have to be willing to allow the government a clearer view of our lives, we just need to be careful to get the balance right. I don't want to be called a terrorist simply because I refuse to hand over the contents of my diary, however if someone knocks on my door after ordering all the parts to make a rocket and asks me what I'm doing and I can justify myself (entering the X-Prize) and sign some forms that give me permission have I really lost any civil liberty ?. IMHO this treaty is a recognition that we need international law we simply need to play our part in helping to shape what form that takes.
we will control the horizontal, we will control the vertical..........and oh yea the encryption keys
I've got a hacking tool...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Because it is WAY To broad. I mean check out dumb laws
ex. "Placing a postage stamp that bears the Queen (or King) upside down is considered treason."
So there are a ton of stupid laws so If you want to monitor someone you just need to sift threw the law books to find some law somewhere where the person is breaking.
As well for the individuals it is near impossible for a individual to know all the laws of their own area, so you try to make your best judgment and look it up if it seems like it could be used for criminal intent.. Now combine it with the rest of the world where there are different morality and cultures. Now that becomes impossible.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
US is a willing violator of International Law and opposes prosecution of criminals who are its citizens. This has happened time and again. So, this international treaty is just a ruse to go behind people in other nations and bust them by paying off poor nations some money.
Double standards? Hell yeah!
Now when they say "cross-boarder", are they referring to the people I rent rooms out to or the snow/skate kind? Is good proofing too much to ask for these days?
for those of you wondering why the American government (bush) badly wants this ratified there your answer also this can be turned 180 degrees and America can use this to observes those who have broken US law but not another nations. It simply works both ways and I don't think they'd mind if the occasional person gets the rights violated in return for there own use of the system.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
when committed intentionally and without right:
I read that to be if you're authorized, the tools are legal.
Many places have no gun rules/laws around schools, it is a criminal offence to bring a gun to a school.
However properly authorized officials such as police are permitted to bring guns to schools.
Properly read I think this is okay.
If it isn't an offense in the US, the US gov can't chase you down and harrass you.
I think this would be abuse of authority or harrassement of some sort.
If it is a crime, currently it isn't all that clear how foreign governments can communicate, and get the information. Add in wildy divergent laws and you end up with people getting away with crimes because of red tape.
Lets take stealing credit card numbers as a hypothetical example. It may be illegal in one country to unlawfully posses this information, and the second it could be illegal to use this information. It might be hard to get the two jurisdictions to determine the legal authorization to release the information to each other and actually do anything. Ideally this treaty will just clear this up to the point where someone could be prosecuted for a crime like this.
All this talk makes me nervous about my rights. Therefore, any Americans should do like I'm going to, and e-mail my senators. If the US Senate doesn't ratify the treaty, then the signature means nothing. We should do something now, as opposed to after they start hauling people off. http://www.senate.gov Go there, find your senators, send some e-mail.
I always route my HTTP connection through an anonymous proxy. And the more I hear about BS like this, the gladder I am that I use proxies. You can get a big list of them from stayinvisible.com . If you're on OS X, there's a shareware called NetShade that puts your connection through a proxy, and has an option to cycle between different proxy servers every 5 seconds. There's another program for Windows by Steganos which I haven't tried, but it looks like it does the same thing.
I seem to recall a law that was being passed in Canada that would ban all "hate literature". Certain passages of the bible were included as well for being anti-gay. So if this bill get's ratified. then would it be illegal here to have an electronic version of the bible on your computer ? This treaty would effectively destroy what little bit of the U.S. Constaitution is left.
so what laws have I broken if I'm selling American lesbian pr0n, through a gateway in Germany, using a proxy in Rome, to a buyer in Mexico, driving a Japanese car, with Chinese tires?
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
"a warrant"
No, it's not that hard to get in many cases, but lately many dubious privacy violating activities seem to be proceeding without them.
At least where a warrant is required, you have a legal representative (of the people) to determine whether it is proper or not - a Judge.
As for the thermal cameras... searching a house with thermal imaging is IMHO still searching the house, and unreasonable should the occupant not be subject to investigation with a proper warrant.
In SOVIET RUSSIA the keys hand YOU over!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The more years go by the more rights and protections we see stripped from us. This law is just one more step in the erosion of those rights. There once was a amendment proposed that would simply state that no treaty or law of any foreign land could strip a citizen of any rights written in the Constitution. If that amendment was in place none of this could happen.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Are you seriously inviting a slashdotting of your server? Do you like pain? Have you tried therapy?!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Would the movie "Kids" qualify as containing "a person appearing to be a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct;"?
If so, would become illegal under this treaty to possess it on any "computer storage medium" (presumably including a DVD).
It is my belief, from reading the treaty text, that the Convention treaty should not be ratified as it stands.
The Convention treaty has a laudable goal. The treaty will allow evidence gathering against, and the eventual prosecution of cyber criminals that act across international borders. The treaty means to stop hacking, the distribution of child-pornography, and many other heinous and destructive offenses. However, while the goal is laudable, the actual treaty is not. The treaty grants institutions of foreign governments the ability to compel surveillance of United States citizens by the government of the United States.
The treaty, in sections sixteen through twenty-one, allows foreign nations to request that the United States government [presumably the FBI] intercept, store, and seize data and/or hardware. The data and/or hardware would then be stored until the foreign government could request it through other channels. Even if the data is never handed over to foreign governments, the idea that they could compel, based on laws not passed by Congress, the invasion of privacy of citizens of the United States is ludicrous.
Section fourteen includes a clause that allows the United States to restrict the offenses that the treaty will apply to. However, any reservations must be submitted before the treaty is signed.
The Convention on Cyber-crime treaty also stifles technical innovation. Due to Articles six and ten, password crackers, port scanners, and various other technologies that are used by both hackers as well as legitimate network administrators would be declared off limits. Articles six and ten would also strengthen the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which I believe is also too broad. This would further restrict technical development.
With some revision, I believe this treaty could work. It has praiseworthy goals, and allows the international prosecution of cyber-crime. With our growing reliance on computers, the United States and many other countries require a treaty that will allow evidence gathering to prosecute criminals across international borders.
While some would say that the Internet does not need international oversight, I disagree. If oversight is not created now, it will be created later - with more force, and as little understanding of the issues involved. If Congress specifies reservations to the evidence gathering and information conveyance sections of the treaty, and requires that foreign governments pay for the evidence-gathering that they request, I believe it might be in the best interests of the United States to ratify the treaty. However, prior to ratification, a black-letter privacy policy should be included to protect the privacy and due process of the citizens of the United States.
If Congress acts with prudence and caution, the Convention treaty will work, to the advantage of people around the globe. If caution is thrown to the wind in favor of appeasing the international community, American civil liberties will be further eroded in the name of National Security.
--Firedrake