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."
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.
That's ok, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, but tell that to the government that's imprisoned you.
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.
The former is a good idea, but it's not there, enamations of penumbras to the contrary. The second has become a defacto 0th amendment of the new Bill of Rights, trumping all others, even though it is ludicrous on its face.
Welcome to the future, where feelings are law and facts are irrelevant.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
What's your stance on Campaign Finance Reform?
What's your stance on the gun control?
What's your stance on the judicial activities which recently overrode state law to grant gay marriage licenses?
If you answered "I'm all for them!" to any of these questions, you have been party to the constant, deliberate erosion of Constitutional rights for the better part of 3 decades. So now you know what it feels like to have someone actively and deliberately trying to turn you into a felon tomorrow, where you weren't one today. And doing so under the guise of 'it's what's best for you'.
Welcome to the world of the libertarian and the conservative.
... 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.
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?
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...
In the case of CFR - an utter violation of the 1st amendment. Not only does it limit speech, it limits the single most important type of speech - political.
Gun control - despite reams and reams of intensely clear writings by the founding fathers, and the clear English reading of the 2nd amendment, we have judges and legislatures turning gun owners into felons everywhere.
In the case of gay marriage - judges overriding WRITTEN LAWS to suit their own political bent is judicial activism. This is explicitly uncontitutional, and was a hugely important issue to the old Federalists (heck, Jefferson too).
We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. And the particular beauty of our constitution is that it works 2 ways. It protects the majority from tyrannizing the minority and it protects the minority from tyrannizing the majority. The above are examples of simply saying 'Eh, in this case, who cares?' and it's been going on for decades.
This particular instance comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with people willing to sign away their rights. Perhaps it'll do some good and wake up the 'UN RULES!' crowd. :/
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.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
I think what Timothy was getting at was the criminality of a _German_ purchasing a Nazi poster should not be imposed upon an _American_. I can't imagine that the German government would waste time trying to prosecute an American on such grounds... in that sense perhaps Timothy was using a little hyperbole.
But let's say for arguements sake that they did. What right does the German government have to impress their mores upon American citizens? (I do not wish to argue about the capitalist, nationalist, imperialist pig-dog Americans doing that to other "poor and defenseless" nations. Any comments related as such will be ignored)
All I'm asking for is "dual criminality" language. As I stated in one of my other comments, I do not wish to see my Constitutional protections (freedoms, call them what you will) "protected" by some itty-bitty clause. As an American, all I have is my Constitutional freedoms... I expect that my government do its damndest to _protect_ them everywhere, even at the U.N.
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.
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.
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.
"Say, why do we have soldiers again?"
"Funny me, I always thought it was to protect our Freedoms(tm)."
We have soldiers to protect the interests of the nation state and in particular the wealthy elite which are the ones that pull its strings and have the most to lose if that nation state isn't protected and doesn't get its way in the world, huge militaries are an especially effective tool for getting your way in the world.
There are times the military defends the ruling elite and coincidentally protects "our Freedoms(tm)" too but its only a coincidence. For example when the U.S. is in imminent danger of invasion by a foreign power, Japan for example might have potentially invaded the U.S. during World War II and the U.S.S.R was obviously a threat to the U.S. during the cold war. The later was kind of a case where the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were mutually threatening to each other though, and they pretty much decimated the third world engaging in proxy wars, you know the U.S.S.R would sponsor brutal socialist guerrillas, the U.S. would sponsor brutal right wing dictators in response. It would have been a somewhat more honest thing for the two to have engaged in a direct shooting war early on so they could have decimated each other and spared the third world from the honor(i.e. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Guatemala, etc).
We also have a lots of soldiers because, at the end of World War II, rather than dismantling the military as we did at the end of World War I we left an overly large military industrial complex(MIC) in place that has, as Eisenhower warned, acquired a life of its own and come to dominate economic and political life in the U.S. Its now kind of an immortal beast, out of control, very focused on transferring wealth from your pocket through taxes and in to the pockets of large corporations and the wealthy elite who are the majority shareholders in them (unless you work for one of them in which case those tax dollars are going in your pockets too though not quite as many dollars as the execs and shareholders are getting). Defense contractors are really about the only form of industry left in the U.S. that isn't going to be completely outsourced to China and India.
Here is a recent interesting example in the Army's new Stryker armored personnel carrier (armored is kind of a misnomer, a Pentagon analyst called it a dune buggy armored in tinfoil):
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair04242004.html
The Stryker is another case, among many, where a Pentagon General advocated a weapons system, helped negotiate the delivery of the lucrative contract to big corporations, General Dynamics and GM this time, at more or less the same time he was negotiating his post retirement career as, you guessed it, a senior VP at General Dynamics with a multimillion dollar compensation package. In this case it was Army Lt. General David K. Heebner who used billions in tax dollars to insure a multimillion dollar executive career and an entry level position in the ruling elite.
There was a brief period after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. the military industrial complex was in serious danger of becoming somewhat irrelevant and going down. Fortunately Saddam came along to play boogie man #1 in the first and second gulf wars.
And of course Osama Bin Laden came along and he is the ultimate boogie man. Well Osama didn't really just come along. He was manufactured by the MIC. They pumped billions of dollars to him, his associates and helped him build what would become Al Queda. This was done of course to fight one of those proxy wars mentioned previously where Osama was a key player in helping the U.S. decimate the Soviet Union by proxy.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo04242004.html
Now that the MIC has found an enemy in Islamic fundamentalism it has an enemy that will keep it in tact and very well funded for probably ever. In watching George W. of late I really do think I've started to see the metho
@de_machina
Your analysis of the application of the Fifth Amendment I believe is correct. At least I know that is what I would do if was faced with such a dilema. :-)
It worked for Reagan, though, and it is possible that he wasn't lying then.
In fact, it is absolutely feasible to forget a long passphrase, especially if you claim that the data is an old archive of obsolete financial records or projections, for example.
I can't see anyone being thrown in jail for inability to remember something that they were never required to remember:
"Yes, the password is so long it was written on a piece of paper, but the paper got lost years ago... I kept the archive because the HDD is large, and on odd chance that the paper will surface one day..."
What do you do then, if the person does not even claim that he ever remembered the passphrase? What exactly would the state accuse him of?
I go to Amsterdam and buy some marijuana in a store (legally)
Unless the situation's changed recently, no you would not have bought that pot legally. You simply won't be prosecuted for possession of (small) amounts of marijuana. Nor will the coffee shop owner be prosecuted for distribution and/or possession, provided he doesnt stock too much and keeps within other guidelines, set by the city council - on whose behalf cases are prosecuted.
Marijuana though is (last i checked) a prohibited (illegal) substance in the NL. If you are involved in cultivation, distribution and/or sale of large enough amounts of it to attract interest of the state police, you will get in trouble and be prosecuted by the state. Note also that you will probably be prosecuted (or at least warned that you will be prosecuted if you do not desist) if you were to regularly, from an establishment, sell even small amounts of marijuana in many other cities and towns in the Netherlands whose councils do not take as liberal a view as the Amsterdam (and other big cities/towns) city council.
Ie, marijuana is illegal in the Netherlands, it is simply that some councils (and now the state too) will not bother to prosecute small-time users and sellers of it, instead they tolerate it.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom, iirc, has been considering delisting marijuana as a controlled class A substance, to list it as class B instead, which in effect would legalise it.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
law
Discrimination law has been twisted INTO this. It is call being PC. There is a fine line between being offended and being discriminated against. So there is 0 tolerance for ANYTHING that that could be POSSIBLEY construed as 'offensive in nature'. I quote that out of the 'laws' where I work. I break one of those 'laws' and I am out of a job. It became a VERY dark place to work with no humor or conversation where I work when we got the visit. We were afraid to say anything to anyone. We didnt know who would be pissed off and drop a dime on us at the HR phone. This is NO vague hunch. I LIVE it everyday. It was not like I was doing anything wrong either. It was also made VERY clear they are watching us. That is just unnerving. I actually have to worry about clicking on the wrong thing on the web. I have to worry that I might say the wrong thing to the wrong person. Every conversation I have must be filtered and sieved for 'bad' things. Its not like I am, or the others who work with me are doing or saying 'bad' things. We just 'have to watch our backs'.
I can see WHY these laws exist. But they have been distored by lawsuits into a very unhappy place. Most places are not looking to be PC. They are afraid of loosing a lawsuit...
My favorite is swear words. I consider swearing to be just that swearing. EVEN if you use 'substitute words'. I learned this from a 3 year old. I did something he came over and called me a 'big stinky poopie head'. Now he didnt know the words to use but he KNEW what meaning he wanted to get across. I was cussed out by a 3 year old. As adults we make the same substituions so we do not 'offend' anyone. Why bother to use substute words? We do not want to 'rock the boat', or 'make someone mad', so we do that. To stop swearing you have to stop using even substitue words or you will end up using the real thing again.
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!
Rubberhose
Saying "I can't recall" will earn you an interminate stay in the county jug until your memory improves dramatically.
Absolutely untrue. Witnesses are often unable to recall things. How long did Reagan end up in jail for his inability to recall facts about what happened during Iran-Contra? Are you telling me that you've never forgotten a password, encryption key, or PIN? They can't jail people for not being able to remember things. That's the very kind of torture and intimidation to which you allude in your own posting.
The privelege against self-incrimination can be invoked only during interrogation and at trial.
When the police are shining a bright light in your eyes and asking what the encryption key is to your hard drive, what is that, if not an interrogation? Have you heard of Miranda rights? The very first one is the right to remain silent. The Fifth Amendment is not limited solely to interrogations and trials in which you are a defendent. A judge cannot force you to testify against yourself in a pre-trial hearing, can he? If you witnessed bank robbery, the court cannot compel you to reveal that you were buying heroin when you saw it -- even though you are not the one on trial.
But it does not protect you from bring compelled to provide fingerprint and DNA samples, surrender your private correspondence, account books and ledgers, etc.
Physical evidence is not the same as testimony. The courts can make you turn over your hard drive, but they can't make you reveal them the encryption key. They can make you turn over your personal correspondence, but they cannot make you translate it into English for them.
If you EVER get arrested, detained, questioned, etc., do yourself a huge favor and get an attorney before saying anything. Remember, YANAL.
the whole problem with this ammendment is in one word... and it's been taken to the supreme court based upon this one word, "Unreasonable." Whether the intent of the founding fathers to allow officers of the law to have the measure of judgement aptly termed "Probable cause." Whether one calls this eroding of privacy laws, or a tool of enforcement included for in the constitution is solely upon the purpose of that one word.
For all it's merits, the bill of rights is sufficiently vague to allow for such qualifications. The tenth amendment has basically lost all meaning since potentially unconstitutional laws are passed en-masse at the federal level in the back corners of appropriations bills and the like, and are rarely challenged, but oft enacted.
Also, the privacy of individuals is surely not guaranteed, considering one can purchase camera systems to view via thermal methods, bypassing such trivial bullwarks such as "walls" or "window shades." These devices can be used by citizens or law enforcement officials without need for warrant or even probable cause. The same goes for other "pro-active" law enforcement surveilance techniques (ala: echelon etc.)