U.S. Senate Ratifies Cybercrime Treaty

espo812 writes "A story from Washingtonpost.com says, 'The Senate has ratified a treaty under which the United States will join more than 40 other countries, mainly from Europe, in fighting crimes committed via the Internet.' Ars Technica says it's the 'World's Worst Internet Law.'" From the Ars story: "According to the EFF, 'The treaty requires that the U.S. government help enforce other countries' 'cybercrime' laws--even if the act being prosecuted is not illegal in the United States. That means that countries that have laws limiting free speech on the Net could oblige the F.B.I. to uncover the identities of anonymous U.S. critics, or monitor their communications on behalf of foreign governments. American ISPs would be obliged to obey other jurisdictions' requests to log their users' behavior without due process, or compensation.;"

Comments

I've Had It!

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

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

Re:I've Had It!

[packeteer]

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

Re:I've Had It!

[packeteer]

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

Re:I've Had It!

[werewolf1031]

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

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

Well, the term "worst" depends upon whether

[ScrewMaster]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

anoNet is a full IP network with many users, an IRC network, wiki, SILC, email, web, PGP, and much much more. For more information: http://www.anonet.org/ or http://anonetnfo.brinkster.net/

Hmm...

[Poromenos1]

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

Clearly a Constitutional Issue

[vodkamattvt]

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

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

[mark_hill97]

Indeed, the framers intended for the Congress to make law, not enforce it. That is left up to our executive branch. Well, shit we are screwed 2 ways there as the NSA case has already shown us. Fortunately our courts are not so easily bought, or so we hope. The balance of power is very skewed in this and finding a way out of this treaty may prove dificult.

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

[jlowery]

Interesting information from Wikipedia:

"The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has nonetheless taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_law_of _the_United_States

AFAIK, the constitutionality of any treaty has yet to be tested. As in matters of military law, SCOPUS might be very reticent to take on a treaty case involving international agreements.

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

[TFGeditor]

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

Given these safeguards, fears of political persecutions seem overblown, as do concerns that these requests will simply be issued directly from Beijing (which is not a signatory) to Comcast HQ without court oversight.

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

[jaelle]

My, you are a trusting soul, aren't you?

Remember Guantanamo? Our illustrious leaders might "choose" not to enforce unconstitutional requests...but they don't *have* to. That's what makes it obscenely scary. They're more likely to enforce it selectively, as power is *always* wont to do.

Re:Clearly a Constitutional Issue

[eionmac]

Then why is the exact reverse, folk,who committed no crime under UK law in the UK. have been extradited to USA for a supposed crime under USA laws?

You cannot have it both ways.

We are waiting for USA to ratify the extradition treaty under which they extradited the UK folk on, so we in UK can nail over 430 persons in USA who financed terrorism on UK soil.

It's like Wikipedia...

[RyanFenton]

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

Can treaties be considered unconstitutional? It seems to me that the whole point of the constitution was to limit what laws could be made, with anything not permitted prohibited in the light of the inherent rights of mankind. This unlimited law-by-treaty seems rather destructive to the whole point of the constitution.

Ryan Fenton

Antarctica!

[The MAZZTer]

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

Re:Antarctica!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Sigh, Slashdot editors win again!

[Lost Found]

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

Perhaps they should make it an international Internet crime to post stories without checking even the most basic facts (ie, first two paragraphs of the document you link to).

All the laws in the world...

[MindPrison]

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

Aka - you don't stand a chance in HELL to police the internet. Anyone who think so ought to get their brain examined.

Data is like fluids, you can't filter everything - it's bound to get in everywhere at some time. And the number of data you'd have to filter is increasing with such a speed that there's no chance that ANY law system would be able to hire enough personnel or create software to control it all.

Want a real life example? Take spam - you can't control that either, and we have laws on it already almost EVERYWHERE - but does it work? Didn't work 10 years ago, not 5 years ago - doesn't work today, won't work in the future. Fluids will get in everywhere anywhere anytime.

Best way to filter is utilizing the individuals using the computers, mind filtering --> the no 1. filter in this world. The very same filter can also be used to FIND the content you really want rather than looking trough heaps of endless useless information (spam).

Even if they DID control the net (or the way we access the net) they would be unable to do so - because information always finds a way just like fluid, another net - wireless or by wire...doesn't matter. You can't stop the flow of information now, way too late! And thank goodness for that.

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

[AlphaWolf_HK]

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

The WIPO and WTO actually call for laws much more strict than what the US has. Those "super DMCA" laws that other countries have are really just falling inline with what these treaties ask for, and the US is not at all to blame for them.

The Nation State....

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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

Think about it. When companies the size of GE and Microsoft run into hassle with different laws in different jurisdictions, they just lobby for harmonisation. And that's what they've gotten. I expect to shortly have what rights I have on the internet reduced to the abysmal level of those living in the US and UK, and what the hell, Iran. All in aid of the children or rich yuppies or whatever. This is why you need proportional representation.

Re:The Nation State....

[SonicSpike]

This is exactly why government should be limited!

Government without the power to legislate and/or regulate the markets, cannot be used as a tool of special interests to legislate/regulate in their favor. This is one of the main principles behind libertarianism. If the government doesn't interfere in the marketplace, then it can't give anyone a government-granted advantage.

And... it works both ways.

[MROD]

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

Even worse, in the U.K. they could be extradited without the evidence even having to be disclosed to a judge or anyone else due to a treaty (supposedly to be only for terrorist cases but recently used on a fraud charge) with the U.S.A. which the U.K. has ratified but the U.S.A. has refused to. Now, that's scary!

I can see it now...

[The Real Toad King]

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

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

VOTE the BASTARDS OUT!

[RLiegh]

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

Yeah, Ars Technica actually thinks this is GOOD

[ToastyKen]

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

Indeed. The Ars Technica article put "World's Worst Internet Law" in quotes for a reason. In fact, it flat out DISAGREES with EFF, even, and says that, "Given these safeguards, fears of political persecutions seem overblown," and that "the Convention provides enough safeguards to prevent the worst kinds of abuse, and additional protocols can always be negotiated if problems become insurmountable."

The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rights

[ToastyKen]

Yes, I'm not new here, but people need to RTFM, including the submitter. From the Ars article, just a little further than halfway down:

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

Re:Not lawful, is it?

[thesandtiger]

Let's make it even more scary...

RandomTotaliarianGovernmentX declares that avowing oneself - publically - to be a homosexual is a crime.

American goes on craigslist and says he wants to hook up for some play. Some girl decides she wants to try her hand with another girl.

Enter the US State Dept. which contacts RTGX and says "Hey, you know how we have those sanctions on you? We'll drop 'em if you agree to insist that we extradite all the publically avowed homosexuals to you..."

Think it's crazy? They cane you for spitting in Singapore...

Re:Not lawful, is it?

[tsotha]

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

When you thought it could get no worse...

[R4ZORJ4CK]

This issue hits home with me a great deal as I have been bagged, tagged, and am currently under investigation by the FBI for cybercrime. As such I've become all too familiar with the FBI's methods and cyber-crime infrastructure.

Following 9/11 the US government, as we all know, molded the Patriotic Act and the Homeland Security Act to their needs. These later kick started the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board in to high gear. In 2003 the FBI formed Computer Intrusion Squads or Computer Hacking & Intrusion Prevention Squads. The US government has cleverly nicked these as CHIP or CHIPS units (I would have prefered Eric Estrada knocking on my door!). This spread like wild-fire and prompted the FBI to form CHIPS teams in all major cities. I was investigated and arrested by the CHIPS.

This new treaty/pact now allows the FBI to become likened to an international force much like their cousins the CIA. Allowing the foreign governments with their policies to infiltrate our country is a small price to pay for extending the reach and power of the FBI and the US government in general. Ofcourse this is at the expense of not only our rights as Americans but the common person on a global scale. Hmmmm.... can anyone say 'world domination'?

Certainly all the government in all the world cannot monitor all the data in all the world. However, many people will suffer needlessly for such petty crimes as reading email without permission along with the dangerous hardcore hackers. It's almost like spending 5 years for smoking marijuana (I don't smoke).

I am certainly disgusted and our government continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

All those bad other countries

[Britz]

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

Oh wait, since torture is illegal in the US, maybe those countries can be of use after all. Better not get our agents in legal trouble. What countries are those anyways? Are they US allies in the fight against terror and for a free and democratic world, like Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Columbia or rather evil countries like Venezuela and France?

Obvious Why They Did It

[Master of Transhuman]

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

Obvious.

Don't know why they didn't think of this before - outside of the known use of the Echelon system by each country that is a part of it to allow other countries to spy on their citizens and share the info. The NSA doesn't spy on us (well, supposedly they didn't USED to!), they just let Britain do it and tell them about it.

They just extended the principle with this treaty.

Fortunately our courts are not so easily bought

[dpilot]

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

"From the article: '...researchers found, for instance, that "judicial nominations" have consumed steadily more Congressional attention between 1997 and 2004. "

As they say, this too, shall pass.

Not for long, though

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Even worse, in the U.K. they could be extradited without the evidence even having to be disclosed to a judge or anyone else due to a treaty (supposedly to be only for terrorist cases but recently used on a fraud charge) with the U.S.A. which the U.K. has ratified but the U.S.A. has refused to. Now, that's scary!

Not for long, I think. In fact, the whole post-9/11 draconian government thing is rapidly dying in the UK, Tony Blair just doesn't realise it yet (or at least doesn't admit to realising it in public).

Yes, there was the recent case of three banking executives who were transferred to the US under dubious circumstances. However, that caused a huge political storm, because the "anti-terror" legislation was clearly being used for something that had nothing to do with safeguarding the land from terrorists. In this case, I suspect that either the US will ratify the treaty and agree the reverse as well very soon, or the UK government will be forced to pull out.

It's the same story elsewhere. Just this week, Walter Wolfgang, the long-standing Labour party member removed by heavies from last year's party conference for daring to heckle Jack Straw over the war on Iraq and then denied re-entry under anti-terror laws(!), was elected by the party membership to their national governing body. Not only does he get to speak at the next conference as a result, it seems he's guaranteed the chance to do so from the same platform as Blair et al.

ID cards and the National Identity Register... Ah, yes, New Labour's greatest threat. Except, of course, that even those people who would like to be involved with it as a lucrative business opportunity are openly questioning whether the government's scheme can even be implemented, never mind bring the claimed benefits. Both the significant opposition parties in England oppose the scheme. The Information Commissioner (our quasi-independent guardian of data protection and freedom of information issues) has issued some of his most damning comments ever on the subject, and ruled against the government several times on information disclosure issues. The timetables are obviously slipping badly, but no-one will admit how badly. The costs are huge, but no-one will disclose how huge. Sooner or later, the whole illusory stack of cards is going to collapse, and all Tony Blair's big "it's be a centrepiece in our next election manifesto" rhetoric is doing is digging his successor's grave early.

Likewise, a bill described as "Blair's (latest) enabling act" because of its attempt to reduce Parliament to pretty much a rubber stamp was quietly all but dropped a few weeks ago.

The government has been ruled against yet again in the past few days over the whole restraining order/detention without trial thing. This is one of those awkward issues: it's a good bet that a high proportion of the people subject to restraining orders really are nasty bits of work, but I think the principle of freedom from arbitrary detention transcends the importance of removing some liberties from a small number of individuals who may or may not pose some level of threat. It would be far better, if the government really has enough good intelligence to believe these people pose a current threat to our security, that the government should bring charges against them in a suitable court of law and make its case properly. In any case, one of the most senior judges in our land has now said outright that if the Home Secretary wants to impose this sort of thing, he's had ample time to consult Parliament since some of these suspects came to light, and therefore he can't just award himself new powers without scrutiny to do as he sees fit. (This on top of one of the most damning judgements in recent legal history from the High Court during the previous round of the case, which pulled few punches as far as telling the government it was way out of line.)

Personally, I increasingly think this is Gordon Brown setting Tony Blair up to take the fall for al

Re:The treaty explicitly allows us to preserve rig

[the_womble]

may refuse

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

One world order

[nurb432]

Phfft.

Too bad there are few places you can go to to escape this 'melding' of the worlds governments to the least common denominator.

Between things like this and the WTO, a independent country will no longer h ave any sovereign rights at all.

And before you say anything about being hypocritical, i don't care who's law 'wins', Its wrong. just wrong, even if its mine.

Re:I've Had It! ME TOO!

[callingalloldhippies]

Yes, it will get you labeled! We wore many labels in the 60's and 70's but we stood up, shouted from every venue we could.

We stopped a war. oh! hell! I've posted this a dozen times on /. Women no longer die from back alley abortions, We ended segregation. We marched, we even laid down our lives. We were called traitors, but we recognized wrong and fought for right.

We did not have the tools you have now. We did not have access to the Freedom of Information Act. We did not have access to instant communications world wide.

You 'write' the programs (code),the software these governments use. They don't create it..you do! Most of them have no clue until you give them the tools to subvert the principles they take away from 'the people',via the stealth methods that the general public is totally unaware of.

Remember T. Square and the ingenuity the common people and students used (old fashioned fax machines) to get the TRUTH out to the world.

The power to replace the checks and balances lays in your hands. Open Source isn't under govt. control. Look how the US govt. fought PGP but they didn't kill it.

I've confesssed in this forum before, to being a 'real' old hippy, (and again, I reiterate: we DID support OUR troops..just not an ilegal war) and I can't do what you all can do. I can only keep believing that you all hold the future of this planet and it's survival (politically and ecologically)in your hands now. I shudder with fear that apathy and greed have over powered 'rightous indignation, and outrage'!

O.K., I'll go back to lurking and keep on hopeing Right is Might and some of you are, indeed, out-thinking and taking back the rights of the people with the same slealth they have used to strip us of our ability to utilize those check and balances we have already lost.