"world's worst Internet law."

[Daniel ~]

Written by Daniel
Tuesday, 08 August 2006
Senate OKs Controversial Internet Treaty


AUGUST 7, 2006 | The U.S. Senate Friday ratified an international treaty designed to ease investigation of cybercrime, but U.S. civil liberties groups say that signing the pact is a big mistake.

The Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, which began circulating in 2001, has been adopted by 41 other countries, including most of Europe as well as Canada and Japan. It is designed to harmonize laws on computer crime, which differ from country to country.

Countries that sign the treaty agree to establish some common laws against criminal behavior online, such as attacks on computer networks, terrorist tactics, and exploitation of children. The language of the treaty is very broad and doesn't require the U.S. to write any new cybercrime laws.

Front Page

[Daniel ~]

No one wishes to comment? Good that's how "They" like it! ":O}

[Gizmo]

41 other countries are part of the pact, including most of Europe, Canada, and Japan. Surely we should be following suit? After all, we are constantly hearing about how this or that is being done in the more 'enlighted' European countries. Why should this be any different?

[noob]

Good thought - bad law.

International laws, with police investigating and cooperating internationally are good,
laws broken in one country being investigated in another country that its legal - bad

countries specifically allowing certain practices to gather revinue, however they like with no way or international law to back up anyone - bad.

If there was an international standard law that all countries had to adhere to, and all police agencies cooperated, this would be an extremly good treaty. That a country that imposes laws against basic freedoms could ask a country that doesn't to investigate its own citizens is very bad. Whether it was intended that way or not, thats how it would get abused, just like everything else.

[Gizmo]

Apparently, this treaty allows for a provision of 'dual criminality'. Any country that signs the treaty may stipulate this provision, which requires that the subject of investigation be a crime both in the country requesting the investigation AND the country performing the investigation. If the U.S. were to stipulate this provision when signing the treaty, the U.S. would not, for example, be able to require Sweden to invistigate a violation of the DMCA, since Sweden's laws regarding such thing are much less lax than ours. The U.S. COULD however, require Swedish assistance in a murder investigation, because the crime is illegal in both countries. It would work the other way as well; China couldn't require the FBI to find someone who posted critical comments of the Chinese government, because such a thing is not illegal here.

The Bush administration, however, doesn't WANT this stipulation in the treaty, presumably because, among other things, it wouldn't allow us to enforce the DMCA in other countries.

I do not know how many of the current signatories (if any) have made the stipulation when signing.

[noob]

That provision would be a good one to have.

I would like to think that no matter where you run, you can be caught, tried, and sentenced for your crime.

But as some countries laws are barbaric, living in a reasonable country (i.e. Sweden) and not being pestered by unrelenting monolithic repressive laws, should be required by the treaty. "Dual criminality" should definately be a large part of it. As well as stipulating certain 'cyberlaws' which are required by the country signing, e.g. fraud, spammers, scams, and other less savory occupations.

[Daniel ~]

Corporations have to have a way to assert their rights internationally, how else to kill the competition! Now they have a loose framework upon which to hang their planned oppression. More wonderful new laws will follow! In My humble opinion of course! ":O}

[noob]

I'm trying to look on the bright side here.

While corporations can buy justice internationally, all they had to do was move overseas to escape justice.

Now if that provision was accepted and signed, they couldn't just do that so easily. Means the little person could do what the corporations are already doing.

Yes they may be able to now put a thin threadbare cloak of legality on what they already do, but it wouldn't stop them either way. All this means is that the little guy may be able to do the same back

[Daniel ~]

But it's the little guy everyone is mad at! LOL

[Kaitain]

The idea is a good one, but like everything our of the EU CoE, it assumes everyone's geared up for European federalisation to the same extent as the "twelve stars".

Probably a better start would've been to establish an international accord on what exactly constitutes: copyright infringement, cybercrime, illegal opinion etc, and what elements of free speech and freedom of content should be protected in law. This would then have led more naturally onto legislation to harmonise investigatory powers, rather than trying to force many nations to persue each others' laws.

[Daniel ~]

Right now I think legislatures are benefiting from near universal ignorance of anything cyber, much easier to agree on the important things! ...they just know it NEEDS to be controlled....and they are just the empty pockets to do it!! That way no they know gets hurt!":O}