United States' Sovereignty Threatened With Cybercrime Treaty

[Zeb_Carter]

FYI...

United States' Sovereignty Threatened With Cybercrime Treaty

Aug 11, 2006
By Matthew Dailey

Before they headed off to their August recess, the Senate ratified the Council of Europe's Cybercrime Treaty, a treaty that threatens the sovereignty of the United States.

The Cybercrime Treaty is the first international treaty seeking to address Internet crimes by harmonizing national laws, improving investigative techniques and increasing cooperation among nations, the Washington Post reported.

Senate leaders paint the treaty as an effective tool to battle cyber crime that crosses national borders while being in accordance with all U.S. constitutional protections.

On a closer look, the Cybercrime Treaty will erode Americans' online privacy. Former Congressman Bob Barr states that the treaty not only covers traditional cybercrimes, but "covers any activities considered a crime by any signatory country that simply involves the use of a computer somewhere along the line." Barr explains, "if the law enforcement officials in Croatia are investigating activities in their country that they consider criminal - political speech, or possession of a firearm, for example - they can now demand of U.S. law enforcement that it collect and turn over to them information they might demand which they allege involves a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding that U.S. citizen has done nothing deemed a crime under U.S. law."

What is most troubling about the Cybercrime Treaty is it will make Americans subject to laws from a foreign country, without any change to U.S. law. Danny O'Brien, an activist coordinator with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, states, "Our primary concern is that there's no dual criminality within the mutual assistance provisions. The U.S. is now obliged to investigate and monitor French Internet crimes, say, and France is obliged to obey America's request to spy on its citizens, for instance - even if those citizens are under no suspicion for crimes on the statute books of their own country."

 

[The_Darkness]

Only if said crimes involve a person of the nation that holds such acts or thoughts as criminal.

This has actually been in place for years, almost since the birth of the internet, but they're just clearing a few hurdles and making it easier for INTERPOL to play a litlte nicer with organizations like the FBI's Cyber Crimes Division.

No threat to sovereignty at all, just making sure people aren't using MS Instant Messnager to plan out terrorist attacks.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Only if said crimes involve a person of the nation that holds such acts or thoughts as criminal.

This has actually been in place for years, almost since the birth of the internet, but they're just clearing a few hurdles and making it easier for INTERPOL to play a litlte nicer with organizations like the FBI's Cyber Crimes Division.

No threat to sovereignty at all, just making sure people aren't using MS Instant Messnager to plan out terrorist attacks.

Sure, that's what they tell you.

 

[The_Darkness]

Sure, that's what they tell you.

Yeah, but they've also told us that they've been monitoring all e-mail communication that crosses a US sever for about the last decade and a half.

Just be thankful it's not former East Germany.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Historically, under the present administration, almost all "good" intentioned regulation has taken on another "face" later on. When Bush said in a speech the other day, "Trust me." I take him at his word. I DO trust him to twist the laws and the constitution any way he pleases for his own purposes and those of him satanic cohorts.

 

[The_Darkness]

Historically, under the present administration, almost all "good" intentioned regulation has taken on another "face" later on. When Bush said in a speech the other day, "Trust me." I take him at his word. I DO trust him to twist the laws and the constitution any way he pleases for his own purposes and those of him satanic cohorts.

Yeah, but he and almost his entire administration will be out of there in 2.5 years. To be replaced by someone as equally as two-faced, I'm sure....

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Yeah, but he and almost his entire administration will be out of there in 2.5 years. To be replaced by someone as equally as two-faced, I'm sure....

True he and the rest of the criminals will in the unemployment line in January 2009. We can hope the next administration won't be quite as bad and place at least a tiny bit of faith in the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

 

[The_Darkness]

True he and the rest of the criminals will in the unemployment line in January 2009. We can hope the next administration won't be quite as bad and place at least a tiny bit of faith in the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

No matter how it turns out, it'll either be an interesting election or a landslide...and probably not in the favor that any of us want.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

No matter how it turns out, it'll either be an interesting election or a landslide...and probably not in the favor that any of us want.

The thing that has bothered me most of my life is this: The Republican Party bills itself and "The Party of Lincoln." Everything I know about Abe Lincoln tells me he's turning over in his grave at the bullshit going on.

 

[The_Darkness]

The thing that has bothered me most of my life is this: The Republican Party bills itself and "The Party of Lincoln." Everything I know about Abe Lincoln tells me he's turning over in his grave at the bullshit going on.

I have no doubt of that. I would suggest a total house cleaning is what is needed, on all sides of the table in all areas of elected government.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I have no doubt of that. I would suggest a total house cleaning is what is needed, on all sides of the table in all areas of elected government.

The problem is even that won't work at this point. Bush has tipped the scales of the Supreme Court in the direction of less personal in the name of God's Morality.

Who decides what the Constitution mean? The Supreme Court.

 

[The_Darkness]

The problem is even that won't work at this point. Bush has tipped the scales of the Supreme Court in the direction of less personal in the name of God's Morality.

Who decides what the Constitution mean? The Supreme Court.

True enough.

 

[TheEarl]

No opinion on the law itself, as I don't know enough about it, but I found this amusing:

Danny O'Brien, an activist coordinator with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, states, "Our primary concern is that there's no dual criminality within the mutual assistance provisions. The U.S. is now obliged to investigate and monitor French Internet crimes, say, and France is obliged to obey America's request to spy on its citizens, for instance - even if those citizens are under no suspicion for crimes on the statute books of their own country."

So, that would be like the extradition treaty between the UK and the US that the US hasn't ratified yet, meaning that you can extradite our citizens, but we can't extradite yours? The treaty that was supposed to be used for terrorists, but is now being used to extradite three bankers who have committed no crime under English law and who have been arrested for something that they knew full well wasn't a crime under the law that applied to them?

</pet peeve>

The Earl

 

[gauchecritic]

No opinion on the law itself, as I don't know enough about it, but I found this amusing:
So, that would be like the extradition treaty between the UK and the US that the US hasn't ratified yet, meaning that you can extradite our citizens, but we can't extradite yours? The treaty that was supposed to be used for terrorists, but is now being used to extradite three bankers who have committed no crime under English law and who have been arrested for something that they knew full well wasn't a crime under the law that applied to them?

</pet peeve>

The Earl

Commie

 

[TheEarl]

Commie

Thatcherite.

The Earl

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Maybe the real problem here is we have lost control. In a free society there is an inherant understanding that the society has the right to choose those civil and human rights in the name of public safety. For instance, I could drive 100 mph on the hiway, but I know I would get a speeding ticket because public traffic safety has been determined to be more important to society in general than my own right to drive unsafely. That is both understood and supported.

On the other hand, we are in an era where folks have placed themselves above society in determining which rights we will set aside in the name of Law Enforcement, Anti-Terrorism and so on. The big problem is, those folks don't really think things through before they pounce.

This Treaty is just another ill concieved plan by those who want to protect us from ourselves at the expense of those rights guaranteed us by the U.S. Constitution. Irritates me.

 

[cantdog]

The more international, the less say you have. Locally, I'm one of a few thousand people; my voice may be heard. But nationally? There's hundreds of millions of us. My voice doesn't count for much, but I have learned, somewhat, over the years, to amplify its effect a bit.

In a pool of thousands of millions, the majority of whom don't use my language and will never even hear me? The corporate power structures have the say. All the rest of us will be able to say-- is no.

You can still speak, and you should. Amplify it with print, put it where it will be seen.

And at any time, you can always say no. I detest hearing people say they have no choice. You always have a choice. If enough people just put their hands in their pockets and tell them no, then whatever it is will just not happen. They can issue their orders, they can write their laws, but any of us can say no.

At what point do you think you will have to say that no?