[Ecommerce] Should Senate approve cybercrime treaty?

[Jeff Williams]

Jamie and all,

  It may be useful for this forums subscribers to review this closely,

  I and our members have reviewed this proposed treaty and subsequent
proposed supporting legislation, and do not support it on it's merits.

============================================================

http://www.politechbot.com/2004/06/28/cybercrime-treaty/

ollpwing is the Free Congress Foundation's commentary.

COMMENTARY: CYBERCRIME TREATY:

DICK LUGAR DOES IT AGAIN

Editor's Note: Defenders of our Constitutional liberties should demand
that no Senate floor action be taken on the Cybercrime Treaty until a
truly balanced hearing has been held in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and there have been hearings in the Judiciary and Commerce
Committee hearings too. We need to speak up now! Otherwise this treaty
Fwil be fast-tracked to the floor.

It's time conservatives blow the whistle on a compulsive speed demon:
Senator Richard Lugar.

Senator Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was
anxious to send the Law of the Sea Treaty to the President's desk.
President Reagan scuttled participation in the treaty in 1982 only to
have it reemerge during the Clinton era. That attempt died too, but it
is now back.

Sector Lugar's hearing on the treaty was stacked in favor of its
proponents. Dr. Peter Leitner, author of Reforming the Law of the Sea
Treaty, one of its critics, called before the hearing volunteering to
testify only to be told politely to forget it.

The reason this treaty has not hit the President's desk is because
concerned conservatives including Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Paul
Weyrich, and Phyllis Schlafly blew the whistle.

Hearings exploring the ramifications of the LOST were held by the
Senate's Environment & Public Works, Armed Services, and Select
Intelligence committees. Probing questioning exposed the treaty's
troubling provisions such as its extension into airspace. It's a treaty
that looks good at first blush but its attractiveness wilts under
intense scrutiny.

Now Senator Lugar is trying to speed another treaty through his
committee.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on June 17 to
examine the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime and several
other treaties. "Examine" is not really the proper word. It was a
cheerleading session in which, similar to LOST, the expert testimony all
came from treaty proponents representing government agencies including
the State Department whose personnel are notorious for hawking such
agreements with no serious regard for American sovereignty.

Senator Lugar argued that "prompt ratification" was indeed needed to
ensure that the United States would be able to advance "security" and be
safe from cybercrime. The representatives who testified before the
committee last Thursday made a great point of mentioning the information
that we could obtain from other countries, ignoring the obvious downside
that other countries could manipulate this law to obtain vital
information from our country.

In Senator Lugar's rush to have the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
speed the treaties to the Senate floor in the hope that they would then
be rushed to the desk of President Bush, some very important concerns
were not voiced in debate.

Here's one. If the United States Senate ratified the treaty, our law
enforcement agencies would be obliged to assist foreign law enforcement
in investigating activities that may not constitute a crime in our
country. There is a clause permitting exemptions for "political
offenses" which are undefined, but the Bush Administration has failed to
define what they will be and the fact is that the next administration
could have a very different definition.

This treaty should be of great concern to pro-family organizations,
particularly given the interest that Europeans have in prosecuting
so-called "hate" crimes and the fact that virtually all political
organizations use the Internet. Is it unreasonable to think that our law
enforcement officials may be called to monitor the e-mail communications
between American and European pro-family groups in order to help gather
evidence for European law officials? After all, because YAHOO USA ad
made its site available in France -- as it does to many other countries
too -- it found itself facing prosecution from French authorities
because one of the sites it offered had Nazi memorabilia for sale.

Obviously, this treaty could one day be used to have United States law
enforcement tackle legitimate refugee and human rights organizations. Is
it unthinkable that a government such as Sudan might try to use a
friendly signatory country, based on trumped up charges, to obtain
information based on e-mail communications about refugees actively
opposed to the government's persecution of Christian minorities? It's a
question that needs serious exploration now, not after we have signed
the treaty.

Right now, the only countries that have ratified the treaty are Albania,
Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, and Romania. Currently, their
governments appear to be stable. But is it inconceivable that a few
years from now a fascist or communist dictatorship might be at the helm
of one of these countries, forcing our law enforcement agencies in
effect to become accomplices in state-directed crimes against their
people?

Furthermore, after the initial round of CE countries ratify the
Cybercrime Treaty, other countries such as China and Saudi Arabia would
be eligible to join.

Given that European countries have hate crime provisions on their books,
our participation in this treaty could lead to pro-family groups being
put under European surveillance, particularly if they communicate with
sister organizations in Europe via e-mail and phone calls.

Another significant concern is that Article 14 of the Convention on
Cybercrime would require countries to place law into effect that would
require disclosure of decryption keys. This requirement runs afoul of
the Bill of Rights with its provision protecting the right of
individuals to avoid self-incrimination. Moreover, it is troubling from
the standpoint of national security because it might assist foreign
governments in obtaining sensitive information.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center in a statement submitted to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated the Convention on
Cybercrime contains "A significant number of provisions [that] grant
sweeping investigative powers of computer search and seizure and
government surveillance of voice, e-mail, and data communications in the
interests of law enforcement agencies, but are not counterbalanced by
accompanying protections of individual rights or limit on government's
use of these powers."

At the very least, the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees should
hold hearings on this treaty to seriously examine its implications and
wehther the Council of Europe's approach on cybercrime, as expressed by
this treaty, is truly best for our country's interest. Senator Lugar
should ensure that both sides are able to testify before the Foreign
Relations Committee.

The fact that this treaty is controversial even in Europe should send a
warning to conservative defenders of our Constitutional liberties and to
our nation's lawmakers that this treaty should not be Fedexed to
President Bush's desk.

Senator Lugar has it wrong. The Senate is a deliberative body, charged
with providing thorough consideration of international agreements such
as the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Cybercrime Treaty. None other than
George Washington cautioned against entangling alliances. Unfortunately,
Senator Lugar seems only all too anxious to have our country become
tangled up in the fine print. Somebody needs to raise a STOP sign on
that committee to make sure it does a proper job.

Steve Lilienthal is Director of the Center for Privacy & Technology
Policy at the Free Congress Foundation.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827