
So, if China wants to censure criticism of their government, the FBI will stop US citizens from criticizing China’s government because we have to enforce their law here? What about porn? One country has laws against it on the net, so is this how ultra-conservatives end it here? Then if the US government pressures a foreign country to enact a law against something it could never get outlawed here, does this law suddenly allow it to be enforced here? Is enactment of a non-net version next?
Totalitarianism let in through the back door. Orwell simply wasn’t thinking big enough!
The World’s Worst Internet Laws Sneaking Through the Senate
The Convention on Cybercrime is a sweeping treaty that has been waiting in the wings of the Senate for nearly three years. Now the administration is putting pressure on the Senate to ratify it in the next two days. If it does, it would mean the U.S. would enforce not just our own, but the rest of the world’s bad Net laws. Call your Senator now, and ask them to hold its ratification.
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 jurisdiction’s requests to log their users’ behavior without due process, or compensation.
The treaty came into force last year on the international front, but not in the US, where it needs to be ratified by Congress first. So far, ratification has been blocked thanks to a “hold” placed by conservative lawmakers. But Republican senators this week are now being heavily pressured by the administration to drop their objections, and let it fly.
Ratifying the Cybercrime treaty would introduce not just one bad Internet law into America’s lawbooks, but invite the enforcement of all the world’s worst Internet laws. Call your senators now, and tell them to hold this invasive treaty at bay.
Come on, conservatives. How do you justify your president wanting this?












I’m high maintenance, we should just worship one another from afar, Joshua.
What smells the worst about this is that America has been on a roll ignoring international treaties like they were bad diet advice. Why the big effort to comply with this one? Who is the real beneficiary, and why?
IMNSHO, this is only yet another attempt to kill the independent internet. The powers that be see us exchanging information freely, and it scares them shitless.
Could people please read the treaty first, instead of quoting press releases? My scanning of the treaty suggests all four of your examples are wrong.
22 My scanning of the treaty suggests all four of your examples are wrong.
What an interesting concept. I’m embarassed I just took the EFF’s word for what it implied.
Article 10 is probably where the push to ratify this treaty is coming from:
Article 10 requires criminalizing infringing on copyrights as per [among others] the WIPO copyright treaty – and article 12 of that treaty prohibits anything which …will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention:
(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;
Article 9, paragraph 2 is interesting in that they want all signatories to make it a criminal offense to transmit child pornography – with the preferred definition including:
b a person appearing to be a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
c realistic images representing a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
But the signatories may reserve the right not to apply those standards.
Article 11 makes it a crime to aid or abet violating any of the crimes outlined in the treaty, and would prefer that attempting to aid/abet also be a crime.
Article 13 requires that all sanctions against individuals are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which include deprivation of liberty.
And that all sanctions against “legal persons” [corporations?] shall be subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal or non-criminal sanctions or measures, including monetary sanctions.
Article 14 is where it gets vague…
Scope of procedural provisions…
2 Except as specifically provided otherwise in Article 21, each Party shall apply the powers and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article to:
a the criminal offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 11 of this Convention;
b other criminal offences committed by means of a computer system; and
c the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal offence.
Ah well, time for bed…