Comments on: Bush Wants FBI To Enforce Other Country’s Net Laws Here

By: Mike Voice

Mike Voice — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:57:40 +0000

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...

By: AB CD

AB CD — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:57:47 +0000

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.

By: Smartalix

Smartalix — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:48:30 +0000

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.

By: joshua

joshua — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:41:11 +0000

Ok Smartalix….where you want to go for dinner on our first date?

This is the third time in a week I agree with you.

The Republican LEADERSHIP is out to lunch on this, as is the Democratic leadership….and apparently most Democratic Senators.
The Conservatives fighting this are basically good old traditional Conservatives, not neocons or religious rights conservatives.

And whoever said Bush isn’t a Conservative…..bravo…..that is sure the truth.

By: Mr. H. Fusion

Mr. H. Fusion — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:40:35 +0000

This is not just a Conservative issue. Besides the Electronic Frontier Foundation,

The ACLU has also sent a letter to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
http://tinyurl.com/s3vjc

The Electronic Privacy Information Centeropposes the treaty.
http://tinyurl.com/rbe27

The Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc is worried over certain parts
http://tinyurl.com/jbmho

An international Law Firm specializing in IT and E-Commerce, Pinsent Masons, doesn’t like the implications
http://tinyurl.com/eerzk

An African Civil Rights Group is concerned
http://tinyurl.com/fy292

A self professed hacker has issues
http://tinyurl.com/oqs4b

By: Mike Voice

Mike Voice — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:06:17 +0000

Follow-up link from EFF, on which countries have ratified this:

http://tinyurl.com/ekhkm

By: Mike Voice

Mike Voice — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:02:02 +0000

15 This ship appears to have sailed, BTW

Hmmm, lets see now:

1. Federal judge shields Yahoo from verdict in French court, regarding access by French citizens to sales of “nazi” merchandise.

http://news.com.com/2100-1017-275564.html?legacy=cnet

2. Internet Gambling…

3. Search results for Republic of China, Dali Lama, Tiannemen Square massacre, “Free” Tibet, etc…

4. Depictions of Mohammed…

5. ?

etc…

Looks like we’re in for some interesting times.

By: OhForTheLoveOf

OhForTheLoveOf — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:57:39 +0000

#4 – What, conservatives doing the right thing? I thought they were evil incarnate, after spending some time on this blog.

Comment by gquaglia — 8/4/2006 @ 4:33 am

Conservatives aren’t evil. They’re just a little timid about positive progressive change. Not bad people, just a little nervous around people who are different from them.

It’s neo-conservatives who are evil, and they are a dying breed anyway.

By: William K. Wolfrum

William K. Wolfrum — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:54:59 +0000

This ship appears to have sailed, BTW.

–WKW

By: Smith

Smith — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:46:03 +0000

“Come on, conservatives. How do you justify your president wanting this? ”

Simple, Bush isn’t a conservative.

It’s just plain stupid to commit this country to any kind of international Internet treaty when we haven’t agreed to what laws we should apply to our own use. We have a tough enough time working this out with our own politicians, why should we give any say in our laws to Nigerian scammers or Iranian ayatollahs?

By: AB CD

AB CD — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:57:47 +0000

These are important concerns, but looking at the Convention itself, I don”t see it. The very early parts specify that free speech online is a fundamental right. The rest looked like it was covering hacking of computers and identity theft. Then again, I didn’t read the whole thing thoroughly, and Europe is not known as a haven for free speech. Could someone point out a provision of the treaty that they object to? Anyone wanting to bash Bush for this treaty, can no longer bash him for dropping other treaties on the grounds that he is ignoring the demnds of the rest of the world.

By: Smartalix

Smartalix — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:54:25 +0000

…for real conservatives, liberty and American sovereignty will always be more important than partisan advantage. Can liberal Dems say the same?

Maybe not. However, this issue is way bigger than partisan politics. IMNSHO “Liberal Dems” and “Conservative GOP” leadership would both fail that question.

By: Howard

Howard — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:24:41 +0000

For those of you too lazy to read the whole article, here’s the money quote.

“And so it is no wonder that many leading conservatives have called on the Senate to hold serious, open hearings on this treaty. Leaders from American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, and Free Congress Foundation, among others, wrote to the Senate in June urging real hearings on these important concerns.”

By: Howard

Howard — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:19:10 +0000

Follow the link in the main post, and you’ll find a link to the original source of this heads-up.
http://www.politechbot.com/2006/01/30/why-the-cybercrime/
There you’ll see that the groups already fighting this are a Who’s Who of the Conservative Movement. Sorry, lefties — for real conservatives, liberty and American sovereignty will always be more important than partisan advantage. Can liberal Dems say the same?

By: Gustavious

Gustavious — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:09:11 +0000

This appears to be an attempt by Bush to do through a back door that which he could not do through the front, which is require ISP’s to provide real time information about their subscribers’ internet usage. Once the government gets legal access to this information, who among us believe that they will not use it for whatever they feel is necessary?