[Opposition to the cybercrime treaty, which is before the U.S. Senate for ratification, has largely come from the usual liberal-leaning (or civil libertarian) groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Now a prominent conservative group is urging the Senate to block it. --Declan] http://www.politechbot.com/2004/06/28/cybercrime-treaty/ Following 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 will 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. Senator 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. _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 28 2004 - 20:59:38 PDT