| |
|
Sunday, August 6, 2006
|
|
WASHINGTON -- The Senate has ratified a treaty under which the
United States will join more than 40 other countries, mainly from
Europe, in fighting crimes committed via the Internet. The
Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, ratified late Thursday,
is the first international treaty seeking to address Internet crimes by
harmonizing national laws, improving investigative techniques and
increasing cooperation among nations. The convention had been signed by 38 European nations plus the
United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa, as of the end of 2005.
It was opened for signature in 2001. "While balancing civil
liberty and privacy concerns, this treaty encourages the sharing of
critical electronic evidence among foreign countries so that law
enforcement can more effectively investigate and combat these crimes,"
said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
3:35:57 PM 
|
|
The US Senate ratified the Convention on Cybercrime
last night, paving the way for greater international cooperation on
cybersecurity issues. The Convention was drafted back in 2000, went
through several rounds of public comment, and was opened for signature
on November 23, 2001. Because it's a treaty, the Senate must authorize
it before it goes into force, and they did that last night, five years
after the US first signed the agreement.
The Convention had the backing of George Bush, but also of some industry groups like the Cyber Security Industry Alliance,
composed of members like McAfee, RSA, Symantec, and F-Secure. But it
aroused the ire of civil liberties groups on the left and the right,
including the ACLU and the EFF (which called it one of the "World's Worst Internet Laws").
Why the worry?
According to the EFF, "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 jurisdictions' requests to log
their users' behavior without due process, or compensation."
Those are legitimate issues to worry about, but among some
conservative commentators, the fear goes far beyond thorny questions of
international relations. Distrust of "leftists," "internationalists,"
and "Eurocrats" is palpable. "Even worse, the Cybercrime Treaty is open
to all nations to ratify," writes one commentator.
"That means a future leftist President could even allow Communist China
to sign on to the treaty and direct U.S. law enforcement to investigate
Chinese dissidents, even Americans, based in the United States."
Sure, because the left hates human rights and privacy, and it wants
nothing more than to spy on ordinary Americans who haven't committed a
crime. Oh, wait.
Or again, "the treaty could allow European or even Chinese Communist
agents to electronically spy on innocent Americans." The Europeans, as
the Convention's drafters, come in for special flogging--"greater
control over what we do on the Internet is the goal of the Eurocrats so
enamored with global government."
3:33:06 PM
|
|
U.S. Senate Ratifies Cybercrime Treaty.
espo812 writes "A story from Washingtonpost.com says, 'The
Senate has ratified a treaty under which the United States will join
more than 40 other countries, mainly from Europe, in fighting crimes committed via the Internet.' Ars Technica says it's the 'World's Worst Internet Law.'" --- From the Ars story: "According
to the EFF, '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 jurisdictions' requests to log their users'
behavior without due process, or compensation.;" [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]
3:29:08 PM
|
|
RIAA Goes after LimeWire. PCM2 writes "A coalition of major recording companies sued the operators of the file-sharing program LimeWire for copyright infringement Friday, claiming the firm encourages users to trade music without permission." From thge article: " The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. In the complaint, the record companies contend LimeWire's operators are "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works and building a business model that allows them to profit directly from piracy. " [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]
3:21:29 PM
|
|
Hong Kong lawmakers passed Sunday a contentious law on covert surveillance that rights activists and pro-democracy politicians fear could erode privacy rights and allow the government to spy for political purposes.
The Interception of Communications and Surveillance Bill will regulate how law enforcement agencies in the former British colony now ruled by China monitor private communications by tapping telephones or screening e-mails.
The 60-member legislature, dominated by pro-government lawmakers, passed the bill 32-0 after pro-democracy legislators walked out in protest. The vote came after a marathon debate stretching over five days.
While the government says safeguards have been built into the new law - such as the need for law enforcement officers to obtain warrants for covert surveillance from a panel of judges in secret courts - critics say they are not enough.
Law Yuk Kai, director of Hong Kong Human Rights Watch, said the law is riddled with loopholes that will give the government broad surveillance powers to target individuals indiscriminately.
"If there's one thing I'm most concerned about, it's that the law will be used for political purposes," Law said.
Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee assured lawmakers earlier that the new bill would not be used to target political opponents, but he refused calls to put this into writing.
"If they've made such a guarantee, why not write it in the law then? This would give a much better assurance to the public," Law said.
The new law has also drawn fierce opposition from the legal community because it will allow law enforcement agencies to bug lawyers and their clients, which effectively strips the right of clients to confidential legal advice.
3:14:43 PM
|
|
The park's concession stands are accepting new
contactless credit cards, which contain a small radio chip, allowing
users to pass the card in front of a reader to make their purchases.
The customer doesn't have to hand over the card and for purchases under
$25 doesn't need to sign a receipt.
Jeff Overton, executive vice president of
business operations for the Padres, said getting people back into their
seats quickly is one of the team's goals.
"In our environment, it's all about speed," he said.
But that speed is not without its pitfalls. Some
consumer groups say the technology in the cards raises privacy and
security concerns - from theft of consumer data on the cards to the
unwanted tracking of a person's movements. Partly because of those
concerns, consumers have been slow to embrace the new cards.
The technology - called RFID, or radio-frequency
identification device - is nothing new. RFID chips are in security
badges and pet implants, and on merchandise so retailers can track
their inventory.
But increasingly, credit card companies like
JPMorgan Chase, which is in a partnership with the Padres on the new
card system, have been championing RFID cards at ballparks and at
quick-serve merchants such as 7-Eleven, CVS drugstores and Regal
Cinemas. Other companies offering the cards include American Express,
Citicorp, HSBC and MBNA.
3:10:41 PM
|
|
State officials have launched an inquiry to determine if the
telecommunications giant Verizon conspired with the federal government
to spy illegally on private phone records. The state must pursue the
case against Verizon aggressively in order to protect the interests of
Vermont telephone customers, as well as the integrity of the
Constitution.
The Public Service Board is looking into whether
Verizon violated the privacy rights of its customers by turning over
phone records to the National Security Agency as part of President
Bush's secret surveillance program. In response, the Department of
Justice has written a letter to state officials saying that in order to
comply with the PSB's request for information, Verizon would have to
confirm or deny the existence of the program, which, according to the
Justice Department, would harm national security.
Neither
Verizon nor the federal government should be allowed to hide behind a
bogus claim of national security. If Verizon made the mistake of
violating the law in order to help Bush carry out his disastrous
national security policies, Verizon should be held to account.
That
means that if Verizon resists requests for information from the PSB,
the board should take legal action to compel cooperation. If the
company persists in its refusals, the PSB should be prepared to go to
court to force the company to heed its responsibilities.
3:06:55 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Paul Hardwick.
Last update: 9/2/06; 4:20:57 AM.
|
|
|
