[6994] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Planned Net-treaty limits privacy, may compel key
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard D. Murad)
Wed May 3 11:20:34 2000
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000503111318.00a7af00@mailsrv2.mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 11:18:17 -0400
To: cryptography@c2.net
From: "Richard D. Murad" <rdmurad@mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20000503090940.020aa010@mail.well.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Does obligations through treaty circumvent US law and US
constitutionality? In other words, if the US signs and ratifies a treaty,
does it take precedence over other US law?
If so, it's a way to do an end-run around US law and US constitutionality.
Rick Murad
At 09:09 AM 5/3/2000 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>
>The document:
>http://www.politechbot.com/docs/treaty.html
>
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36047,00.html
>
> Cyber-treaty Goes Too Far?
> by Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com)
>
> 3:00 a.m. May. 3, 2000 PDT
> WASHINGTON -- U.S. and European police agencies will receive new
> powers to investigate and prosecute computer crimes, according to a
> preliminary draft of a treaty being circulated among over 40 nations.
>
> The Council of Europe's 65KB proposal is designed to aid police in
> investigations of online miscreants in cases where attacks or
> intrusions cross national borders.
>
> But the details of the "Draft Convention on Cybercrime" worry U.S.
> civil libertarians. They warn that the plan would violate longstanding
> privacy rights and grant the government far too much power.
>
> The proposal, which is expected to be finalized by December 2000 and
> appears to be the first computer crime treaty, would:
>
> * Make it a crime to create, download, or post on a website any
> computer program that is "designed or adapted" primarily to gain
> access to a computer system without permission. Also banned is
> software designed to interfere with the "functioning of a computer
> system" by deleting or altering data.
>
> * Allow authorities to order someone to reveal his or her passphrase
> for an encryption key. According to a recent survey, only Singapore
> and Malaysia have enacted such a requirement into law, and experts say
> that in the United States it could run afoul of constitutional
> protections against self-incrimination.
>
> * Internationalize a U.S. law that makes it a crime to possess even
> digital images that "appear" to represent children's genitals or
> children engaged in sexual conduct. Linking to such a site also would
> be a crime.
>
> * Require websites and Internet providers to collect information about
> their users, a rule that would potentially limit anonymous remailers.
>
> [...]
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
>To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
>This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
