Battleangel

(Via Slashdot) Called simply a formality, symbolic in the US. But few seemed convinced. In fact, many Americans seem convinced that it is a slippery slope and that they may at some point have to implement Chinese internet laws and whatnot. All sorts of irrational, jingoistic and americocentric fears are cited. Everything in fact except for the very real issues that we have to deal with right now and that will not primarily haunt the United States but rather the hapless citizens of other nations, mainly European, that now have the US looking over their shoulder as well as their own government.

The first and only international treaty designed exclusively to combat computer crime won approval late Thursday from the U.S. Senate.

The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime “will enhance our ability to cooperate with foreign governments in fighting terrorism, computer hacking, money laundering and child pornography, among other crimes,” Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

The treaty is intended to harmonize computer crime laws, especially those in smaller or less developed nations that may not have updated their legal framework to reflect the complexities of the Internet. It requires participating countries to target a broad swath of activities, including unauthorized intrusions into networks, fraud, the release of worms and viruses, child pornography and copyright infringement.

“This treaty provides important tools in the battles against terrorism, attacks on computer networks and the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet, by strengthening U.S. cooperation with foreign countries in obtaining electronic evidence,” U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement Friday.

It may be true that U.S. law already includes much of what the treaty requires, because they helped draft the treaty and approved the message. The Convention on cybercrime was prepared by the Council of Europe member States, Canada, Japan, South Africa and the United States. So the European designation is a bit of an illusion. As are the concerns that the U.S. is giving up sovereignty to “eurocrats” or whatever. Try it the other way around and you’ll get much closer to the heart of the matter. And besides, this has very little to do with bogus fears of computer hacking, money laundering, terrorism (try not to roll on the floor laughing) or child pornography. That is not why the ratification had the voracious support of Microsoft, Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, IBM, Intel and other transnationals. No, this is primarily about going after so called ‘copyright infringement’ and tending to a defunct business model. Something that so far has been difficult outside of the U.S. because of, you guessed it, the fact that other nations aren’t subservient to U.S. laws. Yet. But this ratification managed to change all that. And make no mistake about who will be lording over who. With its massive resources, fixation with IP, an army of transnationals and international clout / bullying, it will be the U.S. which will draw the longer straw.

It should also be noted that the U.S. opted out of the section dealing with Internet-based hate speech. How convenient. Obviously they want nothing to do with the seriously deranged hate speech laws of Europe that have people locked up for thought crime and legitimate, albeit unpopular, dissenting research. That is about the only thing America has gotten right (even if it has been eroded over the years). Well, unfortunately we can’t opt out of accepting America’s draconian cybercrime laws. And if a case is ever brought against an American citizen you can be sure the U.S. will not be very helpful. Unless it of course fits their bill of what terrorism ought to be. Could U.S. citizens still be screwed as the EFF and pundits claims? Sure, but everything is not about the U.S. and in the case, U.S. citizens are already under some fairly harsh and frequently policed IP laws. Given that the first amendment is still a primary law, I doubt any other nation has anything to add that will make life any worse for Americans and slap them with anything really groundbreaking or outrageous.

It seems clear that the ratification and its implication are being misrepresented. First by its proponents in the Senate and in the executive, and second by the usual jingoist suspects. The latter of course do an exquisite job at covering the real agenda and drumming up irrational fears, painting themselves as victims.

If you are still unsure of the relationship and implications, consider this: When did the U.S. ever sign or ratify treaties it didn’t like or weren’t in America’s best interest? Ever? (of course what is good for America’s elites may not be good for its people but that is an entirely different debate) Though it may seem the U.S. is making concessions, the very notion is preposterous.