|
++ UK/USA vs. European Council ++ Links ++
The European Council's Cyber Crime Convention
revised draft, presented a few weeks ago, is
once again causing controversy. This time, though,
it is not just privacy campaigners and the IT
industry who attack the Convention's provisions
and drafting process. It is the governments
themselves who are falling victim to the absurdity
of the security ideology. The Convention's Article
3 demands national legislation against illegal
interception of non-public computer networks, but
entitles individual governments to exemption if
these activities are not done with "dishonest intent".
As pointed out in an article released by quintessenz,
this exemption seems to allow for the economic spying
carried out by governments through ECHELON, as it
reflects Britain's and the US' line of legitimising
ECHELON. It is the differences around the applicability
of Article 3 that now seem to have become a stumbling
block. The adoption of the Convention, previously
scheduled for December, will not occur before at
spring next year.
THE CYBER COPīS DREAM
In the meantime, the concerned governments face no
lesser task than deciding whether the use of Echelon
for economic espionage is a "dishonest" purpose as
defined in the Convention, reminiscent of a thieve
drafting insurance documents. It is not the first
time the Convention gets entangled in its own pitfalls
either. Ever since the Council began its work, the
Convention has given rise to serious allegations
concerning its incompatibility with basic human and
civic rights, very much to the confusion of the
experts, in whose dictionaries of technical standards
"freedom of expression" and "right to privacy" do not
occur. This is hardly surprising, as no democratically
elected representatives took part in the drafting of
the Convention. After all, the metaphysics of security
defines the black hole in any democracy.
This document, intended to combat criminal activities
by providing international standards and procedures
for intercepting telecommunications, has therefore
staggered along from one draft to the next like a
heavily armed warrior pressed down under the weight
of his weaponry, and guided by "kill it if it moves"
logic: illegal MP3 files or other documents copied
from the Internet without explicit agreement of the
author would be enough to warrant communications
monitoring by the police. In Article 18, police are
allowed to "collect or record" data sent through
computer systems, and even oblige service providers
to release log files and install provisions for
real-time monitoring.
Before Governments will decide whether they want
to declare themselves cyber criminals to be prosecuted
under the Convention, some more time will pass.
Whether this ambivalent situation will be met with
more authority or more democracy will depend on how
effective a critical voices can make themselves heard.
******************************************************************
++ LINKS ++
Quintessenz
>>>  http://www.quintessenz.at/
Global Internet Liberty Campaign
>>> http://www.gilc.org/
Privacy International
>>> http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cybercrime/<a/>
|
DIGITAL ECOLOGY