|
search / subscribe / upload / contact |
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| RSS-Feed Depeschen |  |
|
|
||
|
||
Date: 2000-12-13
Cyber-Crime: GILC Aufschlag II-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- Vertragsentwürfe seit dem [US] Communications Decency Amendment anno 1996 ist öffentlich. Wir wünschen der Kritik eine recht hohe Verbreitung in den Medien & insbesonders im Bereich der so genannten IT & Telekom-Wirtschaft, die sich neuerdings & immer mal wieder "Business Community" nennt. Zwischen dem Dealen, Schachern, Zocken & sonstiger Produktivität empfiehlt es sich, auch hie und da zu gucken, ob sich strategisch nicht veritable Geschäfts/hinder/nisse an die Wände menetekeln. Die da wurden entworfen von einer Allianz aus gesetzlich ermächtigten Behörden & ermächtigenden Juristen & anderen Bürokraten, aus analogen Lobby/isten & allerhand Verbindungsleuten zu allerhänderen Diensten. Allesamt ehrenwerte Mitglieder ihrer jeweiligen Gesellschaft & dort in leitender Position. Background: http://www.quintessenz.at/archiv/ -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- Global Internet Liberty Campaign Member Letter on Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-Crime Version 24.2 December 12, 2000 Dear Council of Europe Secretary General Walter Schwimmer and COE Committee of Experts on Cyber Crime, On October 18, 2000 we wrote a letter on behalf of a wide range of civil society organizations to indicate our opposition to the proposed Convention on Cyber-Crime. In that letter we raised our opposition to issues surrounding criminalisation of tools, the issue of liability, sanctions on copyright, enhancing mutual legal assistance, and increased investigative powers. We argued that version 22 of the convention represented the interests of law enforcement, and lacked accountability. As a result, its lack of consideration towards civil liberties was appalling. To our dismay and alarm, the convention continues to be a document that threatens the rights of the individual while extending the powers of police authorities, creates a low- barrier protection of rights uniformly across borders, and ignores highly-regarded data protection principles. Although some changes have been made in version 24-2, we remain dissatisfied with the substance of the convention. The convention subcommittee did give our previous letter attention, but we maintain that protections of individual rights have not been attended to adequately. We question the validity of the process that still endures a closed environment and secrecy. As a result, we are following up with this subsequent letter to reiterate our past concerns, address some of the changes, and shed more light on a subset of these concerns. Exceptions indicate a larger problem One thematic shift in the convention is the increased number of exceptions and caveats in the current draft. While, these exceptions are still quite weak, it appears as though there is rising concern within the CoE as to the powers granted within the convention. The effect of the deletion of Article 37.2 (from version 22), that once limited the amount of flexibility signatory states are allowed to exercise, appears as though there is an arising opposition among the drafters and plenary member states over this issue. In Section 2 on Investigative Techniques, article 14.2 was added to assure "adequate protection of human rights and, where applicable, the proportionality of the measures to the nature and circumstances of the offence." While the CoE considered allowing signatory states to restrict the situations for using the new investigatory powers, even from using them in the crimes established in the convention, this was not included in version 24-2. The convention still promotes use of invasive techniques for any crime, except the use of interception, which according to 21.1 can only be used for "serious offences to be determined by domestic law". Even this limitation serves little effect, for the definition of serious crime is left to domestic law, and some countries in the CoE have an extremely broad definition of serious crime for content interception purposes. An additional exception was appended to Articles 29 and 30, for consistency with a previous article, that a signatory state may refuse mutual assistance to pursue an offence only if the state in question considers the offence to be political. Despite that this option existed in another article in version 22, and is consistent with previous CoE documents, it does appear that the CoE is aware of the differences in regimes and qualitative nature of 'offences' in the prospective-signatory states. This exception arises because of the failure to require dual-criminality. The addition of sub-article 35(bis).4 states that a transferring party may require the receiving party to explain the use made of information that is shared between states. This after-the-fact reporting is desirable, but not sufficient. The interests of proportionality and specificity must also be addressed in requirements applicable to the initial requests for assistance, sufficient to allow the requested party to verify the reason for the investigation by the requesting party. When a state makes such 'reservations', article 43 contains new sub- articles to place pressure on these states to conform to the full powers of the convention. Subarticle 43.2 claims that signatory states are expected to withdraw reservations "as soon as circumstances permit", while subarticle 43.3 allows the Secretary General to approach these states periodically to discuss the withdrawal of their reservations. The CoE appears to assume that human rights are negotiable, periodically. Alles http://www.gilc.org/privacy/coe-letter-1200.html -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- edited by published on: 2000-12-13 comments to office@quintessenz.at subscribe Newsletter - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
|
|
|
 |
related topiqs |
 |
CURRENTLY RUNNING |
q/Talk 1.Juli: The Danger of Software Users Don't Control
|
|
|
!WATCH OUT! |
bits4free 14.Juli 2011: OpenStreetMap Erfinder Steve Coast live in Wien
|
|