Cybercrime treaty condemned by Mark Ward

A draft European treaty on cybercrime has been condemned as "appalling" by civil liberty groups around the globe.

In all, 23 organisations have signed a letter warning that the treaty will do serious damage to civil liberties under the guise of helping law enforcers catch computer criminals.

They warn that if the treaty is adopted it will dramatically restrict the free flow of information and ideas.

British signatories to the protest letter say the treaty goes further than the controversial UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act in giving police powers to snoop with impunity.

Draft details

Since 1997, the 41-nation Council of Europe has been working on the Cybercrime Treaty, which tries to harmonise laws against malicious hacking, virus writing, fraud and child pornography on the net.

It also aims to ensure that police forces in separate countries gather the same standard of evidence to help track and catch criminals across borders.

Late last month, the Council released the 22nd draft of the treaty for perusal by interested groups, and immediately won condemnation from civil liberty groups for its draconian tone.

Thirty-five organisations co-ordinated by umbrella organisation the Global Internet Liberty Campaign urged the Council to change the treaty saying: "The draft treaty is contrary to well-established norms for the protection of the individual."

Critical mass

Last week, a new draft of the treaty was released, which the Council claims, answers many of the criticisms made of the treaty in the hundreds of e-mails, letters and faxes it received after the initial posting.

But many of the organisations which voiced concern over the first public draft say the new version does little to allay their fears.

The treaty "continues to be a document that threatens the rights of the individual while extending the powers of police authorities", they say. The groups believe that unless significant changes are made, the treaty will have "a chilling effect on the free flow of information and ideas" on the internet.

The GILC claims changes to the treaty have only been made to mollify US concerns about conflicts with the First Amendment rather than because of any concerns for fundamental civil rights.

Closed doors

"No-one is opposed in principle to an international treaty," said Caspar Bowden of the Foundation for Information Policy Research and one of the signatories to the protest letter. "But there's all sorts of things wrong with this one."

Mr Bowden said one of the most worrying aspects of the treaty was the fact that it had been drafted behind closed doors and gave no forum to organisations keen to contribute. "There's no intention to have a public conference where the differences of opinion can be thrashed out," Mr Bowden said.

Those signing the protest letter say the treaty rides rough shod over privacy concerns by giving law enforcement agencies wide-ranging snooping powers they can use without getting the permissions required when domestic surveillance is carried out.

The snooping powers can also be invoked for much more mundane crimes than those typically thought to justify invasive surveillance.

The treaty also allows people to be charged with computer crimes even though the country where they live does not consider what they did as a crime.

What we said....

The fact is, the Government are scared of the Internet. They are oblivious to it. They can't control it... and that scares them.

New Labour are 'control freaks' so to speak. They are attempting to police the Internet in a way that they would their own country. It just won't work.

Countries need to research very deeply into the impact of these decisions BEFORE implementing them.

Software companies rely on security holes and patches being released by hackers in order to make their software as secure as it can be. Exploits are an essential asset for the administrator both to help their understanding of the security flaw and in order to test their systems for the vulnerability.

All pretty harmless and very useful security related sites which Administrators rely on to make sure their servers are up to date with the latest patches would be illegal.

Bugtraq, Alldas, Attrition, etc. and even the discussion of security holes and exploits would be deemed as illegal if this Cybercrime Treaty is passed.

The reason for this defacement is to make people, the media, etc. aware that their Government's are trying to strip them of their freedom and privacy by attempting to monitor their every move.

"Why even bother? You won't make a difference." you may ask. Simple... Because we can, and we will. There is no harm in trying to make a difference and it's better than just sitting back and doing nothing at all.

-