Convention on Cybercrime: Threat to Privacy?

In this age of terror and international cooperation, plus the general suspicion with which computer and Internet users are still viewed, not to mention that no politician wants to be viewed as "soft of crime," it is no surprise that the Senate is moving toward approval of the treaty called the"Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime." (Although there is the trend of Senate Republicans being suspicious of binding international treaties and Europe in general.)

In 2003, President Bush asked the Senate to approve of the Treaty, which he called "the only multilateral treaty to address the problems of computer-related crime and electronic evidence gathering."

The President also said:

"By providing for broad international cooperation in the form of extradition and mutual legal assistance, the Cybercrime Convention would remove or minimize legal obstacles to international cooperation that delay or endanger U.S. investigations and prosecutions of computer-related crime. As such, it would help deny "safe havens" to criminals, including terrorists, who can cause damage to U.S. interests from abroad using computer systems. At the same time, the Convention contains safeguards that protect civil liberties and other legitimate interests."

On July 26, 2005, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved the treaty by a unanimous voice vote. Sen. Dodd did say that privacy concerns should be addressed.

In this age of terror and international cooperation, plus the general suspicion with which computer and Internet users are still viewed, not to mention that no politician wants to be viewed as "soft of crime," it is no surprise that the Senate is moving toward approval of the treaty called the "Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime." (Although there is the trend of Senate Republicans being suspicious of binding international treaties and Europe in general.)

On July 26, 2005, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved the treaty by a voice vote.

Software companies are lobbying hard for the treaty, which has strong copyright enforcement provisions.

One controversial provision is the requirement that a law enforcement agency is required to cooperate with another country in investigating a crime, even if the act is not a crime in the cooperating country.

Put simply, the U.S. would forced to assist in investigating a crime even the alleged crime was only what we would call exercising free speech, or freedom of religious expression.

The ACLU has expressed concern, writing:

"The Senate should carefully consider what it means to agree to provide mutual legal assistance to countries whose substantive laws and procedures do not comport with American understandings of justice."

The treaty has been criticized by privacy advocates and those concerned about state sovereignty, among others. The Electronic Privacy Information Center has written a letter to the Senate outlining their objections.

See: http://epic.org/privacy/intl/senateletter-072605.pdf

EPIC also is concerned that the treaty lacks adequate privacy provisions, but this is not surprising in a treaty the purpose of which is to enable governments to read e-mail, listen to phone conversations, and in other ways, in an effort to prevent crime and catch criminals, coordinate in spying on citizens.