The convention helps countries tackle crimes such as hacking, the spread of computer viruses and online child exploitation, according to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who urged his colleagues to ratify the treaty.
"While balancing civil liberty and privacy concerns, this treaty encourages the sharing of critical electronic evidence among foreign countries so that law enforcement can more effectively investigate and combat these crimes," Frist said.
But Frist’s praise for the treaty was not shared by privacy groups such as the EFF.
"The treaty requires that the U.S. government help enforce other countries' 'cybercrime' laws — even if the act being prosecuted is not illegal in the United States,” an EFF spokesman said. “That means that countries that have laws limiting free speech on the Net could oblige the FBI to uncover the identities of anonymous U.S. critics, or monitor their communications on behalf of foreign governments. American ISPs would be obliged to obey other jurisdictions' requests to log their users' behavior without due process, or compensation."
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disagreed, calling the treaty an important tool in stopping terrorism and child exploitation.
"The Convention is in full accord with all U.S. constitutional protections, such as free speech and other civil liberties, and will require no change to U.S. laws," Gonzales said.
At least one conservative pundit disagreed with the administration’s take on the treaty. James Plummer, a contributor to Human Events Online, called for the U.S. to reject the treaty amid concerns that the U.S. could be required to enforce the laws of countries such as China.
“The Cybercrime Treaty is open to all nations to ratify,” Plummer said. “That means a future leftist president could even allow Communist China to sign on to the treaty and direct U.S. law enforcement to investigate Chinese dissidents, even Americans, based in the U.S.”
According to officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, concerns such as those expressed by Plummer are without merit. The DOJ has said that exceptions built into the treaty, termed “essential interests,” would allow the government to refuse help to any treaty nation, if rendering assistance would contradict the U.S. Constitution.
A column by Nate Anderson on the Internet news site ArsTechnica.com took a more middle-of-the-road approach, saying that the treaty was at least a good place to start regarding international efforts to combat child porn, hacking, identity theft, phishing and e-commerce fraud.
The Convention, which was drafted in 2000, has been through several rounds of public comment. With the backing of President Bush, the Convention became a reality in late 2001. Under U.S. law, only the Senate can ratify a treaty for it to take effect.
The U.S. joins more than 40 countries — mostly in Europe — that have ratified the treaty.
