At 9:14 PM -0500 12/4/00, David Honig wrote:

At 03:00 PM 12/4/00 -0500, Ernest Hua wrote:

...

http://www0.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/internet/docs/70519

This just about sums it up:

Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the pact could force police in the United States to conduct searches under rules established by treaty ''that don't respect the limits of police powers imposed by the U.S. Constitution.''

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001204/wr/crime_tech_dc_1.html

This is old news to followers of the New World Order, the Blue Helmets, and the Zionist Occupation Government. Barry S. is reacting quickly to the changing ground truth of the election: the civil liberties groups used to avoid such implications of the NWO, but now that Republicans are about to take over, the ACLU will likely soon be talking about black helicopters and re-education camps being built to house the political prisoners. I wonder who the Tim McVeigh of the Left will be? --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)

David Honig wrote:

This just about sums it up:

Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the pact could force police in the United States to conduct searches under rules established by treaty ''that don't respect the limits of police powers imposed by the U.S. Constitution.''

And guess what? The UK government says they need to do this because the US (among others) wants them to. Over the weekend proposals to enforce data retention for 7 years were leaked to newspapers & civil liberties groups here in Britain. Just in time for the annual Big Brother Awards ( http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/ :-) Your very own John Young has made the offending document available at http://cryptome.org/ncis-carnivore.htm Of course it isn't official government policy. Oh no, just some paper put out by a junior official. All very deniable. It is so *very* offensive that even the Home Secretary will be able to to say that he doesn't accept it - and then come out with something that, while not quite that bad is still a lot worse than what we have now. And they will say that our "European partners" want us to have such laws. And in Germany they will say that the British want it... and in France they will say that all of civilisation wants it...so a whole load of diplomats will get together & make some treaty, more or less dictated to them by the military. of course the universal opinion here is that it is actually the Americans - they pull the strings at GCHQ & this sort of policy in the UK nearly always comes straight out of GCHQ. Meanwhile, back in the corridors of power, the Data Protection law (which tends to be administered by well-meaning mild lefties, as opposed to the military who may be well-meaning but are almost by definition right-wing authoritarians) now seems to require that you make personal data, including logs, available to people who can be identified from them. How about having to not only keep your Apache logs for 7 years but also be prepared to search them at the request of anyone who might have browsed your website? Ken The vile paper states: 3.2 INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION 3.2.1. We have strong partnerships with overseas colleagues and an expectation exists that the UK will take a bold and strategic position on data retention in order to continue to meet both domestic and international obligations on organised crime. Elsewhere in Europe and in the G8, countries are also concerned about the lack of clarity in law and are advancing legislation to meet the needs of their Agencies. In particular, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and the US have taken steps towards a statutory framework. 3.2.2. A degree of international agreement on standards is important. For example, in relation to telephone data, competition in the market has led to "least cost routing". This involves calls being sent by the cheapest route, taking advantage of reduced off-peak rates elsewhere in the world. It has even become more economical to briefly route domestic UK calls overseas. Similarly, in the case of computer viruses, these can be transmitted around the world across any number of communications networks and ISP servers. Progress towards standardisation is therefore important both for domestic and international law enforcement activity. 3.2.3 CSPs consider it is important to harmonise UK legislation with regulatory regimes elsewhere. If requirements are more onerous in the UK than in other EU Member States, then the natural reaction will be to relocate to the most favourable regime. The nascent E-Commerce knowledge industries are highly mobile and the Industry would anticipate an immediate response from UK CSPs to unfavourable conditions here. CSPs are actively consulting their international counterparts on this subject. ISPs in particular would support adopting an international legislative framework provided it was on the basis of a level playing field and would actively work on the formulation of an "Industry-wide Code of Practice" to achieve that objective.