<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
One more precision.<br>
<br>
Convention 108<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times
New Roman";">, which drawn up within the Council of Europe by
a committee of
governmental experts under the authority of the European Committee
on Legal
Co-operation (CDCJ), was opened for signature by the Member States
of the
Council of Europe on 28 January 1981 in Strasbourg</span>.
<style>@font-face {
font-family: "Times New Roman";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.PrivacySurveybodytxt, li.PrivacySurveybodytxt, div.PrivacySurveybodytxt { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 14pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style>Since
inception of the Convention, Article 23(1)
has provided for accession by non-member States:
<p class="PrivacySurveybodytxt"> </p>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New
Roman";">“After the entry into force of this
convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
may invite any
State non member of the Council of Europe to accede to this
convention by a
decision taken by the majority provided for in Article 20.d of the
Statute of
the Council of Europe and by the unanimous vote of the
representatives of the
Contracting States entitled to sit on the committee.”</span>
<br>
<br>
On 11/14/10 7:44 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CE003D4.1030409@eff.org" type="cite">Hi
Roland,
<br>
<br>
Sorry for not replied to your earlier email. I am happy to talk
about Re: OECD with you.
<br>
<br>
On 11/14/10 12:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In message
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org"><4CDB0DC0.9080204@eff.org></a>, at 13:25:20 on Wed, 10 Nov
2010, Katitza Rodriguez <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org"><katitza@eff.org></a> writes
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">For example, it is dangerous to see the
Budapest Convention exported to other countries, as it has
serious implications for citizen's fundamental rights.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Citizens also need the right not online safety.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I do not understand the comment. Can you clarify, please?
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Despite the serious concerns that the
Budapest Convention / Council of Europe itself contain, the
harm to third countries outside Europe, for instance, Latin
America is dangerous. While the EU for instance has the
Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the
E-Privacy Directive, Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other
check and balance in place etc, many countries lack of these
regulatory frameworks
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's my understanding that the Council of Europe (which is a
human rights organisation, not a policing one) will only allow
countries to sign up to the Budapest Convention, if they also
agree to implement sufficient human rights safeguards as well.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
We need to see that in practice, Roland. The Council of Europe is
a democratic institution, and its principles are based in the
respect of the European Convention on Human Rights - which is a
good HR text. They promote democratic principles, human rights,
and the rule of law, they have different check and balances in
place within the organization including the European Court of
Human Rights. Unfortunately, nothing is perfect, and the Budapest
Convention is definitely not one of its brilliant outcomes. The
text is so ambiguous that allows several implementations. This
should not be allowed when you are dealing with a text that
restrict citizens fundamentals rights. It is true that they have
agreed to implement sufficient human rights safeguards in "text",
but I am not sure if this will happen in "practice". We are
observing. Besides, I disagree with the emphasis put forward on
the need of collaboration between the law enforcement community
and the business sector. There is a need to strengten digital due
process of law within the cybercrime discussions. I would like to
see a this kind of strategy coming from the division who works on
that area, and who are actually working in the implementation of
the Convention, at the national level. It is finally what it is
implemented at the national level, what matters.
<br>
<br>
In addition, while there is an acknowledgment of the importance of
Convention 108, I haven't see a truly effort to promote that
Convention at the national level. There might be a budget problem,
too. We might need to see analysis if the funding from some
business sector reps. goes to promote the Budapest Convention
only, but not necessarily to the HR aspects.
<br>
<br>
We should also not forget that the group who drafted the Budapest
Convention met in secret for several years before the first draft
was released! And Parminder is right, this is also an European
Institution that deals with Treaties that might affect other
countries. However, taking into account the discussions on this
area at some national, regional and international, and the
erosion of the right to privacy, another treaty might be even
worst than this. By now, we need to fight the implementation of
the Budapest Convention at the national levels, and pressure the
Council of Europe to adopt recommendations that strengthens
digital due process concerns and citizens rights.
<br>
<br>
Note apart:
<br>
There is also opportunity for civil society to participate as an
observer status within the Council, EDRI and others participate as
part of the Media Division discussions. I haven't heard anything
beside the Octopus meeting on the cybercrime front. I have not
done an analysis of the budget / funding to see where the business
sector funds goes, and if its has an impact on the promotion of
the Budapest Convention, and no funding to promote and to respect
of citizen's fundamental rights and due process concerns.
<br>
<br>
K.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</body>
</html>