3 ms·
New U.N. Cybercrime Treaty Unanimously Approved, Could Threaten Human Rights
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated: EFF's Concerns About the UN Cybercrime Treaty https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207987
- rolph 2y agoactual title "New U.N. Cybercrime Treaty Could Threaten Human Rights" [In the coming weeks, the treaty will head to a vote among the General Assembly’s 193 member states. If it’s accepted by a majority there, the treaty will move to the ratification process, in which individual country governments must sign on.]
- dylan604 2y ago> in which individual country governments must sign on meaning what? toothless is still toothless even using words like must. what happens if majority individuals do not? last I checked, the US still hasn't signed the same agreements about ICC or ICJ.
- bawolff 2y ago> last I checked, the US still hasn't signed the same agreements about ... ICJ. The united states signed on to the ICJ in 1945. Some treaties have optional parts where you can defer disputes to the icj. The united states is a party to some of those but not all of them. But that is really a separate thing from the ICJ. The ICC is very different from ICJ. USA has been pretty hostile to the icc since the get-go.
- dylan604 2y agoI did a quick search on US and ICJ, and the first hit was "The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International..." and I failed to follow to see it was not the ICJ that I searched for but "...Criminal Court" now that I followed up. Got screwed on very quick/lazy research and shitty search result returning something not related to the query. Fucking hate modern search
- bawolff 2y agoIn fairness, the us does tend to give the middle finger to the ICJ anytime it rules in a way it doesn't like.
- aragonite 2y agoI don't think it's the "must" used to express obligations or issue demands, but the "must" for stating necessary conditions. "...in which countries must sign on [if they want the treaty to have legal standing within their jurisdiction]"
- walterbell 2y agohttps://therecord.media/un-cybercrime-treaty-passes-unanimous https://therecord.media/un-cybercrime-treaty-passes-unanimou... The United Nations passed its first cybercrime treaty on Thursday in a unanimous vote.. The passage of the treaty is significant and establishes for the first time a global-level cybercrime and data access-enabling legal framework.. The treaty was adopted late Thursday by the body’s Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime and will next go to the General Assembly for a vote in the fall. It is expected to sail through the General Assembly since the same states will be voting on it there. https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-cybercrime-computer-technology-39fe999d78f615912d0bdb2011290665 https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-cybercrime-compute... Advocates including the Biden administration said the deal reflects the interests of the U.S. and its allies. It balances privacy concerns with the need for every country to pursue criminal activity around the world, the Biden administration said. “We see this convention as a means to expand global law-enforcement cooperation,”.. The treaty — expected to win General Assembly approval within months — creates a framework for nations to cooperate against internet-related crimes.. Once approved by the General Assembly, the treaty becomes law upon the approval of 40 nations. HN ranking history for this thread: https://hnrankings.info/41210110 https://hnrankings.info/41210110
- zelphirkalt 2y agoWhere "balancing concerns" means moving ever closer to the side of surveillance state. How convenient it is to be on the side arguing compromise every single time, and actually moving closer and closer in one direction. Like a sum of continuing fractions.
- snikeris 2y agoHow might a thread’s ranking drop off so precipitously?
- AmericanChopper 2y agoWhat a terrible article. Doesn’t at all explain what the problematic components of the treaty are, or how they could manifest into harms (other than it could be somehow used to persecute LGBT). How do they find these journalists?…
- Sharlin 2y agoThe article was behind an email wall for me. Good to know I didn’t miss anything.
- TeaBrain 2y agoThat modal can be closed. It is a surprisingly weakly written article though. As the person you responded to said, it provides almost no detail and doesn't give any reasons behind why there should be concerns.
- hypeatei 2y ago> Experts from these organizations say that the treaty undermines the global human rights of freedom of speech and expression So, effectively nothing different than what we have today then? Organizations like the CIA / NSA / MI6 etc. exist already which undermine the rights of everyone around the world, everyday.
- cyanydeez 2y agoSo do Google, X, Microsoft. This is a universal Large Organism problem. Government just happens to be more mature. X is particularly demonstrating how filtering media is both arbitrary and necessary, ironically as a negative case. In reality, theres no honest boundary to feee speech. At its limits, its just a noise vs signal debate which evwryone with compsci baclground should understand.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aa_is_op 2y agoNo. Today Thailand can't request and be allowed to receive data from your ISP in Sweden if you said something bad about their king. Also, Thailand isn't allowed to start a criminal procedure and issue an arrest warrant for that kind of stuff. This basically allows autocrats to silence everyone everywhere, and the democrat states are signing up for it.
- gmuslera 2y agoSo, it was OK to happen in the hand of approved countries that have no history of abusing of that privilege? It puts more players in the game, but that doesn’t mean the game is good to start with.
- aa_is_op 2y agoWhat "privileged countries"? The ones with an actual judicial system? The ones actually going after drug lords and ransomware gangs? Instead of protecting them? Show me one example where Russia actually extradited someone!!! You can't... cause all were detained when they took vacations. Instead, Russia protects the gangs and submits this surveillance crap to the UN. What about Vietnamese extraditions? Show me one time when Vietnamese extradited any of its scam gangs? What about Chinese hackers who steal IP and give it to the government, who then turns around and sets up competitors with zero R&D? Do I have to remember you about when they found "Cisco" written in Huawei's source code? There's no "privileged countries".... it's just countries that actually care about their citizens instead of using "cybercrime" to jail critics who expose their corruption. And you chose to defend those people! Get a clue you conspiracy theory psychopat! jfc!!!!
- tptacek 2y agoA note for US people: treaties don't supersede US laws unless they're self-executing† (that is: unless they have language directly and specifically compelling their implementation, rather than requiring legislatures to enact enabling legislation), and self-executing treaties don't negate federal law (the "last-in-time rule" requires courts to enforce whatever the most recent act was, so Congress can change how even a self-executing treaty is enforced) --- and nothing supersedes the Constitution, so a (say) UK hate speech law could not be enforced in the US even after the adoption of this treaty. † The previous cybercrime convention was; I don't know about this one.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoThat's a fairly silly "don't worry." Any treaty signed has an expectation on Congress to pass corresponding legislation to make it enforceable in domestic courts. The Supremacy Clause is intended to force treaty compliance. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-2/self-executing-and-non-self-executing-treaties https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec... At this point, there's no good reason to trust people in government as they seem to all have been captured by oligarchy, including here in the U.S. So this isn't a "don't worry" situation, it's something that should actively be contended with at a political level.
- tptacek 2y agoIt's not clear to me which of the things I said you believe to be incorrect.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago> so a (say) UK hate speech law could not be enforced in the US even after the adoption of this treaty. I believe the conclusion that it can't happen in the U.S. is incorrect.
- tptacek 2y agoIt obviously cannot happen in the US: neither the executive nor legislative branches have the power to bind any law that contravenes the US Constitution. It would be a pretty big loophole if they could simply agree to treaties to annul 1A. A ratified, enabled treaty is coequal with US federal law, not with the Constitution.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- layer8 2y agoBetter article IMO: https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/09/un-approves-first-cybercrime-treaty-despite-widespread-opposition https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/09/un-approves-first-c...
- liberalmongo 2y ago[dead]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoWere we ever supposed to be anon on the internet?
- mdp2021 2y agoYes. Implicitly. Ex Wikipedia: Over 186 constitutions mention the right to privacy https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?key=privacy https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?key=privacy Oh, and sniper: because the right to privacy will be defended by a number of individuals with radical violence, as you should know if you ever visited the world, so evidently I should not even need to proceed from «Yes. Implicitly». So contextually: if it were not anonymous, it would not be used (but by a specific class of entities).
- krapp 2y agoPossibly worth pointing out that a constitutional right to privacy no longer exists in the US after SCOTUS nullified Roe v. Wade. They were willing to throw the baby, the bathwater and the bathtub out for that one.
- mdp2021 2y agoThe Constitution of the USA still contains the IV Amendment in the Bill of Rights, I suppose: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
- tptacek 2y agoThis is not a right to privacy or anonymity; privacy is a predicate of the 4th Amendment, not a positive assertion; it governs when the government can conduct searches.
- 2y ago
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoHere is the draft text of this allegedly globally binding legal framework. It’s problematic in part because of its size, which makes it very hard to evaluate. It’s 41 pages: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v2405506.pdf https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v24055...
- alephnerd 2y agoMy recommendation for reading these kinds of documents is to skip the preamble, the general provisions, the implementation mechanisms, and the final provisions - these are boilerplate required for legalese. The main meat is the bulleted sections per article. Think of it like quickly reviewing C/C++ at a first glance - quickly glancing at the codebase's header file and the relevant portion of the implementation file is more than enough for a quick review > It’s problematic in part because of its size This is fairly small by legislative standards.
- seydor 2y agoThe Nation-state is basically an informational entity, a centralized bureaucracy that keeps its subjects together. It is natural that it wants to monitor and control communications among its people. But maybe people value their personal freedom more than their trust in the nation-state. I don't know if we are at that point yet. But maybe we will find that our personal freedoms are incompatible with the concept of nation-states
- Sporktacular 2y agoPerhaps you mean states. The nation-state is a political entity with overlapping ethnic boundaries. There aren't meany of them (Japan is sometimes cited as an example).
- alephnerd 2y agoIMO it is good that norms around offensive security are being formulated at the nation state level, especially because major nations like China, Russia, Iran, NK, SK, India, Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia are NOT signatories of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime This seems to be an attempt at creating a detente between China, US, Russia, etc over cyber espionage attempts on each other. This seems to be a result of the UK-China and US-China Track 1.5 Dialogues over the past 2-3 years. Over the past decade, offensive security capabilities have proliferated, and have caused increased chaos, especially after notable cases in signatory states like the HSE Attack (Ireland), the Assencion Attack (USA), the Apple Rootkit (Russia), Bundestag (Germany), Macron's cellphone (France), etc. Articles 12, 13, and 17 are the majors ones at hand, and Articles 14-16 is fluff as it is already covered in most countries jurisdictions, Articles 25-30 are already the norm in the jurisdictions that voted, and Articles 37-54 are already the norm under Interpol. Furthermore, at least within the US, such treaties can only be ratified by the Senate. Realistically, offensive operations under direct nation-state control will continue, but this narrows the scope for gray-zone operations using a third party (Appin/India, LockBit/Russia, ChamelGang/China or NK).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]