6 ms·

Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?

by _lvbh 2y ago

walterbell 2y ago
EFF tweet, https://x.com/eff/status/1821672613468569628 https://x.com/eff/status/1821672613468569628 Member States traded away existing human rights safeguards to reach a contrived consensus for a treaty that will endanger journalists, dissenters, human rights activists, and every day people around the world. Related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110
- brightball 2y ago
  How does the Supreme Court handle interpreting of treaty agreements? It seems like the language of the 1st amendment would prevent the US from entering into an agreement that violated it?
  - ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
    The US doesn't recognize any court as being above itself. Most countries probably don't either, they're supposed to go back home and get it passed in their own country's system.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    No treaty supersedes the Constitution; in fact, treaties don't even supersede conflicting federal statutes passed after ratification. Article III courts will overturn treaty enabling statute clauses that are mooted by the Constitution or subsequent federal laws.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    The short answer: it's really complicated. In a broad stroke, a treaty agreement is roughly akin to Congress passing a law, but the roles of the treaty itself versus enabling laws depends on several factors such as "is the treaty actually a treaty?" As it pertains to your question, the Constitution (and its amendments) are the supreme law of the land, and a treaty stipulation that requires the government to do something unconstitutional would have no legal effect.
tptacek 2y ago
I don't think the EFF has much suction at the level of international diplomacy. Most UN countries, including much of Europe, don't have the basic categorical legal principles much of EFF's argumentation relies on, especially re: free expression and rules of evidence. Fortunately, those same legal principles in the US cannot be overridden by a treaty.
- dannyobrien 2y ago
  There has always been a fairly established group of NGOs with similar criticisms at the international level, including EFF (you're more likely to hear these critiques from EFF at HN because ... well, we're a pretty an EFF-adjacent community here.) Unfortunately, the UN mostly works as a venue for governments negotiating with governments, with accredited NGOs having a position of being tolerated in those discussions, but with no real power. Outside of those tolerated NGOs, influence drops even further. (When I was at EFF, we did try to get UN official accreditation, but China would consistently veto it. There are other digital rights groups that have been accepted though, and we worked very closely with those. The full list of NGOs are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_consultative_status_to_the_United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_con... )
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Yeah, I was only struck by the previous comment's implication that the UN Office of Drugs and Crime might in the ordinary course take and act on feedback from the EFF. Like, it could happen, but it would be very surprising, right? I think it almost doesn't make sense, in that I perceive EFF to be, whether overtly or not, a very American organization with very American public policy views.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      The other issue is that the EFF is the minority opinion on many, many subjects. Many of the most effective NGOs have a "we agree with you, but this 10% needs to change," which is flexible enough that governments who otherwise wouldn't care pay attention. The EFF isn't like that - for example, the idea of outlawing DRM, while popular among hackers and people here, is a total nonstarter internationally. It's about as effective as hiring the FSF to lecture Microsoft; or hiring PETA to lecture Tyson; or hiring the Amish to lecture you on electrical design. The opinions are so diametrically opposed that it's not even worth considering.

Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?

by _lvbh 2y ago

Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?

EFF tweet, https://x.com/eff/status/1821672613468569628 https://x.com/eff/status/1821672613468569628 Member States traded away existing human rights safeguards to reach a contrived consensus for a treaty that will endanger journalists, dissenters, human rights activists, and every day people around the world. Related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110

brightball 2y ago
How does the Supreme Court handle interpreting of treaty agreements? It seems like the language of the 1st amendment would prevent the US from entering into an agreement that violated it?
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  The US doesn't recognize any court as being above itself. Most countries probably don't either, they're supposed to go back home and get it passed in their own country's system.
- tptacek 2y ago
  No treaty supersedes the Constitution; in fact, treaties don't even supersede conflicting federal statutes passed after ratification. Article III courts will overturn treaty enabling statute clauses that are mooted by the Constitution or subsequent federal laws.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  The short answer: it's really complicated. In a broad stroke, a treaty agreement is roughly akin to Congress passing a law, but the roles of the treaty itself versus enabling laws depends on several factors such as "is the treaty actually a treaty?" As it pertains to your question, the Constitution (and its amendments) are the supreme law of the land, and a treaty stipulation that requires the government to do something unconstitutional would have no legal effect.

tptacek 2y ago

I don't think the EFF has much suction at the level of international diplomacy. Most UN countries, including much of Europe, don't have the basic categorical legal principles much of EFF's argumentation relies on, especially re: free expression and rules of evidence. Fortunately, those same legal principles in the US cannot be overridden by a treaty.

dannyobrien 2y ago
There has always been a fairly established group of NGOs with similar criticisms at the international level, including EFF (you're more likely to hear these critiques from EFF at HN because ... well, we're a pretty an EFF-adjacent community here.) Unfortunately, the UN mostly works as a venue for governments negotiating with governments, with accredited NGOs having a position of being tolerated in those discussions, but with no real power. Outside of those tolerated NGOs, influence drops even further. (When I was at EFF, we did try to get UN official accreditation, but China would consistently veto it. There are other digital rights groups that have been accepted though, and we worked very closely with those. The full list of NGOs are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_consultative_status_to_the_United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_con... )
- tptacek 2y ago
  Yeah, I was only struck by the previous comment's implication that the UN Office of Drugs and Crime might in the ordinary course take and act on feedback from the EFF. Like, it could happen, but it would be very surprising, right? I think it almost doesn't make sense, in that I perceive EFF to be, whether overtly or not, a very American organization with very American public policy views.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    The other issue is that the EFF is the minority opinion on many, many subjects. Many of the most effective NGOs have a "we agree with you, but this 10% needs to change," which is flexible enough that governments who otherwise wouldn't care pay attention. The EFF isn't like that - for example, the idea of outlawing DRM, while popular among hackers and people here, is a total nonstarter internationally. It's about as effective as hiring the FSF to lecture Microsoft; or hiring PETA to lecture Tyson; or hiring the Amish to lecture you on electrical design. The opinions are so diametrically opposed that it's not even worth considering.