11 ms·
US declines to join more than 70 countries in signing UN cybercrime treaty
- ecshafer 1y agoThe government is shut down, treaties need to be ratified by the Senate.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- teraflop 1y agoThe executive branch is shut down. The Senate is still in session. (The House of Representatives is effectively shut down, but only because the Speaker of the House has been unilaterally putting it into recess at the beginning of every session. The House Republicans all voted to grant the Speaker the power to do this whenever he wants, at the beginning of their current term.)
- Razengan 1y agoI am the Senate.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> The government is shut down, treaties need to be ratified by the Senate. The President isn't shut down, and only the President is needed to sign a treaty; it is submitted for ratification later and that, absent a deadline in the treaty, can take as long as it takes. Also, even if the Senate was required to sign a treaty, the Senate isn't shutdown, and is in session and doing business.
- Aurornis 1y ago> It also creates legal regimes to monitor, store and allow cross-border sharing of information without specific data protections. Access Now’s Raman Jit Singh Chima said the convention effectively justifies “cyber authoritarianism at home and transnational repression across borders.” None of this sounds good for privacy and data protection. Opting out of the treaty was probably a good choice. Opting out doesn’t preclude the US from cooperating with international cybercrime investigations, but it does avoid more data collection, surveillance, and sharing.
- rprwhite 1y agoErr... yeah, because that's what USA based companies are known for - PII protection and data privacy?!? Maybe there is some more complexity to this argument, that I'm missing. But, it's not one that has merit without justification.
- jonas21 1y agoWell, yes. Compared to most countries that have signed this treaty, the US has excellent protections for PII and data privacy. But that's beside the point. The most objectionable parts are about state surveillance and the potential for human rights abuses. For example, here's what the EFF had to say about it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-un-draft-cybercrime-convention https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-un...
- twothreeone 1y agoI wouldn't exactly call them "excellent", but yeah I think the big caveat is > the US has excellent protections for PII and data privacy *for _US nationals_ :)
- whimsicalism 1y agoactually mostly for EU nationals :)
- topadmin 11mo agoAt what level do you think American PII protection is working? I can't go to a dentist/medical/eye appointment without the office staff looking me up or adding to some kind of unethical dark web profile. Maybe the data at rest is secure but it doesn't really matter when the staff is leaking all the data as it is getting stored in their systems.
- whimsicalism 1y agoUS-based companies probably have the most sophisticated PII & data privacy compliance schemes globally. Sure, that's mostly due to obligations imposed on them by jurisdictions outside of the US, but it is still true.
- christkv 1y agoNo thank you and I’m loath to see the EU sign up to this with a ton of authoritarian states. Things like this and the continued pushing of stuff like Chat Control has convinced me the EU stands to turn our countries into flawed democracies and eventually authoritarian states.
- perihelions 1y agoIt's remarkable context that the Russian government authored this UN treaty, > "Russia, however, Rodriguez said, has objected to the convention for infringing state sovereignty by allowing other nations to investigate cybercrimes in its jurisdiction. So in 2017, Russia proposed negotiating a new treaty, and in 2019 the UN adopted a resolution to do so, backed by Russia, Cambodia, Belarus, China, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Syria and Venezuela." https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/14/un_cybercrime_treaty/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/14/un_cybercrime_treaty/ ("Russia-pushed UN Cybercrime Treaty may rewrite global law. It's ... not great") > "It was proposed by Russia in 2017 and adopted by the General Assembly in December 2024 amid resistance from human rights organizations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Cybercrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_agai...
- christkv 1y agolol and the same politicians who call everything a Russian plot to influence Europeans run and sign this. The loss of shame is one of our main problems in modern politics on all sides. The professional politician industrial complex has to go.
- perihelions 1y agoPrevious threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207987 ("EFF’s concerns about the UN Cybercrime Convention (eff.org)", 99 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39129274 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39129274 ("Proposed UN cybercrime treaty has evolved into an expansive surveillance tool (eff.org)", 64 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110 ("New U.N. Cybercrime Treaty Unanimously Approved, Could Threaten Human Rights (scientificamerican.com)", 53 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41221403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41221403 ("UN Cybercrime Convention to Overrule Bank Secrecy (therage.co)", 42 comments)
- maerF0x0 1y agoWhy would the US give away it's power? I do not see anything to gain here. At least 2 of the big players are duplicitous bad actors (ie take more than they give) ... If they want prove otherwise then let Tencent teams compete in public CTFs again and disclose 0days.
- delfinom 1y agoWhat power? The US gave up power by not signing. The treaty is standardizing the process for sharing cybercrime evidence and prosecuting individuals. It has signatories pledging to align their laws and create new ones to make the same cybercrime illegal. This isn't giving any country any sole power over cybercrime prosecution decisions.
- strictnein 1y agoSigning on to bad treaties is bad. Treaties can both restrict what you can do and compel you to do things that you don't want to. For example: "Compelled Technical Assistance: The draft requires countries to adopt laws enabling authorities to compel anyone with knowledge of a particular computer system to provide *necessary information* to facilitate access." The US would have to have laws that would force you to provide login information to systems if the government wanted access to it. This would run contrary to the 5th amendment. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-un-draft-cybercrime-convention https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-un...
- shenberg 1y agoWhen countries like North Korea, which depends on cybercrime to fund itself, are signatories, you have to wonder whether this agreement means what its title says.
- y-curious 1y agoThe old “think of the children/fight terrorism/support our troops/be a good person” style of naming propositions to destroy data privacy.
- slowmovintarget 1y agoNot just data privacy, this is intended to destroy free speech.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Atlas667 1y agoThey have also had the longest on going embargo on earth right after they were nearly wiped out by a genocidal war on behalf of the US. I don't doubt their history explains the shape of their economy. This may seem like I am defending North Korea, but in reality I am putting in perspective who/why they are. Facts which nearly amount propaganda to western nations.
- bloppe 1y agoI don't think it's right to blame ordinary North Koreans for the state of their country like that. Clearly it has more to do with the paranoid authoritarianism of 1 guy, rather than the collective war trauma of the people. Just look at South Korea, the other party of that "genocidal war". They moved on a long time ago, because their national politics allowed them to.
- Atlas667 11mo agoNot really. Squid games is loosely based on for-profit concentration camps run by US backed dictators in South Korea. The true story is actually worse than the fictional show. All US colonies have had terrible dictatorships, the news of which purposefully does not reach the western core. Saying "they've moved on" is ignoring what actually happened, and I'm not bringing this up in a "lets focus on the past" sort of way, but on how it actually got there. Is a murderous dictatorship that forcefully bashes the economy into the shape it wants the same as "getting over it"? And blaming how North Korea is on one guy is a cop out. And, like I said, I'm not even defending the guy, but you can't simplify history too much either, else it starts to look like cartoons. There are 4 other guys who lead North Korea, Kim Jong Un just has a family legacy involved in its founding and is the general secretary of state, the real President, coincidentally, died yesterday, Nov 3th.
- landl0rd 1y agoChina, north korea, and russia, all prolific cybercriminal nations with significant state backing of the same, are signatories. This means it's at best meaningless and at worst surrenders power to a regime with partial control by objectively bad actors. Staying out of this was the right move. Plus it has too many implications for surveillance and security; poor idea in any case.
- ethagknight 1y agoI was hoping to see a comment like this. These sorts of “global collaborations” seem to always end with the US carry all the water, and the goal from the other countries perspective is to throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords.
- BoredPositron 1y agoSay what you want about this treaty but China is running circles around you regarding Paris.
- HFguy 1y agoWhat point are you trying to make? I'm honestly not sure. Is it that China is polluting a lot? Or a little? That they are making environmental progress? Or none?
- BoredPositron 1y agoThey they are exceeding their initial commitment. Talking about pollution in your tone is also a bit rich coming from the biggest net polluter in all of history.
- nomel 1y agoWhat percent difference in reduction do you see if they didn't sign the treaty?
- bethekidyouwant 1y agoThe UN should stick to environmental treaties
- black_13 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- some_random 1y agoWow so the hosts and beneficiaries of cybercrime wrote a treaty on it (with a ton of additional surveillance mandates included, of course) and the US didn't sign on. How disappointing.
- pksebben 1y agotext of the treaty: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cybercrime/convention/text/convention-full-text.html https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cybercrime/convention/text/co... I wouldn't get excited about the US "not signing". With the government shutdown, they might just be waiting for the document to be in New York before they bother. Hanoi is far. 64ss1: This Convention shall be open to all States for signature in Hanoi in 2025 and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York until 31 December 2026. Article 37 is spooky. Expands extradition to where there might not be preexisting extradition treaties. Fuck article 11. It's the EU's "any program for committing cybercrime is a crime" law, and makes programmers culpable. IANAL, but it actually looks like it criminalizes the entire software supply chain. Sure, there's a clause in there that looks like it's supposed to protect security research (11s2) but this is the thinnest of loincloths. It also seems to apply to "crime where there was a computer somewhere around". As for what constitutes "crime": Article 2:(h) “Serious crime” shall mean conduct constituting an offence punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious penalty; ...that seems to mean that if publishing information against the state regime is punishable by 4+ years and you used a computer to do it, there is now a basis for seizing your data and extraditing you. I'm not even going to get into the implications this has for damaging privacy in general. This is some dark ass shit.
- thw_9a83c 1y agoArticle 29: Real-time collection of traffic data - (ii) To cooperate and assist the competent authorities in the collection or recording of; traffic data, in real time, associated with specified communications in its territory transmitted by means of an information and communications technology system. Seriously? Will the authorities of state X simply ask the authorities of state Y to collect/intercept data, and will the authorities of state Y be required to cooperate even without a legal basis in their local legislation? Because this treaty become sufficient legislation? And more so: 3. Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to oblige a service provider to keep confidential the fact of the execution of any power provided for in this article and any information relating to it. I cannot imagine anyone with a functioning brain signing this at the UN level.
- 1y ago
- listeria 1y agofull list of signatories: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-16&chapter=18&clang=_en https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
- jacknews 1y agoThanks, this should be added to the OP
- AaronFriel 1y agoWhat's the difference between this and the first link you shared?
- jacknews 1y agoThat seemed to an EU thing But I note the treaties.un.org link is signatories as of late 2024. Why are they not publishing the current signatories? This is absolutely not something that should be murky.
- listeria 1y agoyou can see at the top of the page it says: STATUS AS AT : 30-10-2025 09:16:00 EDT and the date of the signature says 25 Oct 2025.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jacknews 1y agoWhen Cambodia is a signatory, you know this is just whitewash, or even 'protective intelligence' ie using the shared international intelligence to protect the scams and evade enforcement. Keep your enemies close.
- pembrook 1y ago> The U.K. and European Union joined China, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria and dozens of other nations in signing the convention...Human rights groups warned on Friday that it effectively forces member states to create a broad electronic surveillance dragnet that would include crimes that have nothing to do with technology. Countries like Nigeria, Morocco, North Korea and Russia signing a "cybercrime" treaty is just hilarious to me. I don't believe for a second that these countries want to crack down on cybercrime, considering their citizens are the main perpetrators and beneficiaries of it, and they've taken zero actions to prevent it before today. Lagos is essentially the Silicon Valley of internet fraud, and it happens with permission from the highest levels of their government. This obviously is just an excuse to create a global dragnet for governments looking to crack down on dissent.
- elAhmo 1y agoUN should move its HQ outside of US. It is obvious they have become a bad host.
- ARandomerDude 1y agoNow that's an idea I think a lot of people can get behind. From the left, the US is a bad host. From the right, get those globalists out of my country. Everybody wins.
- ang_cire 1y agoI mean, that's true, but not because they won't sign onto a global dragnet treaty with Russia and China. China especially actively fabricates crimes for Chinese dissidents living outside its borders, and this is a perfect vehicle to allow them to track and monitor those people with ease.
- nwellnhof 1y ago> cybercrime — which the U.N. estimates costs $10.5 trillion around the world annually. That's almost 10% of global GDP. Who comes up with these numbers?
- orbifold 1y agoIt will all make sense once you realize who works at the UN, basically nepo babies of all colors and variety, including second cousins of Saudi royalty etc.
- tdb7893 1y agoOne of my family members was a research director at the UN and came from a middle class American family. It has its problems (he certainly has his share of complaints) but the idea that they are all nepo babies is incorrect and they do have serious researchers. Also, are we sure that the $10.5 trillion is a UN generated number? Other people in the comments seem to think it was made up by some other organization.
- orbifold 11mo agoA relative of mine worked for the UN and interfaced with the UN after they left for a non-profit. Anyone that knows anything about them and also just simply observing what and how they are doing things should have no doubt that it is filled with people that got there by using their connections. And you absolutely constantly run into people that have no business being there other than through nepotism. Btw. I am sure that US staff is less likely to be a total nepo baby, but because the UN "has" to hire from all over the world, most roles are not filled like that.
- NaomiLehman 1y ago[flagged]
- whimsicalism 1y agocomplete and utter nonsense. you have to be innumerate to believe that $1 in $10 is being stolen by cybercriminals.
- sixhobbits 1y agoCouple clicks to get to the list so here it is. Not countries I usually associate with caring about privacy. Algeria,Angola,Australia,Austria,Azerbaijan,Belarus,Belgium,Brazil,Brunei Darussalam,Burkina Faso,Cambodia,Chile,China,Costa Rica,Côte d'Ivoire,Cuba,Czech Republic,Democratic People's Republic of Korea,Democratic Republic of the Congo,Djibouti,Dominican Republic,Ecuador,Egypt,European Union,France,Ghana,Greece,Guinea-Bissau,Iran (Islamic Republic of),Ireland,Jamaica,Mozambique,Namibia,Nauru,Nicaragua,Nigeria,Palau,Papua New Guinea,Peru,Philippines,Poland,Portugal,Qatar,Russian Federation,Rwanda,Saudi Arabia,Slovakia,Slovenia,South Africa,Spain,Sri Lanka,State of Palestine,Sweden,Thailand,Togo,Türkiye,Uganda,United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,United Republic of Tanzania,Uruguay,Uzbekistan,Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),Viet Nam,Zimbabwe
- etiennebausson 1y agoI am curious about which countries do you associate with privacy.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> curious about which countries do you associate with privacy Estonia, Iceland, Switzerland, the Nordic countries and America.
- malvim 1y agoAmerica? The one with all the spying, NSA, Patriot Act, this America?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> America? The one with all the spying, NSA, Patriot Act, this America? Yes. We do all of that. But so does practically everyone else. The difference is our federal structure and--until recently--independent courts provided a bit more oversight than other countries' citizens had access to. And we've had--until recently--respect for privacy held deeply enough by enough people that it turns into a stink at the federal level in at least some respect. Most countries have national logging requirements, disclosure requirements and domestic police with the powers of the NSA. (America remains one of the few countries in which one can form a legal entity with zero identification.)
- orenlindsey 1y agoAll this would do is drive criminals to poorer countries that can't stop crime as well. Just like many scammers being based in South Asia, or billionaires moving their money to tax havens. It just takes one country to allow this stuff or at least not stop it, and your treaties are just pieces of paper.
- hypeatei 1y agoI don't understand why political topics such as international treaties like this are upvoted and kept on the front page? To be clear, I'm in favor of politics being discussed on here, but this is so uninteresting and pointless to discuss IMO. International law can be ignored even by countries that agreed to it. What are you going to do, invade? As pointed out, countries like China and Russia signed onto a cybercrime treaty... pure slop. Just seems very distracting when actual abuses and interesting political topics are hidden away in /active (like ICEs use of facial recognition)
- nizbit 1y agoDon’t have to look far to find out why. Per the article: “Illicit flows of money, concealed through cryptocurrencies and digital transactions, finance the trafficking of drugs, arms, and terror. And businesses, hospitals, and airports are brought to a standstill by ransomware attacks.” Then there’s this: Inside the Trump family’s global crypto cash machine https://www.reuters.com/investigations/inside-trump-familys-global-crypto-cash-machine-2025-10-28/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/inside-trump-familys-...
- abtinf 1y agoOnce again, Chat Control is a never ending battle.
- mrkramer 1y agoRussia in particular is turning the blind eye on en masse cyber crime that is originating from Russia. Russian hackers in the last two decades stole millions of credit cards from US and EU and hacked numerous banks and still the biggest Russian cyber criminals are at large in Russia. Just look at the FBI's top 10 wanted for cyber crime.
- ryanisnan 1y agoI think you're misreading the situation. As far as I can tell, Russia has every reason to want to continue engaging in heavy cyber-criminal activities. I don't think this is the virtuous Kremlin turning a blind eye. This is a classic case of deception. Look at my left hand, so you don't see what my right is doing.
- mrkramer 1y agoThey see it as asymmetrical warfare, I know that; but if US would let US cyber criminals steal millions of Russian and Chinese credit cards or some other PII, I would perceive that as distasteful and not as a form of counterintelligence.
- user205738 1y agoConsidering that America has allowed hundreds of billions of dollars of money belonging to individuals in Russia to be stolen, I do not see the validity of your argument.
- mrkramer 11mo agoIt was caused by unprovoked and illegal invasion of neighbouring country, that's tit for tat. They also seized assets of Nazi Germany when Hitler decided to go full yolo.
- user205738 11mo agoThese are just words, excuses that hide the fact that they illegally stole funds that did not belong to them. Can I read more about the seizure of German bank accounts? As far as I know, they (USA) continued to sponsor Germany until 1944. (through various branches.) Some Swiss banks serviced Nazi accounts until 2020 and did not see any problems in this. A tit for tat would have been Iraq had seized American assets in response to the US invasion and the theft of Iraq's gold assets. Remind me, when did Russia invade the USA or the EU?)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- breakingrules3 1y ago[dead]
- breakingrules3 1y ago[dead]
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- phendrenad2 1y agoLet me guess - the "treaty" really means setting up a UN-run organization that will oversee global cybercrime defense. Let's check out the last time that happened. Oh yeah, the WHO. The WHO that lied about the coronavirus and said it isn't airborne despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
- radial_symmetry 1y agoJust a reminder that the UN exists as a place where countries with very opposing points of view can have a forum for discussion. A treaty put forth by the UN, or a declaration by the UN, does not automatically mean that it is good or aligned with your values in any way shape or form.
- taco_emoji 1y agoThe United States is taking an indefinite hiatus. Please check back later.
- deafpolygon 1y agonotably absent are the netherlands and germany… wonder why this is!
- iamnothere 1y agoNice to see abstention from Canada, Finland, Japan, South Korea, India, Iceland, Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland as well. Not everyone is on board with this (for good reason), it’s not just the big bad US ignoring the rest of the world. Given the presence of some extremely authoritarian states on the list of signatories, the fact that the UK and France signed on seems to confirm my suspicions about the trajectory of freedom in those countries. And surprisingly Sweden! I feel like Mullvad users should be concerned.
- SllX 1y agoAll better company than the countries listed as signatories. I’m actually not sure about Germany though. I almost posted a similar list above but then I noticed the European Union is listed as a signatory, so not sure where that puts the EU members not listed: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-16&chapter=18&clang=_en https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
- iamnothere 1y agoThis is indeed strange. Can the EU sign treaties that are binding on all member countries? And if so, what’s the deal with France and other countries signing on redundantly? Edit: another commenter mentioned something about treaties needing to go through the EU parliament and council if the areas of concern aren’t delegated to the EU. Not sure which side of the fence this falls under, and I bet there are some potential legal challenges waiting regardless. So perhaps France is hedging its bets by signing on as an individual nation, indicating its willingness to implement the treaty no matter what happens with the rest of the EU. But I am no expert on EU bureaucracy and politics!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- SllX 1y ago> But I am no expert on EU bureaucracy and politics! I’d be shocked if anyone alive is. A couple of weeks ago the Council of the EU authorized both the Commission and members to sign onto this convention. That’s the best I’ve got and it still doesn’t tell us if this is would apply automatically to Germany and others without them signing on, but I guess in theory it helps the convention get over the 40 signature threshold if it weren’t going to already. Signing on still isn’t done either as it runs from October 25th 2025 through December 31st 2026. PS: if you saw a previous version of this comment, your eyes weren’t fooling you, I just got taken for a ride by a bad source that confused the Council of Europe with the Council of the EU so I nuked it.
- zaoui_amine 1y agoUS knows this treaty is a joke. No point in signing when the bad actors are already in.
- bloppe 1y agoYa, this isn't surprising. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-un-finally-adopts-a-convention-on-cybercrime-and-no-one-is-happy/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-un... > states parties are obligated to establish laws in their domestic system to “compel” service providers to “collect or record” real-time traffic or content data. That's probably the biggest poison pill. The whole data sharing thing got watered down to the point of farce. Of course the EU won't extradite Russian LGBT activists under this law. But similarly, how likely do you think it would be for North Korea to extradite its own state-sponsored cybercriminals? They can simply claim that doing so would go against their "sovereignty, security, or other essential interests". Case closed!
- shevy-java 1y agoThe USA has chosen Evil here. This also confirms the PSF foundation being wary. The USA would love to put unaffiliated developers in prison.
- tiberius_p 1y agoAny treaty joined by Russia is compromised from the start.
- mlinksva 1y agoIt's a very good thing the US has declined to sign this. The digital rights community has been campaigning against it since its proposal by Russia in 2017. The US not signing it is a small victory across a very large loss. Many explainers like https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/joint-statement-un-cybercrime-convention-eff-and-global-partners-urge-governments https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/joint-statement-un-cyb...
- bilekas 1y agoThe title sounds more ominous than it really is. Why would the US want to weaken their position when it comes to advancing their cyber warfare weapons. Unrestricted they don't even need to pretend to be playing nice. I prefer the honesty at least.
- xyst 1y agoWhen it comes to the UN, if Israel doesn’t sign/agree to it. Usually USA follows. “America first”, right? Load of horse shit.
- beanjuiceII 1y agothe US makes smart decision unlike 70 countries, fixed the title
- reenorap 1y agoHas the UN actually solved any problems in the last 40+ years? It seems like a massive bureaucracy that is absolutely ineffective. They have been completely ineffective with respect to Ukraine, Gaza, COVID, any other conflict around the world. When the W.H.O. went into China to "investigate" the COVID virus and came back saying "Nope, nothing to see here!" was probably one of the most predictable and pathetic things from the UN.
- tamimio 1y agoI bet that’s the real reason why https://www.reuters.com/investigations/inside-trump-familys-global-crypto-cash-machine-2025-10-28/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/inside-trump-familys-...
- aeternum 1y ago"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none"
- quantum_state 1y agoSnowden … there must be darker stuff that is still there …
- quantumcotton 11mo ago[dead]