8 ms·
China, north korea, and russia, all prolific cybercriminal nations with significant state backing of the same, are signatories. This means it's at best meaning
by landl0rd 1y ago
China, 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?
- BoredPositron 1y agoDoesn't matter they committed to a target and exceed it. We see two countries with stagnation (changes below 1%) and regressions... one is the us.
- nomel 1y agoI think it does matter. My questions is, was their progress in any way related to the treaty, or would it have happened anyways?
- BoredPositron 1y agoNobody can know and that's why it's interesting to you... arguing in bad faith. Take your unfalsifiable counterfactual challenge and go back to debate club.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nomel 1y agoOr, we can look at their communicated plans before the Paris agreement...
- estearum 1y agoWhat about non-proliferation treaties which have prevented the vast majority of countries from bankrupting themselves in an existential sprint to nuclear weapons?
- izacus 1y agoDo you have even a slightest proof for your claim?
- nonethewiser 1y agoProof for his claim that this is how it seems to him? Isn't the proof self evident - he said it seems that way. Obviously this doesn't immediately make it true but asking for "proof" mischaracterizes the nature of his statement.
- twothreeone 1y agoIf you're trying to convince someone (other countries the US) the burden of proof is on you.
- izacus 1y agoStop normalizing lies.
- wagwang 1y ago> Is food a human right https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en > Amount of food sent https://www.gao.gov/international-food-assistance https://www.gao.gov/international-food-assistance
- sbohacek 1y agoThis is an example of US not carrying "all the water." The second link shows that the EU+UK (countries + institutions) sent more food aid than the US. The UK has roughly 1/5 the population of the US and sent more than 1/5 as much as the US. Or, the UK has roughly 1/8 the GDP of the US and sent far more than 1/8 as much as the US. Also, the data is 2014-2018 when US food aid was managed by USAID. What is the US percentage now that USAID has been eliminated?
- wagwang 1y agoThe us share of world gdp was between 22-27% and it was contributing 36%. Secondly, this is only external aid, internally the US far outspend most countries with 100B towards SNAP. Most euro nations don't even have food stamp like programs.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago> and the goal from the other countries perspective is to throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords. Which is not inherently a bad thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- etiennebausson 1y agoInteresting dataset. It would be a lot fairer to display tons of CO2 per inhabitant I think. And that's before taking into account imported CO2.
- brooke2k 1y agoClimate change isn't driven by per-inhabitant CO2 emissions. It's driven by total CO2 emissions, of which the US outputs 12% per year.
- tock 1y agoClimate change isn't driven by human defined borders either. It's driven by total CO2 emissions. If a per-capita rate is non sensical then border based emissions are even more non sensical. Greenland only emits 0.001% of the total. Greenland is 12000x a better country than the US wow. This is exactly why per-capita is used.
- lovich 1y agoYou know what the fun fact that everyone I hear complain about the US spending more than is fair on international projects ignores or appears ignorant of? When you’re the one carrying the water, you get to decide where the water goes. I actually prefer regimes like NATO where everyone is happy to leave the US in charge and doesn’t arm themselves. For all the projection of “strength” the current admin gives off, they are on their way towards reigning over a kingdom formed from the ashes of the republic's empire
- whimsicalism 1y agoI prefer multilateralism, but I do think there are challenges when every country that isn't the biggest smashes the 'defect' button as many times as they can.
- _3u10 1y agoMost US foreign aid is delivered as bombs, and/or directly funding the terrorists. And if not directly funding the terrorists, creating a situation so stupid that it will lead to a fresh batch for next years war. Neither the people paying for it, nor the people receiving it want it to be done that way.
- CaptWillard 1y agoAnd don't forget the tertiary effects as we displace millions with those bombs, only to take in a large number of "asylum seekers" from the countries we "aided". IMO this is all by design, and there are a non-zero number of NGO operatives on this very site who are frustrated that anything is impeding that plan.
- rpmisms 1y agoOK so can everyone else please pay?
- sschueller 1y agoLike throttling the US from committing war crimes?
- DevKoala 1y ago> I 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. I agree 100%. I don't see the benefits here.
- brazukadev 1y agoDon't worry, China is willingly replacing the US in these global collaborations.
- brabel 1y agoPoor US always being bullied by everyone else. What kind of world have you been living in where the reality is not the exact opposite??
- colechristensen 1y agoEh, there are a bunch of these kinds of treaties the US won't sign because for most of the signatories they're inconsequential but they're a huge lever for other countries to take sovereignty from the US.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- glonq 1y agoYes like the Ottawa Treaty banning Land Mines, in which 166 inconsiderate countries failed to consider the needs of big-time land-mine manufacturers like the US. /s
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- password54321 1y agoScrew game theory, I have the bigger stick. This is how everyone goes "defect" and you enter an arms race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma Never mind, we already crossed that line: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzq2p0yk4o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzq2p0yk4o
- dvt 1y ago> Never mind, we already crossed that line: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzq2p0yk4o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzq2p0yk4o This was a very proportional response to Putin[1] the other day, so it's still technically game theory. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/putin-says-russia-tested-poseidon-nuclear-capable-super-torpedo-2025-10-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/putin-says-russia-tested...
- complianceowl 1y agoAlmost no rebuttals on the internet are intellectually honest these days. Take the same exact action by a President of the alternative party, and it's considered "decisive", "shows our enemies we mean business". But since it's not coming from your political party, it's "oh no, what is this guy doing. He's going to get us all unalived."
- FinnKuhn 1y agoThe Wikipedia article having a whole section about human right objections also says a lot about this treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Cybercrime#Human_rights_objections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_agai...
- AlexandrB 1y ago> For example, the convention requires states to have laws that compel internet services to collect certain data, and does not require that requests for such data be transparent. There are limited cases when member states may deny a request for data, although there is a provision to do so if a state believes a request is due to "sex, race, language, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinions". The latter statement was weakened during negotiations, and challenged by Iran and Russia until the end of negotiations. Ok, so it's basically a "five eyes" style agreement for sharing intel on citizens. Why would anyone want their government to support this?
- thaumasiotes 1y ago> Ok, so it's basically a "five eyes" style agreement for sharing intel on citizens. Why would anyone want their government to support this? While I agree that it's not a good idea, I can answer that last question: The idea would be that when an American enforcement body, presumably the FBI, determines that a bunch of cash or whatever was stolen by Russian hackers, the treaty compels the Russian government to keep records of the hackers' activity, and it "creates frameworks for collaboration, including mutual legal assistance and extradition". So instead of saying "hey, you stole all our money" and getting the response "wow, it must suck to be you", we could make them give the money back and extradite the criminals.
- braebo 1y agoKind of breaks down when the criminals are running the government..
- testdelacc1 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- olalonde 1y agoDamned if you do, damned if you don't. If they hadn't signed the treaty, people here would be saying it's proof those countries support cybercriminals.
- dlcarrier 1y agoAren't treaties with the US meaningless by default, unless ratified by 3/4th of Congress?
- dragonwriter 1y agoNo. Like many countries, the US requires legislative ratification of treaties, but by 2/3 of the Senate, not 3/4 of the Congress. The US has the same obligations as any non-ratifying signatory with regard to treaties it has signed but not ratified.
- technothrasher 1y agoTwo-thirds of the Senate, I believe, not three-quarters of Congress.
- pelorat 1y agoContrast this to the EU where all treaties are automatically law across all members.
- alphager 1y agoThat's not how the EU works. As an example take the Mercosur treaty: it has 4 parts. The first post is straight up trade rules, an area that the Eau member states delegated to the EU. This part was directly valid once signed. The other three parts all concern areas not delegated to the EU. To become law, all three parts have to be approved by the EU parliament and the EU council (which consists of the heads of the executives of the member states) and the local parliaments of the member states. Depending on local law, even regional parliaments have to approve it (Belgium is such a state). The final implementation of Mercosur is not expected before 2028.
- vasco 1y agoEverything needs to pass local parliaments in EU as well.
- MangoToupe 1y agoSurely signing it would signal willingness to get along? What would be the downside? > surrenders power to a regime with partial control by objectively bad actors ...do you think we are a regime with good actors? Why? What signals of morality or competency do you look for?
- dumbledoren 1y agoRight. Its not like recent statistics showed that the US was the place where most of the cyberattacks originate. And its not like both the US and UK are openly saying that they are maximizing cyberwarfare against everyone as if it was something to be proud of. The country that is facilitating a livestreamed genocide in Gaza, is the 'good guys' to be trusted in cyberwarfare, for 'some' reason. But, then again, in the Angloamerican culture, its always 'others' who are evil. Never itself.
- SllX 1y agoOut of curiosity, can you give me an example of a presently extant culture that does view itself as evil?
- louthy 1y ago> Right. It’s not like recent statistics showed that the US was the place where most of the cyberattacks originate. Link? > And it’s not like both the US and UK are openly saying that they are maximizing cyberwarfare against everyone as if it was something to be proud of. Link? > The country that is facilitating a livestreamed genocide in Gaza Which country is that? And where’s the livestream streaming?
- p337 1y agoWait, what data are you seeing where most cyber attacks are originating from the US? I work in security at a place with some of the best threat intelligence globally, and there are indeed attacks from the US, even the government, but the idea that MOST cyberattacks originate from the US would be completely shocking to me. Is there some qualifier you're not including or maybe you misremembered "most targeted" as originated? I'm not really trying to get into the political part of it fwiw.
- andreygrehov 1y agoAccording to World Cybercrime Index, Russia, Ukraine, China and the US are in top 4. North Korea is #7. Just to add some perspective to it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- coliveira 1y agoThree of these countries are technology leaders, so that makes sense. Then we have Ukraine.
- koakuma-chan 1y agoRussia is number 1, Ukraine is number 2. This is my proudest moment as a Ukranian.
- userbinator 1y agoUkraine is also former-USSR, just like Russia.
- andyvesel 1y agoThat's right. If this is happening in the wrong nation - it's totalitarism and evil. If this happens in the correct nations, which are on the bright side - then it's democracy.
- meowface 1y agoThis but non-ironically. (Unfortunately the current United States administration makes the nation much closer to one of the Bad Nations, though, so it's kind of moot anyway.)
- pphysch 1y agoIt's also crucially important that the person deciding "right" and "wrong" here is an Atlantic Council fellow, otherwise that would also be Bad.
- rpdillon 1y agoYeah, the article is quite good at summarizing some of these issues. > The convention has been heavily criticized by the tech industry, which has warned that it criminalizes cybersecurity research and exposes companies to legally thorny data requests. > 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. > Many expressed concern that the convention will be abused by dictatorships and rogue governments who will deploy it against critics or protesters — even those outside of a regime’s jurisdiction. > 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.” > Any countries ratifying the treaty, he added, risks “actively validating cyber authoritarianism and facilitating the global erosion of digital freedoms, choosing procedural consensus over substantive human rights protection.”
- aivisol 1y agoDisappointing that EU signed it. I guess they are trying to push chat control by all possible means. > The U.K. and European Union joined China, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria and dozens of other nations in signing the convention, which lays out new mechanisms for governments to coordinate, build capacity and track those who use technology to commit crimes. EU will coordinate with Russia on cybercrime?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 1y agoJust because known bad actors are signatories to a community promise does not ispo facto make it meaningless to everyone else. I mean, what are you going to do? Instigate a rule that only nice people can be signatories? You've not played nice in various ways in the past, so you cannot sign this promise? (Not to say that I agree with the treaty. See concerns by human rights groups mentioned in article and all.)
- litbear2022 1y agoIt must be China or North Korea that forced TikTok to sell.
- cyanydeez 1y agoAlso, America has traditionally refused to sign these types of accords.