EFF’s concerns about the UN Cybercrime Convention | Hacker News Reader

EFF’s concerns about the UN Cybercrime Convention

eff.org

370 pointswalterbell96 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41237879

  When I was at EFF, we did try to get UN official accreditation, but China would consistently veto it.. I was EFF's international activist and later international director for a number of years.. more of the work than you'd imagine has a global side to it. This has been true since the days of [DMCA].. elements of which were rejected by the US Congress in the mid-Nineties, then policy-laundered through WIPO into the 1996 Copyright Treaty, which meant that it had to become law after the US Senate consented to it in 1999. (Treaties don't need the support of both houses in the US). EFF and other orgs at the time learned the lesson that regional and international agreements can often be an end-run around local democracy or norms -- and that local laws (from the DMCA to the GDPR) can have wider ramifications on a global network..

  EFF and partner groups often contribute to government and international proposals (a hundred-or-so of them have been involved in the cybercrime treaty process for many years [1] and I believe got it to a fairly good place before a last-minute push by some states to introduce more surveillance into it.)

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/joint-statement-propos...

Earlier HN threads:

UN Cybercrime Convention To Overrule Bank Secrecy, 40 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41221403

UN cybercrime treaty unanimously approved, 50 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110

>it had to become law after the US Senate consented to it in 1999. (Treaties don't need the support of both houses in the US).

To be clear for those not familiar with American government structure, this is an intended separation of powers between the two Houses of Congress.

The House of Representatives (aka Lower House) is tasked primarily with duties concerning money and commerce. Representatives have the sole authority to draft and ratify budgets, Senators may only ratify or not.

The Senate (aka Upper House) is tasked primarily with affairs of state including but not limited to confirming and impeaching executive, judicial, and other public servant appointments; drafting and ratifying treaties; and helping ensure all States have a say in most political affairs.

Most legislative tasks do in fact require drafting and ratification of sibling bills by both Houses of Congress, but certain things like treaties are the sole jurisdiction of one House or the other.

The Senate has traditionally been viewed as more prestigious and powerful than the House, but actually neither is strictly better than the other.

That is an accurate representation of how it used to and in theory work. Quaint

As the above former EFF guy comment essentially stated “after a bunch of work and a long time and a bunch of effort … last minute subversion undid everything and we were left with more tyrannical surveillance pushed by compromised and corrupted, bought and paid for traitors”

The direct election of Senators considerably changed the Senate. The Senate’s job was to represent the interests of the individual states, the House was to represent the people. That’s why the Senate has treaty powers — as the United States (emphasis on the plural of states) are/were each sovereign entities and the Senate thusly had to approve of any treaty that woukd effectively bind states to an international agreement.

Direct election of senators changed that because the senators no long answer to the state governments but to the population of the state directly.

UN cybercrime treaty was unanimously approved by 200 countries this week.

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

EFF tweet, 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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_con... )

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.

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.

Not surprisingly, most governments have little to no respect for individual freedom and autonomy. To my understanding, this is among the best reasons not to sign such treaties with said governments, as compromising on principles surrounding fundamental human rights should be a non-starter for those that value them

So, just to clarify something here: unless they've radicalised a lot since I've left, EFF doesn't think that DRM should be outlawed. It thinks that governments shouldn't outlaw their citizens from talking about how to circumvent DRM, or criminalize the bypassing of DRM for lawful purposes. As I mentioned in my other comment, the anti-circumvention statutes of the DMCA were controversial enough to fail to pass in the US when they were introduced as part of the original 90s copyright reforms, and were only introduced in the US after they were successfully inserted into the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Those provisions have been pretty controversial ever since, and there have been multiple attempts by many groups and industries to limit the damage since then. (The Copyright Treaty itself can be interpreted to permit circumvention for purposes of fair use or other exceptions and limitations on copyright, and the limitations on individuals communicating about how to circumvent DRM may well be unconstitutional in the US -- the courts haven't really ruled on this.)

EFF and partner groups often contribute to government and international proposals (a hundred-or-so of them have been involved in the cybercrime treaty process for many years https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/joint-statement-propos... and I believe got it to a fairly good place before a last-minute push by some states to introduce more surveillance into it.)

You don't really get to hear about the compromises, because you don't really need to kick up a fuss about something that has worked out okay -- and even if you do post about the positive fine print, nobody sends such exciting documents to the front page of Hacker News.

Thanks for the valuable history lesson!

> even if you do post about the positive fine print, nobody sends such exciting documents to the front page of Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41241226

EFF getting more and more extreme in the last few years does seem to be a pretty widely held opinion on HN though.

I've been EFF adjacent since the nineties, and I think people have always claimed this, often when they have read a call-to-action that uses stronger language than they are comfortable with. I think the causality is that a strongly-worded action gets wider propagation than the more moderate analysis. EFF positions on most matters has been pretty consistent IMHO.

>or hiring the Amish to lecture you on electrical design.

This actually isn't a great example: the Amish do use electricity on their farms. They just don't like to be connected to the grid, so they're big supporters of solar power. They probably know a lot more about electrical design than you think (depending on your definition of "electrical design"). They even have internet-connected computers so they can get orders from customers.

A better example might be hiring the Amish to lecture you on public transit design in dense cities. Not that they're opposed to it, but it's just something far outside their experience (they don't live in dense cities). Or back to electricity, having them lecture you about grid-scale electrical transmission, or nuclear power generation.

> Many of the most effective NGOs have a "we agree with you, but this 10% needs to change,"

Isn't that exactly what the linked page suggests in this case? Most of the recommendations are things like "Limit Articles 23(2)(c) and 35(1)(c) to Articles 7 to 11 and delete Article 23(2)(b)", not "burn the thing down and start over".

I think the best way to think about this is that there are a number of human rights groups who collaborate on critiquing proposed treaties and other international proposals (at the UN, at WIPO, etc). The process tries to incorporate these critiques, as it does with other input (such as that from companies). While it's all real politik in the end, different states have different viewpoints and incentives, and having dedicated experts work with you to understand, criticise, and suggest language or positions is often useful.

In particular, a lot of global proposals come out of the US, especially around IP, so having a US organization say "this is what the US political situation is, this is how this has worked out in the US, and these are the lobbying groups pressuring the US to support this internationally", can be very useful.

I was EFF's international activist and later international director for a number of years. A lot of EFF's rhetoric is aimed at US lawmakers, and its primary USP for change, public impact litigation in the US courts, means that a lot of what you see is oriented toward American audiences and actions.

But behind the scenes, much more of the work than you'd imagine has a global side to it. This has been true since the days of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, elements of which were rejected by the US Congress in the mid-Nineties, then policy-laundered through WIPO into the 1996 Copyright Treaty, which meant that it had to become law after the US Senate consented to it in 1999. (Treaties don't need the support of both houses in the US). EFF and other orgs at the time learned the lesson that regional and international agreements can often be an end-run around local democracy or norms -- and that local laws (from the DMCA to the GDPR) can have wider ramifications on a global network.

For strict textualists it is ambiguous whether the supremacy clause puts treaties above the constitution, or was referring to state constitutions:

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And there is no explicit ordering of priority between them and the Constitution.

I don't think this is true, regarding federal law precedence and the Constitution. To be true would be to imply that the Senate, with the cooperation of the executive and one other country(?!), can override the Constitution.

You don't have to get there axiomatically though; you can just look this up. Treaties are coequal with federal statutes, and are overridden by any conflicting statute passed after the treaty is ratified.

Based on the Wikipedia article[0], it seems clear that the Supreme Court can declare a treaty unconstitutional just as it can with a federal statute. The president also appears to have the power to unilaterally withdraw from treaties whenever he wishes and treaties don't take effect without an act of Congress implementing them. In other words, the treaty power is very weak under US law. In short, the US government cannot be bound by any treaty against the will of the people's elected representatives. The fears motivating support for the Bricker Amendment[1] during the Eisenhower administration seem to have been unfounded.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment

The domestic legal terms of any treaty can also be superseded by a simple act of congress, because of the last-in-time rule.

Lots of aspects of ease of federal law ignoring treaties is fairly new, like from 2008 rulings.

I do not believe that the Senate could override the Constitution by getting Belize to go along with them in 1950, either.

Not talking about that aspect (supremacy of it vs constitution), but this and related stuff with treaties vs federal law:

> The enforceability of treaties was further limited in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Medellín v. Texas, which held that even if a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of Congress or is itself explicitly "self-executing".[26] Law scholars called the ruling "an invisible constitutional change" that departed from both longtime historical practice and the plain language of the Supremacy Clause.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I looked up who the representatives were from the US and I hadn’t heard of any of the names. The UN website doesn’t have bios or links to more information on those people - just a list of names you can’t scrutinize. It’s a depressing bureaucracy

As intended.

Non-binding on the U.S. as such a treaty has to be ratified.

The stationary bandit theory of government posits that organized crime cartels are in control of every single nation-state on the planet. E.g. the bandits in Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (1954) who wait until the village completes its harvest before plundering them are the best model for the establishment of stable governments where the plundering is organized and relatively non-violent. After all, as Frank Herbert says in one of his Dune books, "A small minority in contol of a large majority is not unusual in history". Getting the other monkeys to get your food while you sit on your rear degenerating into slothfulness is a nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.

Of course, if all the other monkeys get wise to your game you're going to have to institute more violent measures to retain your position, and mass surveillance is a means to that end. Which is why the Saudis buy all that Israeli spyware, to keep their own population in line, right?

link to the draft: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v24055...

Is there a summary somewhere? 41 pages of dense text is quite a lot.

> Is there a summary somewhere?

We need analysis, not summary of the statute. What it compels whom to do, and how different principles were balanced in its drafting.

Talking points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41222487

Critique by 20 NGOs: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/joint-statement-propos...

Further analysis needed.

What's an ICT? The post doesn't define it yet, it appears their entire argument depends on understanding what it means.

Computers.

And mobile phones, and the multimedia touchscreen in your car, and on your smart fridge, etc.

Yes, comuters including computers in varying enclosures.

Information & Communication Technology

The real criminals are the often the ones in power. This would make the world less safe and help real criminals commit crimes with impunity, by targeting those who would seek to hold them to account.

> The real criminals are the often the ones in power

I mean, by definition, no. We usually call those "officials" or similar, it's not until convicted that they become "criminals".

"criminal" is not defined as "convicted criminal".

there is benefit in making the distinction

In authoritarian regimes, officials often get away with peadophilla/child molestation, drug trafficking, rape and murder.

The first two are often used as justifications for taking freedom away and giving more control or power to the government. However that gets us closer to an all powerful, unaccountable government.

Power corrupts, sooner or later those who wish to commit these crimes will seek out official positions where they can commit them with impunity.

I think he means it in an abstract sense where people can transgress "natural law" are criminals even though the de jure law might contradict it. I think it comes from this old idea that legislation is really about discovering the natural law that governs human socialization and conviction is about discovering criminals.

The net of law is spread so wide,

No sinner from its sweep may hide.

Its meshes are so fine and strong,

They take in every child of wrong.

O wondrous web of mystery!

Big fish alone escape from thee!

— James Jeffrey Roche (1847-1908)

I like the fact that this is not a complaining article but actually put forward reasonable recommendations

Please, help me understand something!

Private, remote communication was not a thing until a couple of decades ago: how can we consider it a basic human right?

Private mail is thousands of years old.

It goes well beyond that. There are other means of communicating remotely and privately that are probably at least as old as human self-awareness. Technically speaking, we would need to consider many of the prehistoric cave paintings remote and private communications since no one knows what they mean besides the small group of humans that made them 20,000–40,000 years ago.

In how many of those places was there due process for the government searching that private mail?

Encryption is also thousands of years old.

I don't know, but that isn't relevant to this conversation. Slavery was legal for the vast majority of history, but we still all agree today that freedom from slavery is a valid human right. "Due process" itself is a relatively new concept. All human rights were routinely violated for most of history, that's the whole point of enumerating them and discussing them. It's very new that any of these rights are even close to universally accepted.

I can tell you that government surveillance of private communication has at least been a widespread concern for thousands of years. See for example: https://classicalstudies.org/imperial-spies-and-intercepted-....

Many countries have centuries-old constitutional guarantees of the right to secrecy of correspondence: https://www.marottaonmoney.com/right-to-privacy-of-correspon....

Due process? I don't think they bothered with that in the past. Many of the debates about privacy that erupted in the 70s and 80s came because people discovered that the government didn't even bother.

That it didn't exist is not really that relvant. I.e. the US classified secrecy as a munition so under the US' framing it is a 2nd amendment right necessary to balance power between people and government.. Take it away from all and it is no longer essential.

Has this framing ever actually been tested in court? Between the dramatic re-interpretation of the 2nd as a collective non-right and the precedent of laws like ITAR and other munitions controls I can't imagine this would hold up.

Remember the 90s cryptowars and the "illegal shirts with math on them"?

Yeah that was largely about export controls vs freedom of speech, I don't know of any actual court case involving the second amendment a la https://xkcd.com/504/

Has anyone used the 3rd amendment to argue against the government forcing them to include backdoors and surveillance mechanisms?

Thank god it's just a UN resolution then. It's not as if anyone pays the least attention to them, much less actually applying one firmly.

This thread with all these comments (the ones up when I wrote this) was posted three days ago. Here's a post that referenced it then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41211151

Why is it back on the front page and posted "5 hours ago"? I'm not implying underhandedness or anything but I'd like to know why this happens. Anyone know?

These are the comments it got at the time:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210091

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210379

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41212594

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210086

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210905

I suppose you'll find the number of licks to the center of a Tootsie Pop before you get an answer to this that makes any sense. Nonetheless, I do have hope someone will ackshually me into an explanation.

<del>A wizard</del> <ins>dang</ins> did it.

Second chance pool

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308

>HN's second-chance pool is a way to give links a second chance at the front page. Moderators and a small number of reviewers go through old submissions looking for articles that are in the spirit of the site—gratifying intellectual curiosity—and which seem like they might interest the community. These get put into a hopper from which software randomly picks one every so often and lobs it randomly onto the lower part of the front page. If it interests the community, it gets upvoted and discussed; if not, it falls off.

> lobs it randomly onto the lower part of the front page

That is where it was. So the process posts a copy of the article and comments with the current date? But gives it the old URL?

As far as I am aware, it just updates the timestamps of the original to the time of the 'lobbing'.

> I'd like to know why this happens

Reviewed by humans: https://news.ycombinator.com/pool

Looks like, unsurprisingly, the resolution is more about mandating censorship than it is about curbing actual crime. I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of a free internet - there have been lots of attempts at censorship-resistant protocols, but they require widespread adoption. If they haven't already been adopted, I doubt they ever will.

> Looks like, unsurprisingly, the resolution is more about mandating censorship than it is about curbing actual crime

That is a fairly bad take tbh.

I mentioned this in my previous comment about this treaty, and the primary driver is the fact that most countries (especially China, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, India) are NOT parties of the Budapest Convention because of the Censorship or Surveillance portions.

Now that offensive security capabilities have proliferated, some amount of norms are required (which is what Article 12, 13 and 17 touch on), but the countries listed above will not budge on their censorship or surveillance stance.

This treaty is itself is a result of the Track 1.5 Dialogues around cyberwarfare happening between the 5 Eyes and China [1][2] after tensions became dangerously bad in the early 2020s.

If letting China continue their Great Firewall means we can formalize the rules of engagement for gray-zone operations using a third party (Appin/India, LockBit/Russia, ChamelGang/China or NK), so be it.

The UN treaty is superseded by American jurisdiction anyhow.

> future of a free internet

The internet was never truly free. Access was always arbitrated by telcos (and a major reason why the tech industry has been a major donor to the EFF) who themselves are strongly regulated by governments.

The difference is, the internet isn't only a Western project anymore, and consensus will need to be formed with other nations, unless we want to end up forming regionalized "internets"

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110#41211961

[1] - https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/our-departments/intern...

[2] - https://www.idcpc.org.cn/english2023/bzhd/202406/t20240618_1...

I'm trying to read this in good faith, that what you're describing is about how "[formalizing] the rules of engagement for gray-zone operations using a third party" will help prevent certain kinds of tensions from rising again to a potential boiling point (arguably the _only_ point of the UN), but the tone comes off as so defeatist it's hard to see that as a positive.

Can you elaborate a bit further on why you see this as a necessary step for a given outcome?

Otherwise this just looks like giving in to bad faith actors and weakening our own protections in the process.

> but the tone comes off as so defeatist

Because it is.

The existing status quo over cyberwarfare is untenable, and runs the very real risk of causing chaos if we don't tamp down on the usage of third parties for plausible deniability.

Most countries have offensive security capabilities directly under direct government control, but a number of them will also tolerate third party actors attacking a rival country so long as they don't attack the host country.

This is what LockBit (Russia), ChamelGang (either China or NK), Appin (India), etc has done.

Either everyone allows cybercriminals in their countries to attack other countries (and spark actual chaos in our entire internet infra that could escalate into actual violence), or all nation states agree to tamp down on third party attackers.

The Budapest Convention was the previous cybercrimes agreement, but most countries outside of the West that matter didn't ratify it. This meant terms of engagement over cyberwarfare weren't truly formalized, and a bad actor like NK or China could in good faith argue that a North Korean or Chinese cybergang did no wrong.

The brutal reality is that performative treaties like the Budapest Convention have no teeth, and a global Internet means that terms of engagement are needed for warfare, or the entire Internet splinters.

> Either everyone allows cybercriminals in their countries to attack other countries (and spark actual chaos in our entire internet infra that could escalate into actual violence),

This seems overblown. The behavior you're describing has been present nearly as long as the internet has been globally accessible. It's an inconvenience and it means we need to do a better job securing systems against attacks, which is hardly the worst thing from an evolutionary perspective. Better that systems get hardened now to prevent ransomware than that they remain vulnerable until there is an actual war and an enemy state takes advantage of longstanding complacency.

> or all nation states agree to tamp down on third party attackers.

This doesn't happen even with a treaty, because not all countries will be signatories, and even the signatories can just ignore the provisions as they do with many other treaties. Corrupt governments deflect blame; "the attack seems to have originated from here but we investigated ourselves and found ourselves innocent" etc. Proving otherwise without local cooperation is close to impossible because the location of the originating systems is not inherently the location of the attackers. And, of course, corrupt governments are the places where these things are already happening.

>Now that offensive security capabilities have proliferated, some amount of norms are required

>This treaty is itself is a result of the Track 1.5 Dialogues around cyberwarfare happening between the 5 Eyes and China [1][2] after tensions became dangerously bad in the early 2020s.

>If letting China continue their Great Firewall means we can formalize the rules of engagement for gray-zone operations using a third party (Appin/India, LockBit/Russia, ChamelGang/China or NK), so be it.

>The internet was never truly free. Access was always arbitrated by telcos

>the internet isn't only a Western project anymore

None of what you wrote here is an argument for mandating data collection, as outlined in articles 29 and 30. Those two articles are unrelated to your points here. They aren't about establishing norms for an existing phenomenon or about preventing or regulating cyberwarfare between the US and China or about formalizing rules of grey zone operations. It's just a requirement for data collection.

> None of what you wrote here is an argument for mandating data collection

Data Collection was one of the primary reason why Russia, China, India, Singapore, and other nations did not become parties to the Budapest Convention (the precursor to this treaty) [0][1]

Most nations other than the US, Canada, EU, and Japan mandate collection and retention of metadata by ISPs and Online Services, and this was a major sticking point that lead to the inefficacy of the Budapest Convention.

> Those two articles are unrelated to your points here

I just gave links to the currently ongoing Track 1.5 dialogues to show the ongoing diplomacy work that has started over cybercrime in the early 2020s.

[0] - https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China%20In...

[1] - https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/InternationalCyberNorms_C...

>Most nations other than the US, Canada, EU, and Japan mandate collection and retention of metadata

Then they should just not mention data collection at all if there is no agreement on it. "These countries are already doing it" is not a good reason to agree to something. Especially since it makes changing the law in those countries impossible now.

>this was a major sticking point that lead to the inefficacy of the Budapest Convention.

Really? Are you saying those other countries said they would not agree to any Cybercrime Convention unless it had an article mandating data collection? I find that hard to believe. In any case, even if that were true, it would be better to have no convention at all.

> Then they should just not mention data collection at all if there is no agreement on

This treaty is supposed to supersede the Budapest Convention. The Budapest Convention is explicitly in favor of data privacy (a number of it's data privacy norms influenced the GDPR).

Either data collection mandates are left to individual states or the same deadlock that happened with the Budapest Convention would happen again.

> it would be better to have no convention at all

Then you're left with the status quo that every nation that isn't a party of the Budapest Convention can use 3rd party groups to hack a rival, which leads to chaos.

>Either data collection mandates are left to individual states

What is wrong with this? This seems extremely obvious. The fact that you do not mention this option in your original post seems almost disingenuous. Unless you meant to address it in the 'unless we want to end up forming regionalized "internets"' line? Although leaving the entire meat of your argument to one unexplained line isn't great either. And even then I don't see how the lack of mandating data collection would result in regionalized internets. So far I can access websites in Russia or South Korea just fine despite this point. And in any case you can create a regionalized internet even if all these rules are followed. See China and north korea.

>you're left with the status quo that every nation that isn't a party of the Budapest Convention can use 3rd party groups to hack a rival, which leads to chaos.

US, China, Russia and North Korea will continue to hack each other, no matter the outcome of this UN Convention. Even ignoring that point it is still strictly much better to have hacking than have globally mandated data collection

> Looks like, unsurprisingly, the resolution is more about mandating censorship than it is about curbing actual crime.

Well, the EFF's take on the resolution is always going to be more about the censorship it introduces than how much it enables law enforcement to curb actual crime.

I'm aligned with the EFF on this, and would vote against this if it were raised in any democratic forum I voted in, but that's because I care more about reducing censorship than reducing online crime. Yes, I, unlike most voters in modern liberal democracies, would let ten paedos walk free to save one Aaron Swartz.

If you really care about them ~equally - as you have to, for your comment to be made in good faith - then you can't take your talking points from the EFF.

> "Yes, I, unlike most voters in modern liberal democracies, would let ten paedos walk free to save one Aaron Swartz."

Think of the children has been a trope for a very very long time because it takes a real backbone to stand up against it and to risk being labeled a pedo yourself because other than lawyers (who have to) and other pedos, who would defend a pedo?

Fun fact, there is a large overlap between pedos, those who argue against teaching kids from early age on about their bodies and sexuality, and those who consistently see pedos everywhere they look at.

Does it actually mandate any censorship/data collection, or does it just mandate that collected data must be shared? I tried reading the actual PDF[0] but I don't really want to read the whole thing

[0] https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v24055...

Articles 29, 30, and 45 are the relevant ones which touch on data collection.

Ok, so they are mandating data collection:

>Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to: (a) Collect or record, through the application of technical means in the territory of that State Party; and (b) Compel a service provider, within its existing technical capability: (i) To collect or record, through the application of technical means in the territory of that State Party; or (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.

That is pretty bad. Some parts of this draft actually seemed pretty reasonable - eg. Article 14 making CSAM illegal. I guess that is part of the trick.

Article 36 is a pretty fun one, too.

>States Parties are encouraged to establish bilateral or multilateral arrangements to facilitate the transfer of personal data.

> facilitate the transfer of personal data.

I take it you oppose the EU-US Data Privacy Framework then?

Yep

I still remain positive honestly.

25 years ago I could never have imagined the internet we have today.

25 years from now we could easily have a free internet protocol that is taking hold and the whole process repeats.

So much has came and went in a single generation but it works both ways. It is not an eternally negative, march towards complete totalitarianism even if it it feels like that right now.

> Negotiations for this treaty began in 2022, initiated by a controversial proposal from the Russian Federation.

I would understand if this was coming from the states but why is the UN even considering such a proposal coming from Russia?

Russia is a member of the United Nations. It is also a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

So it is only natural that the UN would consider proposals from Russia.

sweet. now everyone gets to see what porn we view. build profiles on that, and use that sort of data to make decisions about us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com