US declines to join more than 70 countries in signing UN cybercrime treaty (opens in new tab)

> 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.”

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

But, then again, in the Angloamerican culture, its always 'others' who are evil. Never itself.

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.)

> 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?

Never mind, we already crossed that line: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzq2p0yk4o

I wonder what countries you do associate with data privacy.

Well, people should start accepting new norms that are different from what they used to know, not just data privacy, but even in other values as well, like personal freedom. I am sure some of the countries above have more personal freedom for a person compared to countries that lecture others about it, meanwhile the individuals get tracked by their phone through cell towers, get tracked while on the road by some unregulated cameras, get tracked online with digital ID, get tracked everywhere and if you end up getting caught and prosecuted, you will lose your basic human needs like getting a job or even voting in the so called free countries.

You seem to be making a blanket statement about “not the first country I think about when…” of places you know nothing about.

Maybe there is some more complexity to this argument, that I'm missing. But, it's not one that has merit without justification.

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.

edit: cybersecurity ventures seems to be the real source for the 10.5T number: https://cybersecurityventures.com/cybercrime-damage-costs-10...

Apparently their methodology is just assume $3T cybercrime cost in 2015, then compound it by 15% annual.

then there is also the unspoken rule of "dont shit where you eat" aka RU/CIS based ransomware operators and hackers cant attack any companies in the CIS region.

a good read, https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/dark-covenant-3-cont...

(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.)

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.

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&mt...

This isn't giving any country any sole power over cybercrime prosecution decisions.

> "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/ ("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_agai...

And since it was said on a computer, combined with insulting 'His Glorious Leader (spit) ' is a death penalty, thats a extraditing cybercrime.

Sure it could be argued thats not a real example. But given OFCOM's recent stunts of sending british compliance letters to US firms with no british presence, I'd rather not have other countries manufacturing shit laws and exporting to us as a "treaty".

   - (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.

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.

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.