New U.N. Cybercrime Treaty Unanimously Approved, Could Threaten Human Rights(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
New U.N. Cybercrime Treaty Unanimously Approved, Could Threaten Human Rights
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/0724--un-cybercrime/
57 comments
That's a fairly silly "don't worry." Any treaty signed has an expectation on Congress to pass corresponding legislation to make it enforceable in domestic courts. The Supremacy Clause is intended to force treaty compliance.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...
At this point, there's no good reason to trust people in government as they seem to all have been captured by oligarchy, including here in the U.S. So this isn't a "don't worry" situation, it's something that should actively be contended with at a political level.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...
At this point, there's no good reason to trust people in government as they seem to all have been captured by oligarchy, including here in the U.S. So this isn't a "don't worry" situation, it's something that should actively be contended with at a political level.
How do you contend oligarchy. All countries seem to tend towards it. Past revolutions were localized, but this one needs a global one which seems impossible.
I once had a discussion with one of my history teachers. In class, he had talked about how, in the waning hours of the Roman Republic, many of the intellectuals of the time wrote many books about the corruption of the government and pled for the preservation of what was. I asked him if this was a broader symptom of the failure of a governmental system. He thought for a moment and said "Yes," comparing several other periods with intense bursts of critical writing.
Then I asked him a question he didn't quite seem ready for. I observed that I was seeing the same thing, the writing of many books on the subject of preserving the Western traditions of freedom, and the subject of corruption and manipulation of the public. Then I asked him, "Has it ever worked?"
"What do you mean?" he said.
"Has the writing of these books, the sounding of the alarm bell, so to speak, ever worked to save them... to preserve them?"
The answer hung between us, and we paused for a moment, unwilling to continue the conversation to its logical conclusion. We moved on to discussing other topics. We did come back to the conversation a few weeks later. The small consolation was that future societies often used the criticism of the lessons learned in the past as guidance for forming new ones. Jefferson and Madison crafted the U.S. Constitution as much from the triumphs of Athens, Rome, and British Common Law, as from failures of these same institutions.
To answer your question more directly, I wish I knew. I only know of many ways that don't seem to work. Recording the fall as honestly as possible might help posterity, if the record survives.
Law code has some analogous structures to software programs, but the machines the law code executes on are made up of people, and it depends on the good intent and wisdom of the people executing the code. Good will, good intent, and especially wisdom seem to be in short supply, most especially among leaders beholden to the control of others. I think that's the underlying problem, the hardware of society, so to speak.
We've dismantled or corrupted most of the societal mechanisms that used to maintain the health of the said hardware, and we've failed to replace them with anything, or at least with anything anywhere near as effective. Mechanisms like education have been corrupted to steer our young people straight into the mob manipulation technologies of social media and ideologies of power maintenance for the new oligarchies. So we're back to "I wish I knew."
What do you think?
Then I asked him a question he didn't quite seem ready for. I observed that I was seeing the same thing, the writing of many books on the subject of preserving the Western traditions of freedom, and the subject of corruption and manipulation of the public. Then I asked him, "Has it ever worked?"
"What do you mean?" he said.
"Has the writing of these books, the sounding of the alarm bell, so to speak, ever worked to save them... to preserve them?"
The answer hung between us, and we paused for a moment, unwilling to continue the conversation to its logical conclusion. We moved on to discussing other topics. We did come back to the conversation a few weeks later. The small consolation was that future societies often used the criticism of the lessons learned in the past as guidance for forming new ones. Jefferson and Madison crafted the U.S. Constitution as much from the triumphs of Athens, Rome, and British Common Law, as from failures of these same institutions.
To answer your question more directly, I wish I knew. I only know of many ways that don't seem to work. Recording the fall as honestly as possible might help posterity, if the record survives.
Law code has some analogous structures to software programs, but the machines the law code executes on are made up of people, and it depends on the good intent and wisdom of the people executing the code. Good will, good intent, and especially wisdom seem to be in short supply, most especially among leaders beholden to the control of others. I think that's the underlying problem, the hardware of society, so to speak.
We've dismantled or corrupted most of the societal mechanisms that used to maintain the health of the said hardware, and we've failed to replace them with anything, or at least with anything anywhere near as effective. Mechanisms like education have been corrupted to steer our young people straight into the mob manipulation technologies of social media and ideologies of power maintenance for the new oligarchies. So we're back to "I wish I knew."
What do you think?
It does seem like we are approaching a critical point where a new baseline of rational knowledge is created, but not quite there. I think it is because there still not enough pain at a population level. There’s a section of people which has realized but can’t do much other than being mere spectators. Beyond that point, when it happens, we would probably have a new normal and perhaps a new experiment like USA, better than the previous one and humanity beyond a nation’s boundary can benefit. Now I’m confused if I’m a pessimist or an optimist.
Jefferson suggested that we just have another revolution every 200 years.
It's not clear to me which of the things I said you believe to be incorrect.
> so a (say) UK hate speech law could not be enforced in the US even after the adoption of this treaty.
I believe the conclusion that it can't happen in the U.S. is incorrect.
I believe the conclusion that it can't happen in the U.S. is incorrect.
It obviously cannot happen in the US: neither the executive nor legislative branches have the power to bind any law that contravenes the US Constitution. It would be a pretty big loophole if they could simply agree to treaties to annul 1A. A ratified, enabled treaty is coequal with US federal law, not with the Constitution.
Extradition clauses allow foreign countries to reach out and pluck Americans from the comfort of their Constitutional freedoms, and the technicality of such extradition provisions, should they be enacted, would allow foreign countries to enforce their laws on U.S. citizens in the U.S.
If you don't think that sort of thing could happen, you should recall that the Trans-Pacific treaty being pushed in the U.S. by the Obama administration included provisions allowing U.N bodies to inspect compliance and sue local governments for things like climate violations (wealth transfer) or even firearms possession and compliance (end-run around the 2nd amendment). That is, these treaties were seen as a way to sneak in enforcement from extra-national entities for rules explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
That particular treaty was dropped, in part, due to public outcry against it.
Liberty requires maintenance and defense. You cannot simply assume that once we enjoy some particular freedom there is no way to retreat or regress from it such that we lose it. Bureaucrats that cannot be fired by the head of the Executive branch are another example of this erosion by technicality.
So I don't find your conclusion obvious at all. I wish it were so simple.
This kind of rule-making follows the trick of getting the public to trade safety for liberty. The problem is that the same governments have created the lack of safety, provoking the unrest they know seek additional power to quash. We should say no.
If you don't think that sort of thing could happen, you should recall that the Trans-Pacific treaty being pushed in the U.S. by the Obama administration included provisions allowing U.N bodies to inspect compliance and sue local governments for things like climate violations (wealth transfer) or even firearms possession and compliance (end-run around the 2nd amendment). That is, these treaties were seen as a way to sneak in enforcement from extra-national entities for rules explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
That particular treaty was dropped, in part, due to public outcry against it.
Liberty requires maintenance and defense. You cannot simply assume that once we enjoy some particular freedom there is no way to retreat or regress from it such that we lose it. Bureaucrats that cannot be fired by the head of the Executive branch are another example of this erosion by technicality.
So I don't find your conclusion obvious at all. I wish it were so simple.
This kind of rule-making follows the trick of getting the public to trade safety for liberty. The problem is that the same governments have created the lack of safety, provoking the unrest they know seek additional power to quash. We should say no.
That is not at all how extradition treaties work.
IMO it is good that norms around offensive security are being formulated at the nation state level, especially because major nations like China, Russia, Iran, NK, SK, India, Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia are NOT signatories of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime
This seems to be an attempt at creating a detente between China, US, Russia, etc over cyber espionage attempts on each other. This seems to be a result of the UK-China and US-China Track 1.5 Dialogues over the past 2-3 years.
Over the past decade, offensive security capabilities have proliferated, and have caused increased chaos, especially after notable cases in signatory states like the HSE Attack (Ireland), the Assencion Attack (USA), the Apple Rootkit (Russia), Bundestag (Germany), Macron's cellphone (France), etc.
Articles 12, 13, and 17 are the majors ones at hand, and Articles 14-16 is fluff as it is already covered in most countries jurisdictions, Articles 25-30 are already the norm in the jurisdictions that voted, and Articles 37-54 are already the norm under Interpol.
Furthermore, at least within the US, such treaties can only be ratified by the Senate.
Realistically, offensive operations under direct nation-state control will continue, but this narrows the scope for gray-zone operations using a third party (Appin/India, LockBit/Russia, ChamelGang/China or NK).
This seems to be an attempt at creating a detente between China, US, Russia, etc over cyber espionage attempts on each other. This seems to be a result of the UK-China and US-China Track 1.5 Dialogues over the past 2-3 years.
Over the past decade, offensive security capabilities have proliferated, and have caused increased chaos, especially after notable cases in signatory states like the HSE Attack (Ireland), the Assencion Attack (USA), the Apple Rootkit (Russia), Bundestag (Germany), Macron's cellphone (France), etc.
Articles 12, 13, and 17 are the majors ones at hand, and Articles 14-16 is fluff as it is already covered in most countries jurisdictions, Articles 25-30 are already the norm in the jurisdictions that voted, and Articles 37-54 are already the norm under Interpol.
Furthermore, at least within the US, such treaties can only be ratified by the Senate.
Realistically, offensive operations under direct nation-state control will continue, but this narrows the scope for gray-zone operations using a third party (Appin/India, LockBit/Russia, ChamelGang/China or NK).
Better article IMO: https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/08/09/un-approves-first-c...
actual title "New U.N. Cybercrime Treaty Could Threaten Human Rights"
[In the coming weeks, the treaty will head to a vote among the General Assembly’s 193 member states. If it’s accepted by a majority there, the treaty will move to the ratification process, in which individual country governments must sign on.]
[In the coming weeks, the treaty will head to a vote among the General Assembly’s 193 member states. If it’s accepted by a majority there, the treaty will move to the ratification process, in which individual country governments must sign on.]
https://therecord.media/un-cybercrime-treaty-passes-unanimou...
The United Nations passed its first cybercrime treaty on Thursday in a unanimous vote.. The passage of the treaty is significant and establishes for the first time a global-level cybercrime and data access-enabling legal framework.. The treaty was adopted late Thursday by the body’s Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime and will next go to the General Assembly for a vote in the fall. It is expected to sail through the General Assembly since the same states will be voting on it there.
Advocates including the Biden administration said the deal reflects the interests of the U.S. and its allies. It balances privacy concerns with the need for every country to pursue criminal activity around the world, the Biden administration said. “We see this convention as a means to expand global law-enforcement cooperation,”.. The treaty — expected to win General Assembly approval within months — creates a framework for nations to cooperate against internet-related crimes.. Once approved by the General Assembly, the treaty becomes law upon the approval of 40 nations.
Where "balancing concerns" means moving ever closer to the side of surveillance state. How convenient it is to be on the side arguing compromise every single time, and actually moving closer and closer in one direction. Like a sum of continuing fractions.
How might a thread’s ranking drop off so precipitously?
> in which individual country governments must sign on
meaning what? toothless is still toothless even using words like must. what happens if majority individuals do not? last I checked, the US still hasn't signed the same agreements about ICC or ICJ.
meaning what? toothless is still toothless even using words like must. what happens if majority individuals do not? last I checked, the US still hasn't signed the same agreements about ICC or ICJ.
I don't think it's the "must" used to express obligations or issue demands, but the "must" for stating necessary conditions.
"...in which countries must sign on [if they want the treaty to have legal standing within their jurisdiction]"
"...in which countries must sign on [if they want the treaty to have legal standing within their jurisdiction]"
> last I checked, the US still hasn't signed the same agreements about ... ICJ.
The united states signed on to the ICJ in 1945.
Some treaties have optional parts where you can defer disputes to the icj. The united states is a party to some of those but not all of them. But that is really a separate thing from the ICJ.
The ICC is very different from ICJ. USA has been pretty hostile to the icc since the get-go.
The united states signed on to the ICJ in 1945.
Some treaties have optional parts where you can defer disputes to the icj. The united states is a party to some of those but not all of them. But that is really a separate thing from the ICJ.
The ICC is very different from ICJ. USA has been pretty hostile to the icc since the get-go.
I did a quick search on US and ICJ, and the first hit was "The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International..." and I failed to follow to see it was not the ICJ that I searched for but "...Criminal Court" now that I followed up. Got screwed on very quick/lazy research and shitty search result returning something not related to the query. Fucking hate modern search
In fairness, the us does tend to give the middle finger to the ICJ anytime it rules in a way it doesn't like.
Related:
EFF's Concerns About the UN Cybercrime Treaty
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207987
EFF's Concerns About the UN Cybercrime Treaty
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207987
The Nation-state is basically an informational entity, a centralized bureaucracy that keeps its subjects together. It is natural that it wants to monitor and control communications among its people. But maybe people value their personal freedom more than their trust in the nation-state. I don't know if we are at that point yet. But maybe we will find that our personal freedoms are incompatible with the concept of nation-states
Perhaps you mean states. The nation-state is a political entity with overlapping ethnic boundaries. There aren't meany of them (Japan is sometimes cited as an example).
Here is the draft text of this allegedly globally binding legal framework. It’s problematic in part because of its size, which makes it very hard to evaluate. It’s 41 pages:
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v24055...
My recommendation for reading these kinds of documents is to skip the preamble, the general provisions, the implementation mechanisms, and the final provisions - these are boilerplate required for legalese.
The main meat is the bulleted sections per article.
Think of it like quickly reviewing C/C++ at a first glance - quickly glancing at the codebase's header file and the relevant portion of the implementation file is more than enough for a quick review
> It’s problematic in part because of its size
This is fairly small by legislative standards.
The main meat is the bulleted sections per article.
Think of it like quickly reviewing C/C++ at a first glance - quickly glancing at the codebase's header file and the relevant portion of the implementation file is more than enough for a quick review
> It’s problematic in part because of its size
This is fairly small by legislative standards.
What a terrible article. Doesn’t at all explain what the problematic components of the treaty are, or how they could manifest into harms (other than it could be somehow used to persecute LGBT). How do they find these journalists?…
The article was behind an email wall for me. Good to know I didn’t miss anything.
That modal can be closed. It is a surprisingly weakly written article though. As the person you responded to said, it provides almost no detail and doesn't give any reasons behind why there should be concerns.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Were we ever supposed to be anon on the internet?
Yes. Implicitly.
Ex Wikipedia: Over 186 constitutions mention the right to privacy
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?key=privacy
Oh, and sniper: because the right to privacy will be defended by a number of individuals with radical violence, as you should know if you ever visited the world, so evidently I should not even need to proceed from «Yes. Implicitly».
So contextually: if it were not anonymous, it would not be used (but by a specific class of entities).
Ex Wikipedia: Over 186 constitutions mention the right to privacy
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?key=privacy
Oh, and sniper: because the right to privacy will be defended by a number of individuals with radical violence, as you should know if you ever visited the world, so evidently I should not even need to proceed from «Yes. Implicitly».
So contextually: if it were not anonymous, it would not be used (but by a specific class of entities).
Possibly worth pointing out that a constitutional right to privacy no longer exists in the US after SCOTUS nullified Roe v. Wade. They were willing to throw the baby, the bathwater and the bathtub out for that one.
The Constitution of the USA still contains the IV Amendment in the Bill of Rights, I suppose:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
This is not a right to privacy or anonymity; privacy is a predicate of the 4th Amendment, not a positive assertion; it governs when the government can conduct searches.
It states that people have a right about their private records («papers») not being searched - unless necessary. So it states that the normal state is said privacy, and breach is the exception.
You’re both correct— tptacek is correct in that the 4th amendment is constrained to government search and seizure and there is no positive assertion regarding privacy written into the constitution. But you’re also correct in principle, as the strongest positive assertion regarding privacy (in general) from the U.S. federal gov’t originates in the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965, and Justice William O. Douglas’ reference to privacy as a right inferred primarily as ‘penumbras’ extending from the more specific guarantees of the first 5 amendments.
Edited to Add: All bets are off now, as the court has explicitly reversed stance on this as it regards abortion, which leaves a big precedent for expanding future privacy “exceptions”.
Edited to Add: All bets are off now, as the court has explicitly reversed stance on this as it regards abortion, which leaves a big precedent for expanding future privacy “exceptions”.
Please note that my original reference to the Constitutions was made to go to the chief social contracts, for brevity: in the case of the USA (which we have picked again to focus on some important cases), condemnation of trespassing, peeping and eavesdropping was part (I understand) of the Common Law from the beginning (inherited from Britain).
They are all cases of instances of breach of a basic principle - license of intrusion is limited, naturally -, which in law needs to be made explicit to sanction specific cases, but remains otherwise evident (in the case of privacy, its breaches are easily farcical).
In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), signed by 46 States, specifies in Article 8: «Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence» (again, an example picked for prominence).
Please also note with reference to your «All bets are off now» that discussion will be made about the boundaries of the principle in practice - the Principle remains.
They are all cases of instances of breach of a basic principle - license of intrusion is limited, naturally -, which in law needs to be made explicit to sanction specific cases, but remains otherwise evident (in the case of privacy, its breaches are easily farcical).
In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), signed by 46 States, specifies in Article 8: «Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence» (again, an example picked for prominence).
Please also note with reference to your «All bets are off now» that discussion will be made about the boundaries of the principle in practice - the Principle remains.
I don't think the future is all that bright for the privacy penumbra theory of US Con Law. I'm not a lawyer or a Con Law scholar but my understanding is that modern courts have recast the outcome of Griswold into one involving procedural and not substantive rights; of liberty and due process, not of positive rights emanating broadly from the text.
I don't know if this applies to US law, but privacy and anonymity are often different and unrelated concepts.
In the relevant cases privacy and anonymity converge: to be part of your private sphere, your access to information must be anonymous.
Anonymity is about your conversation peers not having access to your identity, while privacy is about unrelated parties not having access to your conversation.
In legal matters, those two rarely converge. On technical matters both are usually abstracted as "keeping information secret", but even then they often require widely different techniques to be preserved.
In legal matters, those two rarely converge. On technical matters both are usually abstracted as "keeping information secret", but even then they often require widely different techniques to be preserved.
> conversation
But the context here can hardly be instanced in the case of "conversation". Before protecting exchanges (in privacy and anonymity), there is the act of accessing information that would make an intruder an eavesdropping peeping tom.
It is more clear in its actual context: the "private space", which could be breached by so-called "intrusion upon seclusion" cases (peeping, eavesdropping etc.), is protected - see e.g. the case of the "IV amendment" (discussed nearby), protecting against the intrusion in one's «papers» (instance of a broader private space relevant to the explicit context of «searching» as primary practical concern), and base for more specific legislation, possibly after Warren and Brandeis' "The Right to Privacy" - which is relevant because further legislation got needed after new technical-aided phenomena (the gossip press) breaching base principles otherwise formerly threatened by «the idle and... the vicious» (Warren and Brandeis).
So: having rights about a private space, one's act of accessing information must be in anonymous form.
But the context here can hardly be instanced in the case of "conversation". Before protecting exchanges (in privacy and anonymity), there is the act of accessing information that would make an intruder an eavesdropping peeping tom.
It is more clear in its actual context: the "private space", which could be breached by so-called "intrusion upon seclusion" cases (peeping, eavesdropping etc.), is protected - see e.g. the case of the "IV amendment" (discussed nearby), protecting against the intrusion in one's «papers» (instance of a broader private space relevant to the explicit context of «searching» as primary practical concern), and base for more specific legislation, possibly after Warren and Brandeis' "The Right to Privacy" - which is relevant because further legislation got needed after new technical-aided phenomena (the gossip press) breaching base principles otherwise formerly threatened by «the idle and... the vicious» (Warren and Brandeis).
So: having rights about a private space, one's act of accessing information must be in anonymous form.
[deleted]
> Experts from these organizations say that the treaty undermines the global human rights of freedom of speech and expression
So, effectively nothing different than what we have today then? Organizations like the CIA / NSA / MI6 etc. exist already which undermine the rights of everyone around the world, everyday.
So, effectively nothing different than what we have today then? Organizations like the CIA / NSA / MI6 etc. exist already which undermine the rights of everyone around the world, everyday.
So do Google, X, Microsoft.
This is a universal Large Organism problem. Government just happens to be more mature.
X is particularly demonstrating how filtering media is both arbitrary and necessary, ironically as a negative case.
In reality, theres no honest boundary to feee speech. At its limits, its just a noise vs signal debate which evwryone with compsci baclground should understand.
This is a universal Large Organism problem. Government just happens to be more mature.
X is particularly demonstrating how filtering media is both arbitrary and necessary, ironically as a negative case.
In reality, theres no honest boundary to feee speech. At its limits, its just a noise vs signal debate which evwryone with compsci baclground should understand.
[deleted]
No. Today Thailand can't request and be allowed to receive data from your ISP in Sweden if you said something bad about their king. Also, Thailand isn't allowed to start a criminal procedure and issue an arrest warrant for that kind of stuff. This basically allows autocrats to silence everyone everywhere, and the democrat states are signing up for it.
So, it was OK to happen in the hand of approved countries that have no history of abusing of that privilege?
It puts more players in the game, but that doesn’t mean the game is good to start with.
It puts more players in the game, but that doesn’t mean the game is good to start with.
What "privileged countries"?
The ones with an actual judicial system? The ones actually going after drug lords and ransomware gangs? Instead of protecting them?
Show me one example where Russia actually extradited someone!!! You can't... cause all were detained when they took vacations. Instead, Russia protects the gangs and submits this surveillance crap to the UN.
What about Vietnamese extraditions? Show me one time when Vietnamese extradited any of its scam gangs?
What about Chinese hackers who steal IP and give it to the government, who then turns around and sets up competitors with zero R&D? Do I have to remember you about when they found "Cisco" written in Huawei's source code?
There's no "privileged countries".... it's just countries that actually care about their citizens instead of using "cybercrime" to jail critics who expose their corruption. And you chose to defend those people!
Get a clue you conspiracy theory psychopat! jfc!!!!
The ones with an actual judicial system? The ones actually going after drug lords and ransomware gangs? Instead of protecting them?
Show me one example where Russia actually extradited someone!!! You can't... cause all were detained when they took vacations. Instead, Russia protects the gangs and submits this surveillance crap to the UN.
What about Vietnamese extraditions? Show me one time when Vietnamese extradited any of its scam gangs?
What about Chinese hackers who steal IP and give it to the government, who then turns around and sets up competitors with zero R&D? Do I have to remember you about when they found "Cisco" written in Huawei's source code?
There's no "privileged countries".... it's just countries that actually care about their citizens instead of using "cybercrime" to jail critics who expose their corruption. And you chose to defend those people!
Get a clue you conspiracy theory psychopat! jfc!!!!
Thailand can do whatever it wants today regardless of a U.N. treaty. Extradition deals can be made between countries. Additionally, Thailand can issue arrest warrants for whatever it finds on your social media accounts, whether those are enforceable or not is another question. The article doesn't mention anything about making international enforcement mechanisms easier.
My point is: The majority of our data is being tapped by government entities and can be used against you already. This treaty is just saying the quiet part out loud once again. No one seems to care or else we wouldn't have a massive intelligence apparatus controlling parts of our society.
My point is: The majority of our data is being tapped by government entities and can be used against you already. This treaty is just saying the quiet part out loud once again. No one seems to care or else we wouldn't have a massive intelligence apparatus controlling parts of our society.
The treaty amends all existing extradition treaties among signatories and adds offenses to the lists of extraditable crimes.
So, it was OK to happen in the hand of approved countries that have no history of abusing of that privilege?
It puts more players in the game, but that doesn’t mean the game is good to start with.
It puts more players in the game, but that doesn’t mean the game is good to start with.
The treaty doesn't put "more players in the game"
It puts "more crimes" in the game that are not actually cybercrimes. A US-based journalist reporting on corruption in Russia is not a cybercriminal and should not have all his data sent by ISPs and tech companies to the Russian state.
You people haven't even read the treaty, yet are here to provide insight about "equality."
It puts "more crimes" in the game that are not actually cybercrimes. A US-based journalist reporting on corruption in Russia is not a cybercriminal and should not have all his data sent by ISPs and tech companies to the Russian state.
You people haven't even read the treaty, yet are here to provide insight about "equality."
† The previous cybercrime convention was; I don't know about this one.