Us Declines to Join More Than 70 Countries in Signing Un Cybercrime Treaty

(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.

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

> "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...

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

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.

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

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

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

> 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.”

> 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?

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.)

   - (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.

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".

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.