zlacker

>>walter+(OP)
UN cybercrime treaty was unanimously approved by 200 countries this week.

>>walter+Wx
Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?

>>acheon+AC
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.

>>tptace+sJ7
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... )

>>dannyo+8M7
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.