zlacker

[return to "EFF’s concerns about the UN Cybercrime Convention"]
1. walter+Wx[view] [source] 2024-08-10 15:13:51
>>walter+(OP)
UN cybercrime treaty was unanimously approved by 200 countries this week.
◧◩
2. acheon+AC[view] [source] 2024-08-10 16:01:14
>>walter+Wx
Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?
◧◩◪
3. walter+jc1[view] [source] 2024-08-10 22:07:00
>>acheon+AC
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.
Related thread: >>41210110
◧◩◪◨
4. bright+rO8[view] [source] 2024-08-14 02:02:27
>>walter+jc1
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?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. tptace+2T9[view] [source] 2024-08-14 13:45:32
>>bright+rO8
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.
[go to top]