[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.]
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.
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.
† The previous cybercrime convention was; I don't know about this one.
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.
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.
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.
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).
> 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
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.
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.
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).
"...in which countries must sign on [if they want the treaty to have legal standing within their jurisdiction]"
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.
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.
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.
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?
I believe the conclusion that it can't happen in the U.S. is incorrect.
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.
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”.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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."