EFF’s concerns about the UN Cybercrime Convention

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-un-draft-cybercrime-convention

by walterbell • 2 years ago

370 93 2 years ago

_lvbh2• 2 years ago

Negotiations for this treaty began in 2022, initiated by a controversial proposal from the Russian Federation.

I would understand if this was coming from the states but why is the UN even considering such a proposal coming from Russia?

ViktorRay• 2 years ago

Russia is a member of the United Nations. It is also a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

So it is only natural that the UN would consider proposals from Russia.

walterbell6• 2 years ago

UN cybercrime treaty was unanimously approved by 200 countries this week.

_lvbh2• 2 years ago

Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?

walterbell6• 2 years ago

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.

tptacek6• 2 years ago

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.

blackeyeblitzar• 2 years ago

I looked up who the representatives were from the US and I hadn’t heard of any of the names. The UN website doesn’t have bios or links to more information on those people - just a list of names you can’t scrutinize. It’s a depressing bureaucracy

throwaway48476• 2 years ago

As intended.

briandear2• 2 years ago

Non-binding on the U.S. as such a treaty has to be ratified.

bulatb2• 2 years ago

This thread with all these comments (the ones up when I wrote this) was posted three days ago. Here's a post that referenced it then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41211151

Why is it back on the front page and posted "5 hours ago"? I'm not implying underhandedness or anything but I'd like to know why this happens. Anyone know?

These are the comments it got at the time:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210091

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210379

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41212594

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210086

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210905

lagniappe• 2 years ago

I suppose you'll find the number of licks to the center of a Tootsie Pop before you get an answer to this that makes any sense. Nonetheless, I do have hope someone will ackshually me into an explanation.

wizzwizz4• 2 years ago

<del>A wizard</del> <ins>dang</ins> did it.

ziddoap5• 2 years ago

Second chance pool

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308

HN's second-chance pool is a way to give links a second chance at the front page. Moderators and a small number of reviewers go through old submissions looking for articles that are in the spirit of the site—gratifying intellectual curiosity—and which seem like they might interest the community. These get put into a hopper from which software randomly picks one every so often and lobs it randomly onto the lower part of the front page. If it interests the community, it gets upvoted and discussed; if not, it falls off.

bulatb2• 2 years ago

lobs it randomly onto the lower part of the front page

That is where it was. So the process posts a copy of the article and comments with the current date? But gives it the old URL?

walterbell6• 2 years ago

I'd like to know why this happens

Reviewed by humans: https://news.ycombinator.com/pool

commandlinefan• 2 years ago

Looks like, unsurprisingly, the resolution is more about mandating censorship than it is about curbing actual crime. I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of a free internet - there have been lots of attempts at censorship-resistant protocols, but they require widespread adoption. If they haven't already been adopted, I doubt they ever will.

alephnerd5• 2 years ago

Looks like, unsurprisingly, the resolution is more about mandating censorship than it is about curbing actual crime

That is a fairly bad take tbh.

I mentioned this in my previous comment about this treaty, and the primary driver is the fact that most countries (especially China, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, India) are NOT parties of the Budapest Convention because of the Censorship or Surveillance portions.

Now that offensive security capabilities have proliferated, some amount of norms are required (which is what Article 12, 13 and 17 touch on), but the countries listed above will not budge on their censorship or surveillance stance.

This treaty is itself is a result of the Track 1.5 Dialogues around cyberwarfare happening between the 5 Eyes and China [1][2] after tensions became dangerously bad in the early 2020s.

If letting China continue their Great Firewall means we can formalize the rules of engagement for gray-zone operations using a third party (Appin/India, LockBit/Russia, ChamelGang/China or NK), so be it.

The UN treaty is superseded by American jurisdiction anyhow.

future of a free internet

The internet was never truly free. Access was always arbitrated by telcos (and a major reason why the tech industry has been a major donor to the EFF) who themselves are strongly regulated by governments.

The difference is, the internet isn't only a Western project anymore, and consensus will need to be formed with other nations, unless we want to end up forming regionalized "internets"

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110#41211961

[1] https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/our-departments/intern...

[2] https://www.idcpc.org.cn/english2023/bzhd/202406/t20240618_1...

Esras• 2 years ago

I'm trying to read this in good faith, that what you're describing is about how "[formalizing] the rules of engagement for gray-zone operations using a third party" will help prevent certain kinds of tensions from rising again to a potential boiling point (arguably the _only_ point of the UN), but the tone comes off as so defeatist it's hard to see that as a positive.

Can you elaborate a bit further on why you see this as a necessary step for a given outcome?

Otherwise this just looks like giving in to bad faith actors and weakening our own protections in the process.

fngjdflmdflg6• 2 years ago

Now that offensive security capabilities have proliferated, some amount of norms are required
This treaty is itself is a result of the Track 1.5 Dialogues around cyberwarfare happening between the 5 Eyes and China [1][2] after tensions became dangerously bad in the early 2020s.
If letting China continue their Great Firewall means we can formalize the rules of engagement for gray-zone operations using a third party (Appin/India, LockBit/Russia, ChamelGang/China or NK), so be it.
The internet was never truly free. Access was always arbitrated by telcos
the internet isn't only a Western project anymore

None of what you wrote here is an argument for mandating data collection, as outlined in articles 29 and 30. Those two articles are unrelated to your points here. They aren't about establishing norms for an existing phenomenon or about preventing or regulating cyberwarfare between the US and China or about formalizing rules of grey zone operations. It's just a requirement for data collection.

dmurray• 2 years ago

Looks like, unsurprisingly, the resolution is more about mandating censorship than it is about curbing actual crime.

Well, the EFF's take on the resolution is always going to be more about the censorship it introduces than how much it enables law enforcement to curb actual crime.

I'm aligned with the EFF on this, and would vote against this if it were raised in any democratic forum I voted in, but that's because I care more about reducing censorship than reducing online crime. Yes, I, unlike most voters in modern liberal democracies, would let ten paedos walk free to save one Aaron Swartz.

If you really care about them ~equally - as you have to, for your comment to be made in good faith - then you can't take your talking points from the EFF.

mschuster91• 2 years ago

"Yes, I, unlike most voters in modern liberal democracies, would let ten paedos walk free to save one Aaron Swartz."

Think of the children has been a trope for a very very long time because it takes a real backbone to stand up against it and to risk being labeled a pedo yourself because other than lawyers (who have to) and other pedos, who would defend a pedo?

Fun fact, there is a large overlap between pedos, those who argue against teaching kids from early age on about their bodies and sexuality, and those who consistently see pedos everywhere they look at.

fngjdflmdflg6• 2 years ago

Does it actually mandate any censorship/data collection, or does it just mandate that collected data must be shared? I tried reading the actual PDF[0] but I don't really want to read the whole thing

[0] https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v24055...

ziddoap5• 2 years ago

Articles 29, 30, and 45 are the relevant ones which touch on data collection.

eltoxo• 2 years ago

I still remain positive honestly.

25 years ago I could never have imagined the internet we have today.

25 years from now we could easily have a free internet protocol that is taking hold and the whole process repeats.

So much has came and went in a single generation but it works both ways. It is not an eternally negative, march towards complete totalitarianism even if it it feels like that right now.

fngjdflmdflg6• 2 years ago

link to the draft: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v24055...

andersa• 2 years ago

Is there a summary somewhere? 41 pages of dense text is quite a lot.

JumpCrisscross• 2 years ago

Is there a summary somewhere?

We need analysis, not summary of the statute. What it compels whom to do, and how different principles were balanced in its drafting.

walterbell6• 2 years ago

Talking points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41222487

Critique by 20 NGOs: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/joint-statement-propos...

Further analysis needed.

walterbell6• 2 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41237879

  When I was at EFF, we did try to get UN official accreditation, but China would consistently veto it.. I was EFF's international activist and later international director for a number of years.. more of the work than you'd imagine has a global side to it. This has been true since the days of [DMCA].. elements of which were rejected by the US Congress in the mid-Nineties, then policy-laundered through WIPO into the 1996 Copyright Treaty, which meant that it had to become law after the US Senate consented to it in 1999. (Treaties don't need the support of both houses in the US). EFF and other orgs at the time learned the lesson that regional and international agreements can often be an end-run around local democracy or norms -- and that local laws (from the DMCA to the GDPR) can have wider ramifications on a global network..

  EFF and partner groups often contribute to government and international proposals (a hundred-or-so of them have been involved in the cybercrime treaty process for many years [1] and I believe got it to a fairly good place before a last-minute push by some states to introduce more surveillance into it.)

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/joint-statement-propos...

Earlier HN threads:

UN Cybercrime Convention To Overrule Bank Secrecy, 40 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41221403

UN cybercrime treaty unanimously approved, 50 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110

Dalewyn• 2 years ago

it had to become law after the US Senate consented to it in 1999. (Treaties don't need the support of both houses in the US).

To be clear for those not familiar with American government structure, this is an intended separation of powers between the two Houses of Congress.

The House of Representatives (aka Lower House) is tasked primarily with duties concerning money and commerce. Representatives have the sole authority to draft and ratify budgets, Senators may only ratify or not.

The Senate (aka Upper House) is tasked primarily with affairs of state including but not limited to confirming and impeaching executive, judicial, and other public servant appointments; drafting and ratifying treaties; and helping ensure all States have a say in most political affairs.

Most legislative tasks do in fact require drafting and ratification of sibling bills by both Houses of Congress, but certain things like treaties are the sole jurisdiction of one House or the other.

The Senate has traditionally been viewed as more prestigious and powerful than the House, but actually neither is strictly better than the other.

highcountess2• 2 years ago

That is an accurate representation of how it used to and in theory work. Quaint

As the above former EFF guy comment essentially stated “after a bunch of work and a long time and a bunch of effort … last minute subversion undid everything and we were left with more tyrannical surveillance pushed by compromised and corrupted, bought and paid for traitors”

briandear2• 2 years ago

The direct election of Senators considerably changed the Senate. The Senate’s job was to represent the interests of the individual states, the House was to represent the people. That’s why the Senate has treaty powers — as the United States (emphasis on the plural of states) are/were each sovereign entities and the Senate thusly had to approve of any treaty that woukd effectively bind states to an international agreement.

Direct election of senators changed that because the senators no long answer to the state governments but to the population of the state directly.

spit2wind• 2 years ago

What's an ICT? The post doesn't define it yet, it appears their entire argument depends on understanding what it means.

fulafel2• 2 years ago

Computers.

red_admiral2• 2 years ago

And mobile phones, and the multimedia touchscreen in your car, and on your smart fridge, etc.

comprev• 2 years ago

Information & Communication Technology

photochemsyn• 2 years ago

The stationary bandit theory of government posits that organized crime cartels are in control of every single nation-state on the planet. E.g. the bandits in Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (1954) who wait until the village completes its harvest before plundering them are the best model for the establishment of stable governments where the plundering is organized and relatively non-violent. After all, as Frank Herbert says in one of his Dune books, "A small minority in contol of a large majority is not unusual in history". Getting the other monkeys to get your food while you sit on your rear degenerating into slothfulness is a nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.

Of course, if all the other monkeys get wise to your game you're going to have to institute more violent measures to retain your position, and mass surveillance is a means to that end. Which is why the Saudis buy all that Israeli spyware, to keep their own population in line, right?

aussieguy12342• 2 years ago

The real criminals are the often the ones in power. This would make the world less safe and help real criminals commit crimes with impunity, by targeting those who would seek to hold them to account.

diggan• 2 years ago

The real criminals are the often the ones in power

I mean, by definition, no. We usually call those "officials" or similar, it's not until convicted that they become "criminals".

detaro• 2 years ago

"criminal" is not defined as "convicted criminal".

aussieguy12342• 2 years ago

In authoritarian regimes, officials often get away with peadophilla/child molestation, drug trafficking, rape and murder.

The first two are often used as justifications for taking freedom away and giving more control or power to the government. However that gets us closer to an all powerful, unaccountable government.

Power corrupts, sooner or later those who wish to commit these crimes will seek out official positions where they can commit them with impunity.

katzinsky• 2 years ago

I think he means it in an abstract sense where people can transgress "natural law" are criminals even though the de jure law might contradict it. I think it comes from this old idea that legislation is really about discovering the natural law that governs human socialization and conviction is about discovering criminals.

rexpop• 2 years ago

The net of law is spread so wide,

No sinner from its sweep may hide.

Its meshes are so fine and strong,

They take in every child of wrong.

O wondrous web of mystery!

Big fish alone escape from thee!

— James Jeffrey Roche (1847-1908)

firesteelrain• 2 years ago

I like the fact that this is not a complaining article but actually put forward reasonable recommendations

sambull• 2 years ago

sweet. now everyone gets to see what porn we view. build profiles on that, and use that sort of data to make decisions about us.

pif• 2 years ago

Please, help me understand something!

Private, remote communication was not a thing until a couple of decades ago: how can we consider it a basic human right?

burkaman2• 2 years ago

Private mail is thousands of years old.

highcountess2• 2 years ago

It goes well beyond that. There are other means of communicating remotely and privately that are probably at least as old as human self-awareness. Technically speaking, we would need to consider many of the prehistoric cave paintings remote and private communications since no one knows what they mean besides the small group of humans that made them 20,000–40,000 years ago.

some_random3• 2 years ago

In how many of those places was there due process for the government searching that private mail?

dogsledsleddog• 2 years ago

That it didn't exist is not really that relvant. I.e. the US classified secrecy as a munition so under the US' framing it is a 2nd amendment right necessary to balance power between people and government.. Take it away from all and it is no longer essential.

some_random3• 2 years ago

Has this framing ever actually been tested in court? Between the dramatic re-interpretation of the 2nd as a collective non-right and the precedent of laws like ITAR and other munitions controls I can't imagine this would hold up.

xhkkffbf2• 2 years ago

Has anyone used the 3rd amendment to argue against the government forcing them to include backdoors and surveillance mechanisms?

southernplaces7• 2 years ago

Thank god it's just a UN resolution then. It's not as if anyone pays the least attention to them, much less actually applying one firmly.

EFF’s concerns about the UN Cybercrime Convention

Related Stories