[HN Gopher] US declines to join more than 70 countries in signin...
___________________________________________________________________
US declines to join more than 70 countries in signing UN cybercrime
treaty
Author : pcaharrier
Score : 287 points
Date : 2025-10-30 14:22 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (therecord.media)
(TXT) w3m dump (therecord.media)
| ecshafer wrote:
| The government is shut down, treaties need to be ratified by the
| Senate.
| teraflop wrote:
| The executive branch is shut down. The Senate is still in
| session.
|
| (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.)
| Razengan wrote:
| I am the Senate.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The government is shut down, treaties need to be ratified by
| the Senate.
|
| 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.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > 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."
|
| None of this sounds good for privacy and data protection.
|
| Opting out of the treaty was probably a good choice. Opting out
| doesn't preclude the US from cooperating with international
| cybercrime investigations, but it does avoid more data
| collection, surveillance, and sharing.
| rprwhite wrote:
| Err... yeah, because that's what USA based companies are known
| for - PII protection and data privacy?!?
|
| Maybe there is some more complexity to this argument, that I'm
| missing. But, it's not one that has merit without
| justification.
| jonas21 wrote:
| Well, yes. Compared to most countries that have signed this
| treaty, the US has excellent protections for PII and data
| privacy.
|
| But that's beside the point. The most objectionable parts are
| about state surveillance and the potential for human rights
| abuses.
|
| For example, here's what the EFF had to say about it:
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-
| un...
| twothreeone wrote:
| I wouldn't exactly call them "excellent", but yeah I think
| the big caveat is
|
| > the US has excellent protections for PII and data privacy
|
| *for _US nationals_ :)
| whimsicalism wrote:
| actually mostly for EU nationals :)
| whimsicalism wrote:
| US-based companies probably have the most sophisticated PII &
| data privacy compliance schemes globally. Sure, that's mostly
| due to obligations imposed on them by jurisdictions outside
| of the US, but it is still true.
| ignoramous wrote:
| We're talking about privacy / data (ab)use for military
| purposes. Those compliance schemes you speak of matter
| naught.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > We're talking about privacy / data (ab)use for military
| purposes.
|
| What? No, we're not. What gave you that impression?
| Aurornis wrote:
| Is your argument that because you don't think US companies
| are good at PII, we need to force those companies to share
| their PII with 70 other countries on request?
|
| > Maybe there is some more complexity to this argument, that
| I'm missing.
|
| I think you're missing the entire argument. Why would it be a
| good thing for a country to volunteer its' companies PII
| through a treaty with foreign governments like Russia, North
| Korea, and China?
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Opting out was the right thing to do. This is Badthink
| monitoring in the guise of cybersecurity.
| christkv wrote:
| No thank you and I'm loath to see the EU sign up to this with a
| ton of authoritarian states. Things like this and the continued
| pushing of stuff like Chat Control has convinced me the EU stands
| to turn our countries into flawed democracies and eventually
| authoritarian states.
| perihelions wrote:
| It's remarkable context that the Russian government authored
| this UN treaty,
|
| > _" 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...
| christkv wrote:
| lol and the same politicians who call everything a Russian
| plot to influence Europeans run and sign this. The loss of
| shame is one of our main problems in modern politics on all
| sides. The professional politician industrial complex has to
| go.
| perihelions wrote:
| Previous threads:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41207987 ( _" EFF's concerns
| about the UN Cybercrime Convention (eff.org)"_, 99 comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39129274 ( _" Proposed UN
| cybercrime treaty has evolved into an expansive surveillance tool
| (eff.org)"_, 64 comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110 ( _" New U.N.
| Cybercrime Treaty Unanimously Approved, Could Threaten Human
| Rights (scientificamerican.com)"_, 53 comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41221403 ( _" UN Cybercrime
| Convention to Overrule Bank Secrecy (therage.co)"_, 42 comments)
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Why would the US give away it's power? I do not see anything to
| gain here. At least 2 of the big players are duplicitous bad
| actors (ie take more than they give) ... If they want prove
| otherwise then let Tencent teams compete in public CTFs again and
| disclose 0days.
| delfinom wrote:
| What power? The US gave up power by not signing. The treaty is
| standardizing the process for sharing cybercrime evidence and
| prosecuting individuals. It has signatories pledging to align
| their laws and create new ones to make the same cybercrime
| illegal.
|
| This isn't giving any country any sole power over cybercrime
| prosecution decisions.
| strictnein wrote:
| Signing on to bad treaties is bad. Treaties can both restrict
| what you can do and compel you to do things that you don't
| want to.
|
| For example: "Compelled Technical Assistance: The draft
| requires countries to adopt laws enabling authorities to
| compel anyone with knowledge of a particular computer system
| to provide *necessary information* to facilitate access."
|
| The US would have to have laws that would force you to
| provide login information to systems if the government wanted
| access to it. This would run contrary to the 5th amendment.
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-
| un...
| bigbuppo wrote:
| And what's that thing about treaties and the Constitution?
| polski-g wrote:
| SC has already ruled that when treaties and the
| constitution conflict, the latter is supreme.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| Has SCOTUS ever later revisited and reversed a previous
| decision?
| shenberg wrote:
| When countries like North Korea, which depends on cybercrime to
| fund itself, are signatories, you have to wonder whether this
| agreement means what its title says.
| y-curious wrote:
| The old "think of the children/fight terrorism/support our
| troops/be a good person" style of naming propositions to
| destroy data privacy.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Not just data privacy, this is intended to destroy free
| speech.
| Atlas667 wrote:
| They have also had the longest on going embargo on earth right
| after they were nearly wiped out by a genocidal war on behalf
| of the US.
|
| 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.
| bloppe wrote:
| I don't think it's right to blame ordinary North Koreans for
| the state of their country like that. Clearly it has more to
| do with the paranoid authoritarianism of 1 guy, rather than
| the collective war trauma of the people. Just look at South
| Korea, the other party of that "genocidal war". They moved on
| a long time ago, because their national politics allowed them
| to.
| landl0rd wrote:
| China, north korea, and russia, all prolific cybercriminal
| nations with significant state backing of the same, are
| signatories. This means it's at best meaningless and at worst
| surrenders power to a regime with partial control by objectively
| bad actors. Staying out of this was the right move.
|
| Plus it has too many implications for surveillance and security;
| poor idea in any case.
| ethagknight wrote:
| I was hoping to see a comment like this. These sorts of "global
| collaborations" seem to always end with the US carry all the
| water, and the goal from the other countries perspective is to
| throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords.
| BoredPositron wrote:
| Say what you want about this treaty but China is running
| circles around you regarding Paris.
| HFguy wrote:
| What point are you trying to make? I'm honestly not sure.
| Is it that China is polluting a lot? Or a little? That they
| are making environmental progress? Or none?
| BoredPositron wrote:
| They they are exceeding their initial commitment. Talking
| about pollution in your tone is also a bit rich coming
| from the biggest net polluter in all of history.
| nomel wrote:
| What percent difference in reduction do you see if they
| didn't sign the treaty?
| BoredPositron wrote:
| Doesn't matter they committed to a target and exceed it.
| We see two countries with stagnation (changes below 1%)
| and regressions... one is the us.
| estearum wrote:
| What about non-proliferation treaties which have prevented
| the vast majority of countries from bankrupting themselves in
| an existential sprint to nuclear weapons?
| izacus wrote:
| Do you have even a slightest proof for your claim?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Proof for his claim that this is how it seems to him? Isn't
| the proof self evident - he said it seems that way.
| Obviously this doesn't immediately make it true but asking
| for "proof" mischaracterizes the nature of his statement.
| twothreeone wrote:
| If you're trying to convince someone (other countries the
| US) the burden of proof is on you.
| izacus wrote:
| Stop normalizing lies.
| wagwang wrote:
| > Is food a human right
|
| https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en
|
| > Amount of food sent
|
| https://www.gao.gov/international-food-assistance
| sbohacek wrote:
| This is an example of US not carrying "all the water."
| The second link shows that the EU+UK (countries +
| institutions) sent more food aid than the US. The UK has
| roughly 1/5 the population of the US and sent more than
| 1/5 as much as the US. Or, the UK has roughly 1/8 the GDP
| of the US and sent far more than 1/8 as much as the US.
|
| Also, the data is 2014-2018 when US food aid was managed
| by USAID. What is the US percentage now that USAID has
| been eliminated?
| wagwang wrote:
| The us share of world gdp was between 22-27% and it was
| contributing 36%.
|
| Secondly, this is only external aid, internally the US
| far outspend most countries with 100B towards SNAP. Most
| euro nations don't even have food stamp like programs.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > and the goal from the other countries perspective is to
| throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords.
|
| Which is not inherently a bad thing: https://en.wikipedia.org
| /wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
| etiennebausson wrote:
| Interesting dataset.
|
| It would be a lot fairer to display tons of CO2 per
| inhabitant I think.
|
| And that's before taking into account imported CO2.
| brooke2k wrote:
| Climate change isn't driven by per-inhabitant CO2
| emissions. It's driven by total CO2 emissions, of which
| the US outputs 12% per year.
| tock wrote:
| Climate change isn't driven by human defined borders
| either. It's driven by total CO2 emissions. If a per-
| capita rate is non sensical then border based emissions
| are even more non sensical. Greenland only emits 0.001%
| of the total. Greenland is 12000x a better country than
| the US wow. This is exactly why per-capita is used.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Yeah and this is clearest when you consider federations.
| Imagine if you count the US as 50 separate countries,
| suddenly they are much more climate friendly! That's of
| course absurd.
| mulmen wrote:
| Climate change isn't driven by borders but energy policy
| is defined within them.
| tock wrote:
| And no policy is gonna willingly reduce energy
| consumption which is directly co-related with QOL when
| other countries have much higher per-capita consumption.
| Politically humans need fairness.
| mulmen wrote:
| We don't need to reduce energy consumption. We need to
| reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
| tock wrote:
| We know. There are many reasons why countries choose more
| polluting sources of energy. Part of which is costs. The
| world runs on incentives. Maybe rich countries like the
| US can subsidize clean energy for poorer countries like
| India. Because consumption is definitely not going to
| come down.
| immibis wrote:
| Solar energy is currently the cheapest form of energy,
| cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas. You know the
| conspiracy theories about how the oil companies are
| keeping perpetual motion machines hidden? Solar panels
| are literally that. With the caveat that they only work
| in sunlight. So they're not great when you need energy at
| night. But even if you triple your costs to account for
| only working 8 hours a day, they're cheaper than anything
| else.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > Solar energy is currently the cheapest form of energy,
| cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas.
|
| Cheaper before the incentives?
| mulmen wrote:
| Yes. Even if you count the fossil fuel subsidies.
| hansvm wrote:
| But the reason emissions happen is for per-inhabitant
| benefits. It's a very reasonable idea [0] to set a per-
| inhabitant goal and criticize countries exceeding that
| threshold (which the US would still fail at, but I'm
| arguing against the metric itself rather than US faults).
|
| Take your position to something of an extreme -- the
| Vatican could open up 200 coal power plants for its holy
| Bitcoin operations and still be sufficiently less
| impactful to CO2 than the US that nobody would target
| them during climate talks. Rephrased from the other
| direction, each US citizen would blow their CO2 budget by
| buying a shirt per decade to get down to the Vatican's
| levels.
|
| That's a common mental failure mode, analogous to the
| sorites paradox. Countries are made up of many small
| actors and decisions, and pretending otherwise is
| unlikely to help you achieve your goals.
|
| [0] Mostly -- transitive effects like one country
| generating all the goods another country uses are harder
| to account for. Assuming we could measure perfectly
| though...
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| 12% is quite low considering that the US is responsible
| for >20% of global industrial output.
| gruez wrote:
| Not really, by that metric Europe still comes out ahead.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Of course, Europe has relatively little carbon intensive
| industry. The US is the world's largest producer of oil,
| beef, and other things with an intrinsically high carbon
| footprint. The carbon intensity of industry is a
| byproduct of geography and geology.
|
| Europe has a relatively high carbon footprint per unit of
| output for things like animal husbandry compared to the
| US, they just don't do enough of it for it to add up.
| gruez wrote:
| >Of course, Europe has relatively little carbon intensive
| industry. The US is the world's largest producer of oil,
| beef, and other things with an intrinsically high carbon
| footprint. The carbon intensity of industry is a
| byproduct of geography and geology.
|
| This also works in reverse, eg. US importing goods from
| china and therefore not being on the hook for emissions
| generated by those goods. ourworldindata has another page
| that compares the difference between consumption based
| emissions and territorial emissions[1]. Looking at that
| page, consumption based emissions are 11% higher for the
| US vs 27% for the EU. That makes the US look better, but
| it's not enough to cancel out the fact that the US is 63%
| more carbon intensive than the EU.
|
| [1] https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
| nonethewiser wrote:
| You're kinda contradicting yourself. You're right that
| it's about absolute numbers. But then you use a
| percentage.
|
| perhaps 12% for 5% of the global population is too high.
| But you dont want to relate it to population. Relating to
| number of countries is rather non-sensical. Some are big
| (by productivity, area, population, etc.), some are tiny.
| nosianu wrote:
| How is that fair when a lot of industrial production was
| shifted to one region of the globe specifically? It would
| be impossible without a lot of guessing and estimations,
| producing questionable data, but you would have to
| include CO2 attributable to exports and imports.
|
| Which is just too hard, and too open to change
| assumptions to fit a desired result.
|
| Because in reality, much of the globe's economy is
| waaayyyyy too interconnected, and the arrows don't just
| point one way. Feedback loops without end.
|
| That whole "this/that country..." just does not work,
| except to fill comment sections. The systems are global.
| gruez wrote:
| >It would be impossible without a lot of guessing and
| estimations, producing questionable data, but you would
| have to include CO2 attributable to exports and imports.
|
| >Which is just too hard, and too open to change
| assumptions to fit a desired result.
|
| See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45762344
|
| No, it's pretty straightforward. Count where a given good
| is consumed rather then where it's produced. It has to be
| estimated, but that's also the case for territorial
| emissions or other economic figures like GDP, but we
| don't throw our hands up and say "well it's too hard and
| too prone to fudging so we might as well not bother".
|
| >Because in reality, much of the globe's economy is
| waaayyyyy too interconnected, and the arrows don't just
| point one way. Feedback loops without end.
|
| What "feedback loops" are you talking about?
|
| >That whole "this/that country..." just does not work,
| except to fill comment sections. The systems are global.
|
| Ok but surely you must recognize that the US, where the
| average person drives a pickup/SUV to work is emitting
| more carbon than something like India where the average
| person gets around by walking or using motorbikes? That's
| the concept that conversations like "US emits more carbon
| per capita" are trying to capture. "The systems are
| global" sounds like an excuse to continue driving a F-150
| to work because of some spurious arguments about how hard
| it's do to do carbon accounting 100% accurately.
| gruez wrote:
| >And that's before taking into account imported CO2.
|
| It doesn't really make much of a difference. For US
| specifically there's about a 10% difference.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
| mulmen wrote:
| I believe the concept you are looking for is scope 3
| emissions.
| jppope wrote:
| Super weird that they don't factor in productivity at all.
| Don't take me the wrong way I hate the fact that the United
| States thinks the only way to do anything is to burn fossil
| fuels, but that doesn't change the fact that our output per
| capita has got to be 10x the countries we are being
| compared against in this article.
| exitb wrote:
| In what sense? Does an American bolt factory produce 10x
| as much bots per worker, or is the American bolt just 10x
| more expensive?
| dollylambda wrote:
| I think in the sense that if you look at the ratio of say
| GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_G
| DP_(nomi...) to CO2 emission, you could get _a_ metric of
| efficiency. The product produced vs the emissions
| produced.
| jobigoud wrote:
| GDP doesn't differentiate between good and bad things and
| for climate change it would be border line circular
| because natural disasters like floods and hurricanes are
| "good" for the GDP (reconstruction effort is a net
| positive, destruction itself is not subtracted).
| twothreeone wrote:
| That perspective also helps to understand the position
| that any call for radical climate action must be a
| weaponization of competing economies to weaken the leader
| of the pack. So it is very bad framing. Do the work
| cheaper, better, and at scale. By doing it more
| efficiently you win. Oh, and of course you'll be more
| innovative too.
| gruez wrote:
| There's a chart that does this directly:
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity
| user_7832 wrote:
| In some cases, I'd argue it might ironically be a _worse_
| metric. Case in point, a large AI adjacent firm like
| NVIDIA - or even OpenAI - that is both "creating gdp",
| but also _worsening_ stuff. I'd say a farmer farming in a
| sustainable way might have a near 0 gdp compared to Sama,
| but environmentally is much better.
| dollylambda wrote:
| Agree that not all gdp is equal or beneficial. However, I
| think most people would be remiss to the idea of giving
| up on science and technology and a return to the
| agricultural era.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Agree, to clarify, I'm specifically skeptical of the US
| GDP as much of it seems of a very bubble-like and
| speculative nature. Tesla (stock) pre NVIDIA was probably
| the poster boy for the longest of times.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| But think about it from the perspective of a US that wants
| to reduce carbon emissions. Why not simply throttle carbon
| emissions directly?
| burningChrome wrote:
| The US has been?
|
| - U.S. greenhouse gas emissions peaked around 2007, then
| declined by roughly 18% from that peak.
|
| - 1990-2022: Emissions fell about 3% compared to 1990
| levels, despite population and GDP growth.
|
| - 2005 Benchmark: Emissions in 2022 were 17% below 2005
| levels, largely due to cleaner electricity generation and
| efficiency improvements.
|
| - Transportation: Consistently the largest source,
| accounting for ~30-35% of CO2 emissions.
|
| - Electric Power: Significant reductions--down 41% since
| 2005--due to coal-to-natural-gas shift and renewables
| growth.
|
| - 2024: Energy-related CO2 emissions totaled 4,772
| million metric tons, down from 4,940 MMt in 2022.
|
| - 2022: Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,343 million
| metric tons CO2e, or 5,489 MMt after land-sector
| sequestration
| tgma wrote:
| A good thing from whose perspective? From the perspective
| of US it would always be a bad thing. Why would you ever
| want to concede something and limit yourself without
| proportional concessions.
| deadbabe wrote:
| To grow "soft power". Especially by agreeing to things
| you probably would have done anyway.
| lovich wrote:
| You know what the fun fact that everyone I hear complain
| about the US spending more than is fair on international
| projects ignores or appears ignorant of?
|
| When you're the one carrying the water, you get to decide
| where the water goes.
|
| I actually prefer regimes like NATO where everyone is happy
| to leave the US in charge and doesn't arm themselves. For all
| the projection of "strength" the current admin gives off,
| they are on their way towards reigning over a kingdom formed
| from the ashes of the republic's empire
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I prefer multilateralism, but I do think there are
| challenges when every country that isn't the biggest
| smashes the 'defect' button as many times as they can.
| _3u10 wrote:
| Most US foreign aid is delivered as bombs, and/or directly
| funding the terrorists.
|
| And if not directly funding the terrorists, creating a
| situation so stupid that it will lead to a fresh batch for
| next years war.
|
| Neither the people paying for it, nor the people receiving
| it want it to be done that way.
| CaptWillard wrote:
| And don't forget the tertiary effects as we displace
| millions with those bombs, only to take in a large number
| of "asylum seekers" from the countries we "aided".
|
| IMO this is all by design, and there are a non-zero
| number of NGO operatives on this very site who are
| frustrated that anything is impeding that plan.
| rpmisms wrote:
| OK so can everyone else please pay?
| sschueller wrote:
| Like throttling the US from committing war crimes?
| DevKoala wrote:
| > I was hoping to see a comment like this. These sorts of
| "global collaborations" seem to always end with the US carry
| all the water, and the goal from the other countries
| perspective is to throttle the US. Like the Paris Accords.
|
| I agree 100%.
|
| I don't see the benefits here.
| brazukadev wrote:
| Don't worry, China is willingly replacing the US in these
| global collaborations.
| brabel wrote:
| Poor US always being bullied by everyone else. What kind of
| world have you been living in where the reality is not the
| exact opposite??
| colechristensen wrote:
| Eh, there are a bunch of these kinds of treaties the US
| won't sign because for most of the signatories they're
| inconsequential but they're a huge lever for other
| countries to take sovereignty from the US.
| password54321 wrote:
| Screw game theory, I have the bigger stick. This is how
| everyone goes "defect" and you enter an arms race.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
|
| Never mind, we already crossed that line:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzq2p0yk4o
| dvt wrote:
| > Never mind, we already crossed that line:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzq2p0yk4o
|
| This was a very proportional response to Putin[1] the other
| day, so it's still technically game theory.
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/putin-says-russia-
| tested...
| complianceowl wrote:
| Almost no rebuttals on the internet are intellectually honest
| these days. Take the same exact action by a President of the
| alternative party, and it's considered "decisive", "shows our
| enemies we mean business". But since it's not coming from
| your political party, it's "oh no, what is this guy doing.
| He's going to get us all unalived."
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| The Wikipedia article having a whole section about human right
| objections also says a lot about this treaty.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_agai...
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > For example, the convention requires states to have laws
| that compel internet services to collect certain data, and
| does not require that requests for such data be transparent.
| There are limited cases when member states may deny a request
| for data, although there is a provision to do so if a state
| believes a request is due to "sex, race, language, religion,
| nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinions". The
| latter statement was weakened during negotiations, and
| challenged by Iran and Russia until the end of negotiations.
|
| Ok, so it's basically a "five eyes" style agreement for
| sharing intel on citizens. Why would anyone want their
| government to support this?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Ok, so it's basically a "five eyes" style agreement for
| sharing intel on citizens. Why would anyone want their
| government to support this?
|
| While I agree that it's not a good idea, I can answer that
| last question:
|
| The idea would be that when an American enforcement body,
| presumably the FBI, determines that a bunch of cash or
| whatever was stolen by Russian hackers, the treaty compels
| the Russian government to keep records of the hackers'
| activity, and it "creates frameworks for collaboration,
| including mutual legal assistance and extradition". So
| instead of saying "hey, you stole all our money" and
| getting the response "wow, it must suck to be you", we
| could make them give the money back and extradite the
| criminals.
| braebo wrote:
| Kind of breaks down when the criminals are running the
| government..
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| Oh yes indeed, Russia will definitely keep up their end
| of the deal. They wouldn't piss on a treaty that they had
| signed for no reason.
|
| Like, remember that time where they signed a treaty in
| 1994 that committed them to respecting and protecting
| Ukraine's borders and then steadfastly stuck to it till
| present day?
|
| You've convinced me. Entering this agreement with Russia,
| North Korea and China is a great idea.
| vkou wrote:
| Believe it or not, Russia, like most countries, mostly
| adheres to most of the treaties it signs.
|
| That thrust would also land better if the US weren't ran
| entirely by an autocrat whose adherence to the terms of
| its treaties is, ah, capricious at best. But even before
| him, it's treaty adherence (like that of _all_ countries)
| was also variable.
| nickff wrote:
| Even Trump "mostly adheres to most of the treaties" the
| USA has signed. The USA has signed a lot of treaties, and
| violating most of them would take a concerted effort, and
| quite a lot of time.
| vkou wrote:
| Yes, he does. The sad and stupid and novel thing is how
| fucking capricious he is about that adherence, and how
| congress has fully kowtowed to him and his minions.
| SllX wrote:
| Solid question. Related, but here is a list of governments
| that did support this: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDe
| tails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
| vkou wrote:
| > Why would anyone want their government to support this?
|
| Clearly not enough people oppose it, because five eyes has
| been a thing for decades, and isn't going anywhere.
| olalonde wrote:
| Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If they hadn't signed
| the treaty, people here would be saying it's proof those
| countries support cybercriminals.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Aren't treaties with the US meaningless by default, unless
| ratified by 3/4th of Congress?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No. Like many countries, the US requires legislative
| ratification of treaties, but by 2/3 of the Senate, not 3/4
| of the Congress. The US has the same obligations as any non-
| ratifying signatory with regard to treaties it has signed but
| not ratified.
| technothrasher wrote:
| Two-thirds of the Senate, I believe, not three-quarters of
| Congress.
| pelorat wrote:
| Contrast this to the EU where all treaties are automatically
| law across all members.
| alphager wrote:
| That's not how the EU works. As an example take the
| Mercosur treaty: it has 4 parts. The first post is straight
| up trade rules, an area that the Eau member states
| delegated to the EU. This part was directly valid once
| signed.
|
| The other three parts all concern areas not delegated to
| the EU. To become law, all three parts have to be approved
| by the EU parliament and the EU council (which consists of
| the heads of the executives of the member states) and the
| local parliaments of the member states. Depending on local
| law, even regional parliaments have to approve it (Belgium
| is such a state). The final implementation of Mercosur is
| not expected before 2028.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| Surely signing it would signal willingness to get along? What
| would be the downside?
|
| > 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?
| dumbledoren wrote:
| Right. Its not like recent statistics showed that the US was
| the place where most of the cyberattacks originate. And its not
| like both the US and UK are openly saying that they are
| maximizing cyberwarfare against everyone as if it was something
| to be proud of. The country that is facilitating a livestreamed
| genocide in Gaza, is the 'good guys' to be trusted in
| cyberwarfare, for 'some' reason.
|
| But, then again, in the Angloamerican culture, its always
| 'others' who are evil. Never itself.
| SllX wrote:
| Out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a presently
| extant culture that does view itself as evil?
| brabel wrote:
| The UK maybe?? The always had a little self loathing
| tendencies and since they decided their past Empire was
| actually quite evil, that seems to have become worse.
| SllX wrote:
| They're the "Anglo" in "Angloamerican culture" that the
| parent is talking about.
| louthy wrote:
| > Right. It's not like recent statistics showed that the US
| was the place where most of the cyberattacks originate.
|
| Link?
|
| > And it's not like both the US and UK are openly saying that
| they are maximizing cyberwarfare against everyone as if it
| was something to be proud of.
|
| Link?
|
| > The country that is facilitating a livestreamed genocide in
| Gaza
|
| Which country is that? And where's the livestream streaming?
| p337 wrote:
| Wait, what data are you seeing where most cyber attacks are
| originating from the US? I work in security at a place with
| some of the best threat intelligence globally, and there are
| indeed attacks from the US, even the government, but the idea
| that MOST cyberattacks originate from the US would be
| completely shocking to me. Is there some qualifier you're not
| including or maybe you misremembered "most targeted" as
| originated?
|
| I'm not really trying to get into the political part of it
| fwiw.
| theatomheart wrote:
| Dont give it another second of thought. Parent poster's
| actual name is Dumbledope. Safe to ignore and move on.
| andreygrehov wrote:
| According to World Cybercrime Index, Russia, Ukraine, China and
| the US are in top 4. North Korea is #7. Just to add some
| perspective to it.
| coliveira wrote:
| Three of these countries are technology leaders, so that
| makes sense. Then we have Ukraine.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| Russia is number 1, Ukraine is number 2. This is my
| proudest moment as a Ukranian.
| andyvesel wrote:
| That's right. If this is happening in the wrong nation - it's
| totalitarism and evil. If this happens in the correct nations,
| which are on the bright side - then it's democracy.
| meowface wrote:
| This but non-ironically.
|
| (Unfortunately the current United States administration makes
| the nation much closer to one of the Bad Nations, though, so
| it's kind of moot anyway.)
| pphysch wrote:
| It's also crucially important that the person deciding
| "right" and "wrong" here is an Atlantic Council fellow,
| otherwise that would also be Bad.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Yeah, the article is quite good at summarizing some of these
| issues.
|
| > 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."
| bethekidyouwant wrote:
| The UN should stick to environmental treaties
| some_random wrote:
| Wow so the hosts and beneficiaries of cybercrime wrote a treaty
| on it (with a ton of additional surveillance mandates included,
| of course) and the US didn't sign on. How disappointing.
| pksebben wrote:
| text of the treaty:
| https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cybercrime/convention/text/co...
|
| I wouldn't get excited about the US "not signing". With the
| government shutdown, they might just be waiting for the document
| to be in New York before they bother. Hanoi is far.
|
| 64ss1: This Convention shall be open to all States for signature
| in Hanoi in 2025 and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in
| New York until 31 December 2026.
|
| Article 37 is spooky. Expands extradition to where there might
| not be preexisting extradition treaties.
|
| Fuck article 11. It's the EU's "any program for committing
| cybercrime is a crime" law, and makes programmers culpable.
| IANAL, but it actually looks like it criminalizes the entire
| software supply chain. Sure, there's a clause in there that looks
| like it's supposed to protect security research (11s2) but this
| is the thinnest of loincloths.
|
| It also seems to apply to "crime where there was a computer
| somewhere around". As for what constitutes "crime":
|
| Article 2:(h) "Serious crime" shall mean conduct constituting an
| offence punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at
| least four years or a more serious penalty;
|
| ...that seems to mean that if publishing information against the
| state regime is punishable by 4+ years and you used a computer to
| do it, there is now a basis for seizing your data and extraditing
| you.
|
| I'm not even going to get into the implications this has for
| damaging privacy in general. This is some dark ass shit.
| thw_9a83c wrote:
| Article 29: Real-time collection of traffic data
| - (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.
|
| Seriously? Will the authorities of state X simply ask the
| authorities of state Y to collect/intercept data, and will the
| authorities of state Y be required to cooperate even without a
| legal basis in their local legislation? Because this treaty
| become sufficient legislation?
|
| 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.
|
| I cannot imagine anyone with a functioning brain signing this
| at the UN level.
| mystraline wrote:
| Upon a reading, a "cybercrime" can be as simple as saying 'Kim
| Jong Un is a fat dumbass' on social media.
|
| 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".
| listeria wrote:
| full list of signatories:
| https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
| jacknews wrote:
| Thanks, this should be added to the OP
| AaronFriel wrote:
| What's the difference between this and the first link you
| shared?
| jacknews wrote:
| That seemed to an EU thing
|
| But I note the treaties.un.org link is signatories as of
| late 2024.
|
| Why are they not publishing the current signatories? This
| is absolutely not something that should be murky.
| listeria wrote:
| you can see at the top of the page it says:
| STATUS AS AT : 30-10-2025 09:16:00 EDT
|
| and the date of the signature says 25 Oct 2025.
| jacknews wrote:
| When Cambodia is a signatory, you know this is just whitewash, or
| even 'protective intelligence' ie using the shared international
| intelligence to protect the scams and evade enforcement. Keep
| your enemies close.
| pembrook wrote:
| > _The U.K. and European Union joined China, Russia, Brazil,
| Nigeria and dozens of other nations in signing the
| convention...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._
|
| Countries like Nigeria, Morocco, North Korea and Russia signing a
| "cybercrime" treaty is just hilarious to me.
|
| I don't believe for a second that these countries want to crack
| down on cybercrime, considering their citizens are the main
| perpetrators and beneficiaries of it, and they've taken zero
| actions to prevent it before today. Lagos is essentially the
| Silicon Valley of internet fraud, and it happens with permission
| from the highest levels of their government.
|
| This obviously is just an excuse to create a global dragnet for
| governments looking to crack down on dissent.
| elAhmo wrote:
| UN should move its HQ outside of US. It is obvious they have
| become a bad host.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Now that's an idea I think a lot of people can get behind. From
| the left, the US is a bad host. From the right, get those
| globalists out of my country. Everybody wins.
| ang_cire wrote:
| I mean, that's true, but not because they won't sign onto a
| global dragnet treaty with Russia and China.
|
| 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.
| nwellnhof wrote:
| > cybercrime -- which the U.N. estimates costs $10.5 trillion
| around the world annually.
|
| That's almost 10% of global GDP. Who comes up with these numbers?
| orbifold wrote:
| It will all make sense once you realize who works at the UN,
| basically nepo babies of all colors and variety, including
| second cousins of Saudi royalty etc.
| tdb7893 wrote:
| One of my family members was a research director at the UN
| and came from a middle class American family. It has its
| problems (he certainly has his share of complaints) but the
| idea that they are all nepo babies is incorrect and they do
| have serious researchers. Also, are we sure that the $10.5
| trillion is a UN generated number? Other people in the
| comments seem to think it was made up by some other
| organization.
| varenc wrote:
| It might be including the cost of the entire cybersecurity
| business sector? Salaries of security engineers, security
| vendors, etc. Not just fallout from hacks.
|
| edit: cybersecurity ventures seems to be the real source for
| the 10.5T number: https://cybersecurityventures.com/cybercrime-
| damage-costs-10...
|
| Apparently their methodology is just assume $3T cybercrime cost
| in 2015, then compound it by 15% annual.
| sixhobbits wrote:
| Couple clicks to get to the list so here it is. Not countries I
| usually associate with caring about privacy.
|
| Algeria,Angola,Australia,Austria,Azerbaijan,Belarus,Belgium,Brazi
| l,Brunei Darussalam,Burkina Faso,Cambodia,Chile,China,Costa
| Rica,Cote d'Ivoire,Cuba,Czech Republic,Democratic People's
| Republic of Korea,Democratic Republic of the
| Congo,Djibouti,Dominican Republic,Ecuador,Egypt,European
| Union,France,Ghana,Greece,Guinea-Bissau,Iran (Islamic Republic of
| ),Ireland,Jamaica,Mozambique,Namibia,Nauru,Nicaragua,Nigeria,Pala
| u,Papua New Guinea,Peru,Philippines,Poland,Portugal,Qatar,Russian
| Federation,Rwanda,Saudi Arabia,Slovakia,Slovenia,South
| Africa,Spain,Sri Lanka,State of
| Palestine,Sweden,Thailand,Togo,Turkiye,Uganda,United Kingdom of
| Great Britain and Northern Ireland,United Republic of
| Tanzania,Uruguay,Uzbekistan,Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic
| of),Viet Nam,Zimbabwe
| etiennebausson wrote:
| I am curious about which countries do you associate with
| privacy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _curious about which countries do you associate with
| privacy_
|
| Estonia, Iceland, Switzerland, the Nordic countries and
| America.
| malvim wrote:
| America? The one with all the spying, NSA, Patriot Act,
| this America?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _America? The one with all the spying, NSA, Patriot
| Act, this America?_
|
| Yes. We do all of that. But so does practically everyone
| else. The difference is our federal structure and--until
| recently--independent courts provided a bit more
| oversight than other countries' citizens had access to.
| And we've had--until recently--respect for privacy held
| deeply enough by enough people that it turns into a stink
| at the federal level in at least some respect.
|
| Most countries have national logging requirements,
| disclosure requirements and domestic police with the
| powers of the NSA. (America remains one of the few
| countries in which one can form a legal entity with zero
| identification.)
| _3u10 wrote:
| Obviously if this agreement conflicts with the patriot
| act, it's unpatriotic and America is right not to sign
| it.
| advisedwang wrote:
| The typical answer to this would be places like Switzerland,
| Germany and the Cayman Islands.
| malvim wrote:
| You are dead wrong about Brazil, our legislation about online
| privacy is pretty advanced. The European Union is not a country
| but has pretty solid legislation as well. Other South American
| countries on the list are pretty good as well.
|
| You seem to be making a blanket statement about "not the first
| country I think about when..." of places you know nothing
| about.
| lbrito wrote:
| Sweden, Uruguay and Portugal are on that list, to name a few
| more advanced countries. Seems like a pretty good list.
|
| I wonder what countries you do associate with data privacy.
| strictnein wrote:
| Clearly when one thinks of data privacy they think of China,
| Venezuela, Russia, Congo, DRPK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran,
| Belarus, etc etc etc
| lbrito wrote:
| Ah -- sarcasm.
|
| You're absolutely right. When thinking of data privacy
| people think of the USA, where you can be sent off to a
| gulag island if a random officer does not like what he sees
| on your personal phone -- which he is, of course, legally
| allowed to search for no good reason.
| tamimio wrote:
| > Not countries I usually associate with caring about privacy.
|
| Well, people should start accepting new norms that are
| different from what they used to know, not just data privacy,
| but even in other values as well, like personal freedom. I am
| sure some of the countries above have more personal freedom for
| a person compared to countries that lecture others about it,
| meanwhile the individuals get tracked by their phone through
| cell towers, get tracked while on the road by some unregulated
| cameras, get tracked online with digital ID, get tracked
| everywhere and if you end up getting caught and prosecuted, you
| will lose your basic human needs like getting a job or even
| voting in the so called free countries.
| orenlindsey wrote:
| All this would do is drive criminals to poorer countries that
| can't stop crime as well. Just like many scammers being based in
| South Asia, or billionaires moving their money to tax havens. It
| just takes one country to allow this stuff or at least not stop
| it, and your treaties are just pieces of paper.
| hypeatei wrote:
| I don't understand why political topics such as international
| treaties like this are upvoted and kept on the front page? To be
| clear, I'm in favor of politics being discussed on here, but this
| is so uninteresting and pointless to discuss IMO. International
| law can be ignored even by countries that agreed to it. What are
| you going to do, invade? As pointed out, countries like China and
| Russia signed onto a cybercrime treaty... pure slop.
|
| Just seems very distracting when actual abuses and interesting
| political topics are hidden away in /active (like ICEs use of
| facial recognition)
| nizbit wrote:
| Don't have to look far to find out why.
|
| Per the article: "Illicit flows of money, concealed through
| cryptocurrencies and digital transactions, finance the
| trafficking of drugs, arms, and terror. And businesses,
| hospitals, and airports are brought to a standstill by ransomware
| attacks."
|
| Then there's this: Inside the Trump family's global crypto cash
| machine https://www.reuters.com/investigations/inside-trump-
| familys-...
| abtinf wrote:
| Once again, Chat Control is a never ending battle.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Russia in particular is turning the blind eye on en masse cyber
| crime that is originating from Russia. Russian hackers in the
| last two decades stole millions of credit cards from US and EU
| and hacked numerous banks and still the biggest Russian cyber
| criminals are at large in Russia. Just look at the FBI's top 10
| wanted for cyber crime.
| ryanisnan wrote:
| I think you're misreading the situation. As far as I can tell,
| Russia has every reason to want to continue engaging in heavy
| cyber-criminal activities. I don't think this is the virtuous
| Kremlin turning a blind eye. This is a classic case of
| deception. Look at my left hand, so you don't see what my right
| is doing.
| mrkramer wrote:
| They see it as asymmetrical warfare, I know that; but if US
| would let US cyber criminals steal millions of Russian and
| Chinese credit cards or some other PII, I would perceive that
| as distasteful and not as a form of counterintelligence.
| edm0nd wrote:
| RU cybercriminals pay bribes to RU law enforcement to stay out
| of trouble as well as bend the knee and work for GRU/KBG when
| called upon for various requests by them.
|
| then there is also the unspoken rule of "dont shit where you
| eat" aka RU/CIS based ransomware operators and hackers cant
| attack any companies in the CIS region.
|
| a good read, https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/dark-
| covenant-3-cont...
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Let me guess - the "treaty" really means setting up a UN-run
| organization that will oversee global cybercrime defense. Let's
| check out the last time that happened. Oh yeah, the WHO. The WHO
| that lied about the coronavirus and said it isn't airborne
| despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
| radial_symmetry wrote:
| Just a reminder that the UN exists as a place where countries
| with very opposing points of view can have a forum for
| discussion. A treaty put forth by the UN, or a declaration by the
| UN, does not automatically mean that it is good or aligned with
| your values in any way shape or form.
| taco_emoji wrote:
| The United States is taking an indefinite hiatus. Please check
| back later.
| deafpolygon wrote:
| notably absent are the netherlands and germany... wonder why this
| is!
| iamnothere wrote:
| Nice to see abstention from Canada, Finland, Japan, South Korea,
| India, Iceland, Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland as well. Not
| everyone is on board with this (for good reason), it's not just
| the big bad US ignoring the rest of the world.
|
| Given the presence of some extremely authoritarian states on the
| list of signatories, the fact that the UK and France signed on
| seems to confirm my suspicions about the trajectory of freedom in
| those countries. And surprisingly Sweden! I feel like Mullvad
| users should be concerned.
| SllX wrote:
| All better company than the countries listed as signatories.
|
| I'm actually not sure about Germany though. I almost posted a
| similar list above but then I noticed the European Union is
| listed as a signatory, so not sure where that puts the EU
| members not listed:
| https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
| iamnothere wrote:
| This is indeed strange. Can the EU sign treaties that are
| binding on all member countries? And if so, what's the deal
| with France and other countries signing on redundantly?
|
| Edit: another commenter mentioned something about treaties
| needing to go through the EU parliament and council if the
| areas of concern aren't delegated to the EU. Not sure which
| side of the fence this falls under, and I bet there are some
| potential legal challenges waiting regardless. So perhaps
| France is hedging its bets by signing on as an individual
| nation, indicating its willingness to implement the treaty no
| matter what happens with the rest of the EU. But I am no
| expert on EU bureaucracy and politics!
| SllX wrote:
| > But I am no expert on EU bureaucracy and politics!
|
| I'd be shocked if anyone alive is.
|
| A couple of weeks ago the Council of the EU authorized both
| the Commission and members to sign onto this convention.
| That's the best I've got and it still doesn't tell us if
| this is would apply automatically to Germany and others
| without them signing on, but I guess in theory it helps the
| convention get over the 40 signature threshold if it
| weren't going to already. Signing on still isn't done
| either as it runs from October 25th 2025 through December
| 31st 2026.
|
| PS: if you saw a previous version of this comment, your
| eyes weren't fooling you, I just got taken for a ride by a
| bad source that confused the Council of Europe with the
| Council of the EU so I nuked it.
| pbasista wrote:
| > Can the EU sign treaties that are binding on all member
| countries?
|
| That depends on the topic of the treaty.
|
| The EU member countries have delegated their decision
| making powers _on certain limited number of topics_ to the
| EU institutions, like The EU Commission, The EU Council or
| possibly others. One such topic is the trade. As a result,
| all EU countries share the same trade policy.
|
| For other topics, where there is no such delegation in
| place, everything needs to be ratified by every member
| country individually.
|
| I am unsure into which category this particular treaty
| falls.
| zaoui_amine wrote:
| US knows this treaty is a joke. No point in signing when the bad
| actors are already in.
| bloppe wrote:
| Ya, this isn't surprising.
|
| https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-un...
|
| > states parties are obligated to establish laws in their
| domestic system to "compel" service providers to "collect or
| record" real-time traffic or content data.
|
| That's probably the biggest poison pill. The whole data sharing
| thing got watered down to the point of farce. Of course the EU
| won't extradite Russian LGBT activists under this law. But
| similarly, how likely do you think it would be for North Korea to
| extradite its own state-sponsored cybercriminals? They can simply
| claim that doing so would go against their "sovereignty,
| security, or other essential interests". Case closed!
| shevy-java wrote:
| The USA has chosen Evil here.
|
| This also confirms the PSF foundation being wary. The USA would
| love to put unaffiliated developers in prison.
| tiberius_p wrote:
| Any treaty joined by Russia is compromised from the start.
| mlinksva wrote:
| It's a very good thing the US has declined to sign this. The
| digital rights community has been campaigning against it since
| its proposal by Russia in 2017. The US not signing it is a small
| victory across a very large loss. Many explainers like
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/joint-statement-un-cyb...
| bilekas wrote:
| The title sounds more ominous than it really is. Why would the US
| want to weaken their position when it comes to advancing their
| cyber warfare weapons. Unrestricted they don't even need to
| pretend to be playing nice. I prefer the honesty at least.
| xyst wrote:
| When it comes to the UN, if Israel doesn't sign/agree to it.
| Usually USA follows.
|
| "America first", right? Load of horse shit.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| the US makes smart decision unlike 70 countries, fixed the title
| reenorap wrote:
| Has the UN actually solved any problems in the last 40+ years? It
| seems like a massive bureaucracy that is absolutely ineffective.
| They have been completely ineffective with respect to Ukraine,
| Gaza, COVID, any other conflict around the world.
|
| When the W.H.O. went into China to "investigate" the COVID virus
| and came back saying "Nope, nothing to see here!" was probably
| one of the most predictable and pathetic things from the UN.
| tamimio wrote:
| I bet that's the real reason why
|
| https://www.reuters.com/investigations/inside-trump-familys-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-30 23:01 UTC)