Biden Administration To Support Controversial UN Cyber Treaty (yahoo.com) 97
The Biden administration plans to support a controversial cybercrime treaty at the United Nations this week despite concerns that it could be misused by authoritarian regimes, Bloomberg News reported Monday, citing senior government officials. From the report: The agreement would be the first legally binding UN agreement on cybersecurity and could become a global legal framework for countries to cooperate on preventing and investigating cybercriminals. However, critics fear it could be used by authoritarian states to try to pursue dissidents overseas or collect data from political opponents. Still, the officials said there are persuasive reasons to support the treaty. For instance, it would advance the criminalization of child sexual-abuse material and nonconsensual spreading of intimate images, they said.
In addition, the wider involvement of member states would make cybercrime and electronic evidence more available to the US, one official said. If all the members sign the agreement, it would update extradition treaties and provide more opportunities to apprehend cybercriminals and have them extradited, the official added. Hundreds of submissions from advocacy groups and other parties criticized US involvement in the agreement. The US plans to strictly enforce human rights and other safeguards in the treaty, the officials said, adding that the Department of Justice would closely scrutinize requests and refuse to provide any assistance that was inconsistent with the agreement.
In addition, the wider involvement of member states would make cybercrime and electronic evidence more available to the US, one official said. If all the members sign the agreement, it would update extradition treaties and provide more opportunities to apprehend cybercriminals and have them extradited, the official added. Hundreds of submissions from advocacy groups and other parties criticized US involvement in the agreement. The US plans to strictly enforce human rights and other safeguards in the treaty, the officials said, adding that the Department of Justice would closely scrutinize requests and refuse to provide any assistance that was inconsistent with the agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget covid killed 1.2 million Americans, and yes it was 100% preventable.
How? And why didn't anyone come forward and propose how to spare 1.2 million lives?
If you knew how to prevent the deaths at the time and held it back from the government, then, I'm afraid, YOU are responsible - you denied those people the chance to survive because, why? Orange man bad? It was too hard?
Your statement is pure, revisionist BS - it's a salve you put on your wounds to try and make you feel better about putting a dottering old man in the White House when he couldn't even walk up the stairs into A
Re:It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:4, Interesting)
How?
Early detection followed by international quarantines and contact tracing. That was the gameplan.
We had a pandemic response team to do exactly this. It was a post 9/11 homeland security program. The orange traitor disbanded the program in 2017 because Obama improved upon it.
We had our own CDC inspectors in China. The orange traitor fired them because he thought he could trust China. That was fucking stupid.
Even then we knew a novel virus was in Wuhan in Nov 2019. We could have stopped it then and there. The orange traitor didn't even try. He didn't set up a quarantine until Jan 30, 2020 which was two months too late.
Remember when he released 700 covid positive people into Atlanta's airport? How fucked up was that?
Face reality. We had a crisis. The orange traitor didn't attempt to prevent it, and actually made it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
None of that is real little buddy.
I'm not little. I'm 6'4", muscular, with a hot wife. And yes, Covid could have been 100% prevented. It could have been mitigated too. The orange traitor did neither.
Hope you didn't abandon any real life friends or family members over your delusions, or you'll really feel like an asshole.
Sounds like projection.
Enjoy your tariffs. I'm doing financially well enough for them not to affect me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:2)
Said the aptly-named "Anonymous Coward" commenter...
Re: (Score:2)
So tell me truthfully here... my aunt didn't die of COVID? My friend's parents? Another friend's aunt and uncle? Another friend's kid? Maybe you Fucking Kid Killing Klan Trump-Worshiping Sacks of Shit all need to be put into an oven for the good of the world.
Re: It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:1, Troll)
There was zero chance China was gonna let outsiders in to help with the virus. Zero. We know cause we tried. We wanted to do an actual investigation into the origin. Again, no. You are trying to completely rewrite what happened. Oh, and the vast majority that died were very sick, old, and/or obese. We all got it
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure being called racist is what stopped him from implementing a travel ban two months too late.
If China is so untrustworthy(which they are), why did the orange traitor fire our CDC inspectors? They were our people, placed in China, who would counter China's bullshit. It's pretty stupid to trust the word of China. So why did the orange traitor do it?
Re: It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We had a pandemic response team to do exactly this. It was a post 9/11 homeland security program. The orange traitor disbanded the program in 2017 because Obama improved upon it.
You're talking about the White House’s National Security Council (NSC). Trump felt that it was a bloated and inefficient organization (about 250 staffers). Trump cut it to about 115 people. Part of that was closing the Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, firing the director and folded the team members into other parts of the NSC already charged with those areas. For example, some people went to the unit in charge of WMDs, and another official's position became part of a unit respons
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a top priority like John Bolton claimed it was why did they wait until Jan 30, 2020 to institute a travel ban?
In a world of limited resources 65 million a year is much less than 8 trillion.
By the way the narrative that the main stream media opposes the orange traitor is false. And the Washington post certainty isn't anti traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
You live in an alternate reality.
That's why you got a shellacking earlier this week.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump can find cure for cancer at this point and you will spin it as killing the human kind. Same it true for republicans in regards to any good thing democrats will do.
Under Trump however the covid vaccine development was funded and pushed forward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He implemented travel restrictions two months too late. And yes, he funded the vaccine development.
You do know that hindsight vision is ALWAYS 20-20.
Ask any eye doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
I was surprised that travel restrictions weren't already in place. That was supposed to be the first step after detecting a novel virus. Way too late.
I get it. You wouldn't have been able to stop or even mitigate Covid. So you gave the orange traitor a free pass. I don't.
Re: It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:2)
I recall democrats calling travel bans "xenophobic", choosing to not go to celebrate Chinese New Year in Chinatown as racist.
When did NY State sell off its ventilators for scrap?
Obama left a bookshelf full of plans, and a warehouse full of empty. Should Trump have restocked? Sure. Should Obama have left behind empty warehouses? No.
I remember when Biden told people not to take the vaccine, because he didn't trust Trump, then it was OK once we were well past the election.
I remember Biden crowing he had a plan
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did Trump care about things being called racist? He didn't care about that when:
he wouldn't repudiate an endorsement from David Duke
he wouldn't repudiate the neo-nazi rallies, offering mealy-mouthed "good people on both sides" horseshit
he actually did enact an actually racist travel ban against muslim nations, which was struck down by federal courts as racist
he's been race baiting people for a decade
he was found to be charging different rent for black peop
Re:It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:4, Informative)
When Trump implemented travel restrictions, Biden and democrats called this xenophobic https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com] . This is from NBC news which is hardly republican outlet.
It was xenophobic since it only restricted travel of Chinese nationals. Completely pointless as all those non-Chinese travelers were more than capable of carrying COVID-19 into the country.
Re: It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:2)
So the complaint is it want broad enough, so the answer was to let everyone in?
Seriously, if you want to play it that way, show me the democrats that argued it didn't go far enough?
20/20 selective hindsight?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget covid killed 1.2 million Americans, and yes it was 100% preventable.
I think between 50% and 100% was preventable. 90% sound like a nice easy number.
Who could prevent it? The American people. If people could simply pitch in during an emergency instead of putting their own selfish behavior above the well being of others, then we could have massively slowed down the spread. Comparing the death rate to other countries shows the US could have done better than it did. Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, and others fair significantly better. Europe did moderately bett
Trump's people already want to shut down (Score:3)
Point is, Trump is already shutting down Biden stuff that would just be stupid to shut down. He's doing it out of spite. To make himself seem "strong".
Same thing happened with Obama. Trump pulled out all the epidemiologists from Chin
Re: Trump's people already want to shut down (Score:2)
Point is, Trump is already shutting down Biden stuff that would just be stupid to shut down. He's doing it out of spite. To make himself seem "strong".
How in the hell is a President-Elect shutting down current government "stuff"?
You do remember when Biden sat down on his first day in office and signed dozens and dozens of executive orders unwinding things Trump enacted, just because Trump did it? Specifically, Biden ended "remain in Mexico", then a while later tried to get Nexico to agree, but he couldn't d
Re: Trump's people already want to shut down (Score:2)
That first paragraph was supposed to be a quote:
Point is, Trump is already shutting down Biden stuff that would just be stupid to shut down. He's doing it out of spite. To make himself seem "strong".
Re: (Score:2)
Your imaginings are not real and can't hurt you. It'll all be okay.
You're hilarious if you think anyone is actually afraid of Trump. The man can barely keep his bowels contained, let alone competently manage the responsibilities of running a country. Y'all just elected another decrepit old puppet with a different set of oligarchs as his puppeteers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really believed Trump was a dictator and fascist and Hitler who is going to hunt down and imprison or execute all his enemies you wouldn't be posting shit on the internet
I didn't say any of those things.
Re: It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At no point am I going to say anything other than orange traitor. January 6th was a failed coup.
Why does he get a free pass for killing all our CIA foreign spies?
Why does he get a free pass for having all of our nuclear weapon and defense secrets next to a photocopier at Mara Lago?
Why does he get a free pass for releasing 5000 Taliban pow's including the battlefield commanders after Biden won?
Why does he get a free pass for 1.2 million dead Americans?
4 people died from Ebola under Obama and republicans
Re: (Score:1)
This is a fun game! Let's play!
The world's dumbest coup was 1/6, when they forgot to bring weapons. Brought cameras and took selfies.
When will Biden be held responsible for 13 dead Americans for nothing in his humiliating Afghan retreat?
When will Biden be held responsible for the secret documents he stored in his garage next to his car and his library at a university and 2 other random ass places which freaked out his lawyers when they realized what they were asked to go through and didn't have clearance
Re: It doesn't matter if it's good (Score:2)
Why does he get a free pass for killing all our CIA foreign spies?
Really? ALL our foreign CIA spies?
Why does he get a free pass for having all of our nuclear weapon and defense secrets next to a photocopier at Mara Lago?
ALL our Nuclear weapon and defense secrets? It's been established that FBI agents 'staged' photos of evidence for dramatic effect. For that reason alone any claims made by the FBI is suspect at best.
And seriously, "all"? Exactly how big was the room with the photocopier?
(Also, you do know that Trump, as the sitting President, didn't personally pack the boxes when he left the Whitehouse, right? And you do realize when all those boxes were delivered to Mar a Largo they had to
Re: (Score:2)
You still have 1A rights and the rest ...
"The rest" huh? Afraid that mentioning the 2A could potentially be misconstrued as a threat against the president-elect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I was told,it was greedy corporations. So if printing money causes inflation (we agree on that) did the money Biden printed for nothing a,so cause inflation?
Shouldn't Biden have done the opposite to save the economy from all that Trump printing?
Did you cash your Covid check, btw?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Covid happened at the end of his term. How did he fire anyone as th4 first thing? Dude..... You believe some cool stuff. Like time travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the article summary?
The first sentence:
The Biden administration plans to support a controversial cybercrime treaty at the United Nations this week despite concerns that it could be misused by authoritarian regimes,
A little further down:
critics fear it could be used by authoritarian states to try to pursue dissidents overseas or collect data from political opponents.
I think your fears are mis-placed, if Trump is as you say/fear, why would he want to repeal the treaty?
Question to ask to prevent this nonsense (Score:2)
We're going to have to hold politicians, the media, agenda-based nonprofits, NGOs and corporations to a simple question
- "Is this (insert treaty/agreement/policy proposal) a law or legally ratified by the US Senate treaty?"
If no, then the next question should be
- "Why are you using it to push an agenda since it is not a law or a legally binding treaty?"
Followed by
- "How are you or your allies seeking to profit or gain power from pushing this agenda?"
It's like the do-nothing senator for life we've had from b
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be legally binding on the US anyway. The only way treaties themselves are ever(assuming they don't interfere with citizens' or states' constitutional rights) legally binding in the US is when they are ratified by the Senate. Prior to that while executive orders and legislation can be used to align US policy and law with the treaty, the treaty itself has no legal authority.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh shit! Don't tell him that! He thinks the UN rules the world. You just made his head explode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way the Senate will ratify this treaty while Biden is in office. Trump could revisit later when he wants brownie points from his authoritarian buddies.
The Senate currently has a Dem majority. Why wouldn't they pass it?
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the constitution on what is required to ratify a treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Please read the constitution on what is required to ratify a treaty.
It's can't actually be a treaty since the UN isn't a nation. It seems like this would fall more in the "executive agreement" territory. Admittedly that doesn't require the senate at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes 2/3ds or 67 votes to ratify a treaty.
Now go count the number of Senate seats held by Democrats, and put that into variable X.
Is X 67 ?
Re: (Score:2)
The orange traitor and probable antichrist will reverse course on day one.
Maybe not; you missed this part:
could be misused by authoritarian regimes,
Re: (Score:2)
The orange traitor and probable antichrist will reverse course on day one.
If it doesn't go to the Senate for a vote per U.S. Constitution Article 2, I should hope that Trump would reverse it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he'll just change out the bureaucrats at DoJ who "would closely scrutinize requests and refuse to provide any assistance that was inconsistent with the agreement" for people that will rubberstamp requests and willingly provide assistance that is inconsistent with the agreement.
If it's in the authoritarian toolbox, he's going to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect the US to leave the UN Security Council. Because the Orange dumbass likes wasting any advantage we have.
Legally binding UN treaty (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more than a little sure there is no such thing as a "legally binding UN treaty".
Treaties are between countries.
Re: (Score:2)
This is also true for UN treaties. They are the law of any country where they were ratified, and they are worth as much as the local executive works them and the local judiciary enforces them..
Re: (Score:2)
The blue helmets will fly to the capitol and wag their collective fingers at the offending leaders, after sampling the local prostitutes and illegally parking all over town...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
what happens when a signatory violates this treaty?
If the treaty has been duly ratified and if the signatory is a Rule of Law country, then someone can refer violations to local or supreme tribunals, for which the ratified treaty is law of the land, and which can force the executive to abide by those terms (e.g. cancels an executive decision or a newly-adopted legislation that would be contrary to the treaty).
N.B. Adherence to Rule of Law is quantified by an index https://worldjusticeproject.or... [worldjusticeproject.org]
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Will Biden "sign the treaty" or will he "ratify" it?
The ratification process is "non-trivial":
Outline of the Treaty Making Process
Source: https://law.duke.edu/ilrt/trea... [duke.edu]
And I doubt Biden can get that done before leaving office.
Skeptic: Election issue manufacturing for 2026/28 (Score:2)
Suggested news article title: President Biden Advocates for UN Treaty Which is Unlikely to be Submitted to the US Senate or Pass the US Senate.
Why even report this until the president sends the treaty to the US Senate for a ratification vote?
These articles, especially at end of presidential term, are either
- Signals for vote buying if from before an election
- Manufacturing campaign issues for the next congressional and presidential elections.
You may agree or disagree with the treaty's intent, but a preside
Good ole Joe is true to his word (Score:2)
support a controversial cybercrime treaty at the United Nations this week despite concerns that it could be misused by authoritarian regimes
Joe Biden did say he would direct his entire administration to work with Trump's team.
Yeah right (Score:3)
Won't somebody please think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
These kinds of ideas are always sold under the guise of "won't somebody please think of the children". Nobody thinks child exploitation is a good thing, it's undeniably a bad thing and should be rigorously prosecuted. However, this treaty isn't about protecting children, it's about allowing mass data gathering in the name of protecting children. This is the public release NSA PRISM v2 under the slogan "Now with protection for children!". The reality is no child predators will be targeted by this, but plenty of non-child predators will be targeted with this. Privacy and free-speech are paramount in a democratic society, It's not a stretch to read into why the deep-state wants to get this codified before a changing of the guard under the assumption that Snowden is a distant memory. The prospect of endless weaponizable out-of-context "leaks" must have deep-state loyalists salivating at the sword of Damocles they could rig up. If they want to sign a treaty to extradite child predators specifically, great, that's a good thing. Asking us to sign off to monitor all the things because there's a non-zero chance there might be CSAM or a bitcoin scam in there, right, fool me once.