Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • > 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?

    by nwellnhof
  • 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,Brazil,Brunei Darussalam,Burkina Faso,Cambodia,Chile,China,Costa Rica,Côte 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,Palau,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,Türkiye,Uganda,United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,United Republic of Tanzania,Uruguay,Uzbekistan,Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),Viet Nam,Zimbabwe

    by sixhobbits
  • 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.
    by maerF0x0
  • 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.

    by iamnothere
  • 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.
    by shenberg
  • 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)

    by perihelions
  • > 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.

    by Aurornis
  • 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.

    by landl0rd

Explore Birbla archives