Birbla

Join the discussion

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

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • 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...
    by mlinksva
  • 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.
    by mrkramer
  • 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.
    by ryanisnan
  • 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...

    by edm0nd
  • 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.
    by christkv
  • 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...

    by perihelions
  • 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.
    by some_random
  • > 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
  • 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.

    by varenc
  • 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.
    by orbifold
  • 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
  • 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.

    by malvim
  • > 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.

    by tamimio
  • I am curious about which countries do you associate with privacy.
    by etiennebausson
  • 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.

    by lbrito
  • 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
  • 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.

    by delfinom
  • 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
  • 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...

    by SllX
  • 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
  • The old “think of the children/fight terrorism/support our troops/be a good person” style of naming propositions to destroy data privacy.
    by y-curious
  • 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.

    by Atlas667
  • 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
  • Opting out was the right thing to do. This is Badthink monitoring in the guise of cybersecurity.
    by slowmovintarget
  • 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.

    by rprwhite
  • 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
  • Aren't treaties with the US meaningless by default, unless ratified by 3/4th of Congress?
    by dlcarrier
  • 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.
    by olalonde
  • 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.
    by andyvesel