> 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?
Solid question. Related, but here is a list of governments that did support this: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...
Interestingly, three members of Five Eyes aren't on that list.
They want to infringe on human rights themselves, but criticise others doing the same.
> 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.
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.
[flagged]
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.
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.
Thanks for the update, Pavel.
Surely, you could make... Whatever point you are making (if any)... Without a character attack against my person?
Kind of breaks down when the criminals are running the government..
Oh FFS, the USA won't even extradite a dangerous driver who killed a UK teen to the UK - their closest ally and fellow Five Eyes democracy.
Even after the woman plead guilty to e UK court (remotely).
Its not the great unwashed of the global south that have contempt for laws and decency.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/anne-sacoolas-wife-us-diplomat...
> 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.
Not that I'm any fan, but five eyes is a treaty amongst mostly liberal democracies that are allies of each other. This treaty is a bunch of autocracies and Europe, for some reason.