Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

michaelgeist.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#101

Post by inigyou »

irishcoffee wrote: post #46
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>i would think a democrat would have been a better cosponsor Why? Where is any equivalent measures coming from the US left? It is because that’s how people identify as Democrats want them to behave? There seems to be a rift there.

Objectively, the left has this very strong ideology of “education will fix everything, and until then we know what’s best for the masses” This went too far with the whole woke thing, and resulted in 2 non-consecutive terms of trump, handing the right a litany of power they had no idea how to wield, and they hit every stupid branch falling down the failure tree. Education isn’t the answer, dictating “I know what’s bes…

What is "the whole woke thing"?

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#102

Post by inigyou »

watwut wrote: post #82
Cider9986 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whereas traditional Democrats and Republicans are all protecting privacy? Thomas Massie is a wealthy libertarian and introduced a bill to protect privacy.

The millionaires libertarians consistently support republican party. They are the ones ahifting it to the right and towards fascism.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You can't just call everyone you disagree with a fascist.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#103

Post by inigyou »

mistrial9 wrote: post #55
b112 wrote: post #45

The only way to have age verification on an international level, is to have treaties allowing for the sharing of information about citizens, digitally, in that context. And this is that level of cooperation. And it has all the hallmarks of what comes next, identity verification. And this, is what this is for. In order to prosecute anyone, you need to validate who did the crime. And that requires knowing who that pers…

this is insightful.. From a behavioral psychology point of view, there is an assumption among many law and order adherents that "we just need more control-info-courts-punishment" and we will have this done. However, history has shown enormous missteps and in fact tragic actions of harm, from the very people that claim to be the ones that are Doing The Right Thing. Does an entire society have to make the same choices…

> However, history has shown enormous missteps and in fact tragic actions of harm, from the very people that claim to be the ones that are Doing The Right Thing.

The other side would make this exact same point about vaccine proponents. How can we differentiate one argument from the other?

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#104

Post by shevy-java »

Waterluvian wrote: post #5

It feels like there’s this weird layer to domestic and international politics where you do a lot of signalling to one audience while simultaneously winking at other audiences that you’re not actually serious. (I can never tell who is getting winked at…) I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. The Ned Stark character that is righteous and right and quickly meets the he…

You are quite right. Some laws have a pre-determined break-point; others are to introduce legislation that is not as severe initially, but will become more severe lateron. Age sniffing is one such case. A few EU countries rushed forward; then they are pulled back by the EU commission. The next step will be restrictive measures for all EU countries - I am certain about that part.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#105

Post by Cyph0n »

inigyou wrote: post #95
WarmWash wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I learn, and the more versed I become with society, the harder and harder it becomes to see what is "good" and what is "bad". The most confident I ever was that I was "obviously correct" was when I was 20.

Be careful. Some actors are deliberately muddying the waters of good and bad. For example, vaccines are pretty good, but some groups want you to be unsure if they're good or bad.

Precisely. Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy.

“Unions can be corrupt” or “You don’t need unions to get your voice heard” is the kind of rhetoric that leads to disinterest in unions over the years.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#106

Post by jolmg »

ragequittah wrote: post #66
WarmWash wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more I learn, and the more versed I become with society, the harder and harder it becomes to see what is "good" and what is "bad". The most confident I ever was that I was "obviously correct" was when I was 20.

This reads somewhat like the older I get the less morals I have. If you have a hard time seeing the wild amount of bad in the world right now you're probably profiting from it in some way.

Or you lack perspective.

Also, it's not about not being able to see any bad, but some things that obviously seemed correct, stop seeming so obvious.

Reminds me of that clip where a man in some TV show gets slapped by the woman host and he slaps her back. Then a bunch of men from the audience come to beat him up. It's one thing to have the moral "never hit a woman" and "protect women", but if women abuse these views to mistreat and humiliate others without consequence, that doesn't seem right either.

It doesn't seem right for the men to have beat him up for defending himself. They thought they were being moral, but they weren't.

Sometimes moral views can require nuance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4akMaeZ0-k&t=58

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#107

Post by derefr »

Waterluvian wrote: post #5

It feels like there’s this weird layer to domestic and international politics where you do a lot of signalling to one audience while simultaneously winking at other audiences that you’re not actually serious. (I can never tell who is getting winked at…) I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. The Ned Stark character that is righteous and right and quickly meets the he…

I could imagine true WYSIWYG politics, but it would need a very different temporal organizational structure than current politics.

Currwntly, politicians each have a series of meetings over time with different parties (constituents, lobbyists, domain experts, coalition members) and then at some point one of them drafts and tables a law (that's probably already been informally planned for ages among those in the know) and others vote for it (where many of those votes have probably also been informally pre-arranged for ages.)

To get WYSIWYG, every bit of all of those meetings would need to occur in the open. And likely the only way to practically accomplish that, in a “nothing up my sleeve” manner (i.e. to guarantee that there were no meetings outside of the official ones), would be to have all those meetings occur contiguously as part of one long recorded session in one place, with everyone who wants “a seat at the table” needing to operate on that session’s schedule; and where the politicians involved (i.e. those everyone else is there to influence) have a political career that starts and ends with that single session.

In other words, basically do the papal-election thing, or the sequestered-jury-trial thing: lock all the concerned parties (politicians + PAC leaders + lobbyists + etc) in a building together, and don’t let them out until they make a year’s worth of law. (But unlike either of those—record everything! Don’t allow any two people to be in the same room together without a camera.)

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#109

Post by bawolff »

alephnerd wrote: post #64
bawolff wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but normally when you sign something its because you intend to ratify it in short order.

Not true. Plenty of UN treaties have been signed but stalled on ratification.

True, but there is still a general expectation that if you sign you intend to make a good faith effort to ratify. There being plenty of exceptions (a country not engaging with int law in good faith! How shocking) doesnt change that i think most of the time signers do try to ratify.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#110

Post by b112 »

inigyou wrote: post #103
mistrial9 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is insightful.. From a behavioral psychology point of view, there is an assumption among many law and order adherents that "we just need more control-info-courts-punishment" and we will have this done. However, history has shown enormous missteps and in fact tragic actions of harm, from the very people that claim to be the ones that are Doing The Right Thing. Does an entire society have to make the same choices…

> However, history has shown enormous missteps and in fact tragic actions of harm, from the very people that claim to be the ones that are Doing The Right Thing. The other side would make this exact same point about vaccine proponents. How can we differentiate one argument from the other?

An interesting point to bring up. Why?

Well, because the issue with vaccine doubt, is misinformation. It's disinformation, spread for either profit (followers on youtube), or foreign actors working to reduce the cohesion of the West's societies.

Russia? China? Iran? None of these countries, even together, stand a chance militarily against the West. But if you cannot beat them militarily, you must weaken them from within. So confusion. Distrust. Pour fuel on the fire of any differences between sectors of a society. If you can weaken your political enemy, they it ceases to become a threat. Even better if you can trick your enemy into fighting itself!

It's no secret that a lot of countries are engaged in disinformation campaigns against the West. If you can cause your competitor to have plagues, when they were preventable? Well, that ties up resources, reduces productivity, and so forth.

I honestly believe that much of ID verification on the Internet is about this. A healthy society can handle outliers, handle internally created disinformation. Not so, if 1 guy in a foreign country seems like 1000 youtube channels. And you can see this everywhere. A video with a TTS voice, which is now progressing to entirely crafted video from scratch. Now anyone from China can look like a US citizen, going on about the woes of vaccination.

But if you can identify every person, and they can be sued for slander, libel, or criminal acts? Then you're back to normal, internal, citizen protest. EG, your normal crazies. And it can't be stated enough, there are a lot of marginals. Those "on the fence". If they hear enough nutty stuff, they move into almond territory too.

In the end, China, Russia, Iran won't be truthful or play ball, or will undermine attempts with fake IDs willfully issued, so they'll just get cut of entirely. The West will likely sign treaties.

So. Identity verification, is actually an answer to the vaccine issue. After all, we didn't have this level of issue until crazy Internet posters caused it. Although, to be fair, Elvis Presley is who helped convince youth to get the original polio vaccinations.

One way to look at it, is like driver's licenses. Before them, there was no way to stop a person from legally driving on the road. Take it away, and now they could be fined, jailed, etc for driving "without a license". A few bad actors were just unrepentant, and suddenly everyone could be carded, ID required, just to get around. This is like that. A bad result, eg ID on the net, but the attempt is likely to solve 100 internet pains.

I think if we have any sense, we'll come up with a best-privacy-laden method to allow this to happen. Because I cannot see how it will go away. If we can steer it, make it palatable. make sure it cannot be used by industry to track us, etc., it would be at least a partial win.

Post reply on HN