Well, yes. Compared to most countries that have signed this treaty, the US has excellent protections for PII and data privacy.

But that's beside the point. The most objectionable parts are about state surveillance and the potential for human rights abuses.

For example, here's what the EFF had to say about it:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/effs-concerns-about-un...

At what level do you think American PII protection is working?

I can't go to a dentist/medical/eye appointment without the office staff looking me up or adding to some kind of unethical dark web profile.

Maybe the data at rest is secure but it doesn't really matter when the staff is leaking all the data as it is getting stored in their systems.

I wouldn't exactly call them "excellent", but yeah I think the big caveat is

> the US has excellent protections for PII and data privacy

*for _US nationals_ :)

actually mostly for EU nationals :)

Is your argument that because you don’t think US companies are good at PII, we need to force those companies to share their PII with 70 other countries on request?

> Maybe there is some more complexity to this argument, that I'm missing.

I think you’re missing the entire argument. Why would it be a good thing for a country to volunteer its’ companies PII through a treaty with foreign governments like Russia, North Korea, and China?

US-based companies probably have the most sophisticated PII & data privacy compliance schemes globally. Sure, that's mostly due to obligations imposed on them by jurisdictions outside of the US, but it is still true.

We're talking about privacy / data (ab)use for military purposes. Those compliance schemes you speak of matter naught.

> We're talking about privacy / data (ab)use for military purposes.

What? No, we're not. What gave you that impression?