Looking at the US in particular right now, I’m not confident it would be used on good conscience. Who knows what they want to prosecute. Justice frameworks can only work with confidence in justice.

This explanation sounds fine. I haven’t seen an actual link to the content of the agreed upon convention across the linked sites.

The Wikipedia article on United Nations Convention against Cybercrime paints a much more concerning picture.

The convention names four types of crimes in particular, which human rights advocates argue are framed too broadly, applicable to any crime committed using an information or communications technology. Many of the crimes it would apply to have only a thin connection to the kind of serious cybercrime, like ransomware and child exploitation, that motivated the convention.

Several organizations highlight the way the convention’s language about human rights protections are largely suggestions left to the discretion of member states, including those with a record of human rights abuses.

Let’s hope it’s a useful framework countries will still make assessments and restrictions on depending on who they’re dealing and working together with. I’m still concerned though.

Why is this community not allowing English language comments when it’s seemingly obviously in English?