zlacker

> Experts from these organizations say that the treaty undermines the global human rights of freedom of speech and expression

So, effectively nothing different than what we have today then? Organizations like the CIA / NSA / MI6 etc. exist already which undermine the rights of everyone around the world, everyday.

>>hypeat+(OP)
So do Google, X, Microsoft.

This is a universal Large Organism problem. Government just happens to be more mature.

X is particularly demonstrating how filtering media is both arbitrary and necessary, ironically as a negative case.

In reality, theres no honest boundary to feee speech. At its limits, its just a noise vs signal debate which evwryone with compsci baclground should understand.

>>hypeat+(OP)
No. Today Thailand can't request and be allowed to receive data from your ISP in Sweden if you said something bad about their king. Also, Thailand isn't allowed to start a criminal procedure and issue an arrest warrant for that kind of stuff. This basically allows autocrats to silence everyone everywhere, and the democrat states are signing up for it.

>>aa_is_+q1
So, it was OK to happen in the hand of approved countries that have no history of abusing of that privilege?

It puts more players in the game, but that doesn’t mean the game is good to start with.

>>aa_is_+q1
So, it was OK to happen in the hand of approved countries that have no history of abusing of that privilege?

It puts more players in the game, but that doesn’t mean the game is good to start with.

>>aa_is_+q1
Thailand can do whatever it wants today regardless of a U.N. treaty. Extradition deals can be made between countries. Additionally, Thailand can issue arrest warrants for whatever it finds on your social media accounts, whether those are enforceable or not is another question. The article doesn't mention anything about making international enforcement mechanisms easier.

My point is: The majority of our data is being tapped by government entities and can be used against you already. This treaty is just saying the quiet part out loud once again. No one seems to care or else we wouldn't have a massive intelligence apparatus controlling parts of our society.

>>hypeat+D3
The treaty amends all existing extradition treaties among signatories and adds offenses to the lists of extraditable crimes.

>>gmusle+32
What "privileged countries"?

The ones with an actual judicial system? The ones actually going after drug lords and ransomware gangs? Instead of protecting them?

Show me one example where Russia actually extradited someone!!! You can't... cause all were detained when they took vacations. Instead, Russia protects the gangs and submits this surveillance crap to the UN.

What about Vietnamese extraditions? Show me one time when Vietnamese extradited any of its scam gangs?

What about Chinese hackers who steal IP and give it to the government, who then turns around and sets up competitors with zero R&D? Do I have to remember you about when they found "Cisco" written in Huawei's source code?

There's no "privileged countries".... it's just countries that actually care about their citizens instead of using "cybercrime" to jail critics who expose their corruption. And you chose to defend those people!

Get a clue you conspiracy theory psychopat! jfc!!!!

>>gmusle+42
The treaty doesn't put "more players in the game"

It puts "more crimes" in the game that are not actually cybercrimes. A US-based journalist reporting on corruption in Russia is not a cybercriminal and should not have all his data sent by ISPs and tech companies to the Russian state.

You people haven't even read the treaty, yet are here to provide insight about "equality."