Since there is discourse on the #UNCybercrimeTreaty proposal:

From what I remember of a draft, it wasn't proportionate at all. It assumed it was "fine" to encourage someone to take content down "quickly", as if this is a trivial thing to accomplish (and can be done so uniformly and universally, ouch).

However, this practically means violating the rights of a lot of people. That is no triviality. It reminded me of one of those one-dimensional tech policy takes where someone expects someone to wave a wand to fix the world or "why hasn't someone done this simple thing" (the "simple" thing being problematic, and probably not effective).

There's already a problem with corners of people's rights being cut in the world, and not getting much (if anything) out of it. Why should this failed approach be enshrined here? That is really the problem.

Someone has pulled a "wish list" out of thin air containing "simple" "asks". This wish list in practice would be a "license" to violate people's rights and inflict all kinds of harms, and it's not any one point or another which is bad, the entire approach to writing the thing is rotten to the core.

Some parts opt for awful censorious language by default, and seems to leave it up to individual States to optionally operate in a human rights compliant way. That turns someone's fundamental rights upside-down where someone has to beg, grovel, and work hard to convince others that they should have basic rights like anyone else. Or to not be persecuted (prosecuted). This is all easy for someone who doesn't have to worry about that to say, but not for someone who actually has to navigate that.

For these things, there are also already other treaties which cover crime. Maybe, they could be improved to, say, protect someone's rights better, but it's not as if this treaty is a shining beacon of liberty. #FreeSpeech