The UN Convention on Cybercrime: A Potential Threat to Democracy?

UN Committee Approves Cybercrime Convention Text

The text for the Convention on Combating Cybercrime has been approved by a UN committee, despite concerns from human rights organizations and IT experts who view it as a potential threat to democracy and freedom. The digital rights group, Epicenter Works, described the approval of what they consider one of the world's most dangerous surveillance treaties with a standing ovation. The UN General Assembly is expected to vote on adopting the Convention in September. Political advisor Tanja Fachathalerová anticipates that the treaty will be accepted without difficulty and will then be available for signature and ratification.

Concerns Over Repression Against Journalists and Political Opponents

While the proposed treaty aims to combat cybercrime and enhance international cooperation among law enforcement agencies, over a hundred human and civil rights organizations worldwide have raised concerns about its potential threat to human rights. They criticize the treaty's lack of adequate safeguards and fear that it could require UN member states to introduce extensive measures for the supervision of a broad range of crimes. The netzpolitik.org server claims that the treaty is essentially a surveillance agreement with insufficient provisions for data protection and human rights. They argue that it could legitimize repressive measures against political opponents or journalists, particularly in authoritarian states.

The Origins of the Convention

The Convention was initiated by a 2019 UN resolution proposed by Russia, China, and other countries such as Iran, Egypt, Sudan, and Uzbekistan. Despite proposed changes from European states, the resulting compromise is considered by experts to fall short of the necessary conditions to preserve privacy and protect human rights. Nick Ashton-Hart, Digital Economy Policy Director at APCO, criticized the treaty for allowing governments to exchange citizens' personal information in perpetual secrecy in the event of any crime deemed 'serious'. This could include global eavesdropping and potentially compromising the security of systems relied upon by billions of people.

Potential Threat to Journalists, Whistleblowers, and Children

The treaty also poses a risk of prosecution to journalists and whistleblowers. The International Press Institute was so alarmed by this risk that it published a full-page ad in the Washington Post. Independent security experts have also warned that they could face criminal prosecution for their work protecting IT systems from cybercriminals under the draft Convention. The treaty even permits governments to prosecute children for "sexting" under the same article that is supposed to protect them from sexual predators. Ashton-Hart expressed concern that this could also put charity workers who help bring predators to justice at risk, as they often need access to material created by predators as part of their work.

Risks to Freedom of Expression and International Companies

Experts also warn that international companies could face increased legal and reputational risk following the arrest of employees. The treaty could allow law enforcement agencies worldwide to access the private data of individuals and vulnerable communities, even in cases where the actions are not criminal in their place of residence or raise significant concerns about freedom of expression. The treaty lacks provisions for transparency about how governments use it or for companies to challenge law enforcement requests, even if they are illegal. Ashton-Hart warns that this could lead to collusion in 'crimes' such as criticizing leaders or persecuting minorities. The International Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest and most representative representative of the private sector, has openly called on the UN not to adopt the convention at the General Assembly in September.

Bottom Line

The UN Convention on Cybercrime has sparked significant controversy and concern among human rights organizations, IT experts, and international companies. The potential for abuse of power, repression of free speech, and violation of privacy rights are all alarming possibilities. As we consider the implications of this treaty, we must ask ourselves: Is this a necessary measure to combat cybercrime, or a dangerous step towards global surveillance and repression? Share your thoughts and discuss this important issue with your friends. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, available every day at 6pm.