By Théophane Hartmann | Euractiv
Aug 9, 2024
One clause Iran attempted to delete read that "nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as permitting suppression of human rights or fundamental freedoms," such as "freedoms of expression, conscience, opinion, religion or belief."
[Osugi / Shutterstock]
The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime approved on Thursday (8 August) a first-ever treaty aimed at combating cybercrime, a controversial text opposed by digital rights organisations and big tech companies.
The Convention Against Cybercrime was initiated by Russia in 2017, and the text has since made progress despite EU and US opposition.
Negotiations took three years, following delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The text is aimed at enhancing global efforts in tackling cybercrime, particularly in areas like child sexual abuse imagery and money laundering.
The convention will now go through a vote in the UN General Assembly in Autumn and should enter into force once ratified by at least 40 UN member states.
This convention could become the first international convention on cybercrime. All EU member states are already parties to the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, except Ireland, which has signed but not yet ratified it. The text was negotiated within the framework of the Council of Europe.
Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch Deborah Brown warned on X, that the convention’s adoption by UN member states comes “despite stark warnings”, from leading human rights experts, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, over 100 NGOs, and industry.
“Unfortunately, [the treaty] was adopted today,” Nick Ashton-Hart wrote on X, who heads the Cybersecurity Tech Accord delegation representing over 100 technology companies, including HP, Meta and Microsoft. Adding in a second post that, “delegates failed to address even one of the shortcomings the [Office of the High Commissioner for] Human Rights has identified.”
NGOs and big tech fear that the treaty could be misused as a tool for state surveillance.
“This treaty is effectively a legal instrument of repression,” Brown reportedly told AFP, because, “it can be used to crack down on journalists, activists, LGBT people, free thinkers, and others across borders.”
Key to fears of misuse by authoritarian regimes, is the provision allowing a state to ask foreign authorities for any electronic evidence to a crime, should the crime be punishable by at least four years of imprisonment under domestic law. States could also request data from internet service providers.
Conversely, Iran sought to eliminate several provisions safeguarding fundamental freedoms before the Convention’s adoption on Thursday, but their efforts were decisively rejected in a series of overwhelming votes.
One clause Iran attempted to delete read that “nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as permitting suppression of human rights or fundamental freedoms,” such as “freedoms of expression, conscience, opinion, religion or belief.”
This particular request was rejected with 102 votes against and 23 in favour from states including; India, Libya, North-Korea, Russia, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela.
“We fully share the position of the Egyptian, Iranian, Pakistani, Vietnamese, and Mauritanian delegations that the treaty is oversaturated with human rights safeguards,” the Russian Federation wrote in a document, on 30 July, despite the country being a long-established supporter of the convention.
It considered that these safeguards “would lead to an excessive use by certain states of the opportunities to reject requests for legal assistance.”
After years of negotiations, member states represented in the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime unanimously supported the text.
[Edited by Rajnish Singh]
The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime approved on Thursday (8 August) a first-ever treaty aimed at combating cybercrime, a controversial text opposed by digital rights organisations and big tech companies.
The Convention Against Cybercrime was initiated by Russia in 2017, and the text has since made progress despite EU and US opposition.
Negotiations took three years, following delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The text is aimed at enhancing global efforts in tackling cybercrime, particularly in areas like child sexual abuse imagery and money laundering.
The convention will now go through a vote in the UN General Assembly in Autumn and should enter into force once ratified by at least 40 UN member states.
This convention could become the first international convention on cybercrime. All EU member states are already parties to the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, except Ireland, which has signed but not yet ratified it. The text was negotiated within the framework of the Council of Europe.
Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch Deborah Brown warned on X, that the convention’s adoption by UN member states comes “despite stark warnings”, from leading human rights experts, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, over 100 NGOs, and industry.
“Unfortunately, [the treaty] was adopted today,” Nick Ashton-Hart wrote on X, who heads the Cybersecurity Tech Accord delegation representing over 100 technology companies, including HP, Meta and Microsoft. Adding in a second post that, “delegates failed to address even one of the shortcomings the [Office of the High Commissioner for] Human Rights has identified.”
NGOs and big tech fear that the treaty could be misused as a tool for state surveillance.
“This treaty is effectively a legal instrument of repression,” Brown reportedly told AFP, because, “it can be used to crack down on journalists, activists, LGBT people, free thinkers, and others across borders.”
Key to fears of misuse by authoritarian regimes, is the provision allowing a state to ask foreign authorities for any electronic evidence to a crime, should the crime be punishable by at least four years of imprisonment under domestic law. States could also request data from internet service providers.
Conversely, Iran sought to eliminate several provisions safeguarding fundamental freedoms before the Convention’s adoption on Thursday, but their efforts were decisively rejected in a series of overwhelming votes.
One clause Iran attempted to delete read that “nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as permitting suppression of human rights or fundamental freedoms,” such as “freedoms of expression, conscience, opinion, religion or belief.”
This particular request was rejected with 102 votes against and 23 in favour from states including; India, Libya, North-Korea, Russia, Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela.
“We fully share the position of the Egyptian, Iranian, Pakistani, Vietnamese, and Mauritanian delegations that the treaty is oversaturated with human rights safeguards,” the Russian Federation wrote in a document, on 30 July, despite the country being a long-established supporter of the convention.
It considered that these safeguards “would lead to an excessive use by certain states of the opportunities to reject requests for legal assistance.”
After years of negotiations, member states represented in the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime unanimously supported the text.
[Edited by Rajnish Singh]
UN Cybercrime Convention in limbo as civil society, industry want rejection
The Russia-initiated United Nations Cybercrime Convention was due to conclude on Friday (9 February) but lack of consensus on the scope and terminology has prompted civil society to call for the rejection of the Convention in its current form.
No comments:
Post a Comment