The UN Is Threatening Privacy under Pretense of New Cybercrime Treaty
UNITED NATIONS, 11 Dec 2023
Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net - TRANSCEND Media Service
A Trojan Horse
4 Dec 2023 – The US digital rights group EFF is describing the latest UN Cybercrime Treaty draft as “a significant step backward” and a case of “perilously broadening its scope beyond the cybercrimes specifically defined in the convention, encompassing a long list of non-cybercrimes.”
This “dance” – with some reported progress, for things to then again get worse – is not exactly new in the now lengthy process of negotiating the document, amid criticism not only from observers among the involved rights non-profits, but also UN member-countries.
EFF is also convinced that these latest developments are not accidental, i.e., a case of oversight, but rather an essentially purposeful wrong step that diminishes chances of the treaty, once/if adopted being the result of proper consensus.
When it all started, the Treaty was presented as a “standardized” manner for the world to combat cybercrime.
What has been happening in the meanwhile, though, is a seemingly never-ending stream of additions and expansions of the document’s original powers, to the point where it has now, in the words of EFF, “morphed into an expansive surveillance treaty.”
A major concern is what EFF calls possible overreach as national and international investigations are carried out. And instead of improving on these concerns, the new draft is said to have held on to past controversial rules, only to add even more.
This time, it’s in the form of “allowing states to compel engineers or employees to undermine security measures, posing a threat to encryption.”
Specifically, the UN’s newest version of the proposal, if adopted, would mean that data that is located abroad could be accessed even if that violated the host nation’s privacy protections.
In these portions that are of grave concern to rights groups, the draft builds on previous contentious provisions, namely, broadening the scope of cross-border investigations (collection and sharing of evidence) so that it includes any crime deemed serous – and that scope includes instances of crimes (whose definition) “blatantly violates human rights law.”
Now, these powers are extended, such that even crimes not covered by the previous versions of the treaty can be investigated and prosecuted; hence the allegation of overreach.
The reason EFF takes all this as a major step back in the tortuous process is the very nature of the disagreements: the key one on which member-countries can’t see eye to eye has to do with the future treaty’s scope; and then there’s the question of whether human rights matter at all in the big picture here.
“(The latest draft) is primed to facilitate abuses on a global scale, through extensive cross border powers to investigate virtually any imaginable ‘crime’ – like peaceful dissent or expression of sexual orientation – while undermining the treaty’s purpose of addressing genuine cybercrime,” commented Human Rights Watch Associate Director Deborah Brown, adding:
“Governments should not rush to conclude this treaty without ensuring that it elevates, rather than sacrifices, our fundamental rights.”
___________________________________________
Didi Rankovic is an online journalist, editor and translator with a career spanning over ten years writing for an English-language website in Serbia. Rankovic is passionate about free and open source tech and is a contributor for Reclaim the Net. dragica.rankovic@reclaimthenet.org
Go to Original – reclaimthenet.org
Tags: Cybercrime, Privacy, Privacy rights, United Nations
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.