The treaty faces widespread opposition from human rights groups and a coalition of tech companies.
ADVERTISEMENTA UN committee approved the first worldwide treaty on cybercrime on Thursday despite opposition from human rights groups and a coalition of tech companies.
The treaty was adopted by consensus after three years of negotiations but still needs to face a vote from the General Assembly in the fall. It needs to be ratified by 40 nations there.
The convention establishes “a global criminal justice policy,” to protect society against cybercrime by “fostering international cooperation,” according to the treaty draft.
What does the treaty say
The treaty would have UN member states agree to put in place legislation that will make it illegal to breach an information and communications system people don’t have access to.
It asks states to make it illegal to produce or sell explicit child sexual content online, protect children from online groomers, or make “arrangements” online to abuse a child. The treaty also covers misuse of devices and computer-related forgery or theft.
There’s also a call to create laws against deepfake and revenge porn that is distributed online without the consent of the adults involved.
To assess these crimes, the treaty also gives states permission to “collect or record” relevant data for a conviction and “compel” service providers to hand over incriminating information or documents.
The vote was done after some states tried to make last-minute changes to the draft treaty.
Some media reports said that Russia, who initially started the treaty-making process in 2017, noted that the treaty had too many human rights safeguards and accused countries of pursuing their own interests through the treaty.
The last time the UN passed a protocol on cybercrime was in 2001 with the Budapest Convention, but many countries did not sign that document.
‘It should be abandoned’
In a last-minute open letter aheadof the vote, the Cybersecurity Tech Accord, a group representing tech companies at the UN, said the revised draft was « ambiguous » and doesn’t do enough for human rights, press freedom and gender equality.
« We would like to urgently draw your attention to serious flaws that our communities have repeatedly identified. Without effectively addressing all of the below issues we call on member states not to adopt the Convention, » the letter said.
Among their concerns are that the treaty allowed states to share personal information without being detected, criminalise “legitimate” online activity because of expanding definitions of what crimes are considered fraud or child sexual abuse, and make it harder for victims of cybercrime to see justice.
“Global business doesn’t support the text as it is – it should be abandoned,” Nick Ashton-Hart, the head of the tech accord delegation, said in a post on the social media platform X ahead of the vote.
Microsoft echoed his view in their submission to the committee, saying their concerns “have not been addressed”.
ADVERTISEMENT“In fact, several of the already harmful provisions are now broader, limitations on the scope have been removed, and human rights articles weakened,” Microsoft said.
The treaty is also missing support from human rights groups, including the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
The OHCHR said in a July paper that negotiators should make sure the Cybercrime Convention complies with what already exists in international law and that they should narrow the list of criminal offences so that it doesn’t affect key rights like freedom of expression.
David Kaye, the UN’s former special rapporteur on freedom of expression, urged US negotiators not to sign the treaty in a thread on X, saying it would be a “disaster” for protecting human rights across borders.
ADVERTISEMENT“It will put inordinate pressure on the DOJ (…) to (share) information about so-called criminals without the adequate protection for security research, journalists, opposition figures and others,” Kaye said.
“The result is a verbose and confusing treaty that will provide authoritarians far more tools than it provides democracies with protections,” he added.
