UN Cybercrime Treaty Faces New Scrutiny from Tech Firms

AFP/APP

United Nations: UN member states are set to meet Monday to finalize an international treaty aimed at combating cybercrime, but the draft is facing significant opposition from an unusual coalition of human rights organizations and major technology companies.

The “United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime” initiative, proposed by Russian diplomats in 2017, gained traction when the General Assembly established an intergovernmental committee to draft the treaty two years later. The draft is now poised for a vote at the end of a two-week session.

Despite some improvements in the revised draft, concerns persist. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ office has highlighted several shortcomings, noting that many provisions do not meet international human rights standards.

These issues are troubling given the broad application of existing cybercrime laws that can unduly restrict freedom of expression and invade privacy.

The treaty aims to “prevent and combat cybercrime more efficiently and effectively” and to enhance international cooperation, particularly concerning child pornography and money laundering.

However, critics argue that the treaty’s scope is overly broad, covering “crimes committed through the use of an information and communications technology system.” This could potentially require governments to investigate activities such as same-sex conduct, government criticism, investigative journalism, protests, or whistleblowing.

Human Rights Watch executive director Tirana Hassan contends that the treaty resembles a global surveillance agreement rather than a focused cybercrime convention, exceeding its intended mandate.

A Preference for ‘No Outcome’

The debate has united rights groups and tech giants like Microsoft, who argue that “no outcome is better than a bad outcome.” 

Nick Ashton-Hart, representing the Cybersecurity Tech Accord, which includes over 100 technology companies, supports increased cooperation on cybercrime but rejects the current draft as the vehicle for it.

He advocates for alternatives like the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime or the UN Convention Against Organized Transnational Crime.

Ashton-Hart warns that unless substantial improvements are made, his organization will urge member states to refrain from signing or ratifying the treaty. He notes that democratic states would likely face strong opposition from both the private sector and civil society if the treaty is ratified at the national level.

Russia, defending its position, argues that excessive focus on human rights provisions undermines international cooperation.

The Russian delegation accuses Western countries of politicizing the discussions and favors reverting to the treaty’s original 2019 title, which called for an “international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes,” rather than the current “United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime.”