Tech giants and rights groups scrutinise new UN cybercrime proposal

. On Monday, UN member states met in Geneva to conclude an international treaty on combating cybercrime. However, an odd alliance of human rights groups and major technology businesses is fiercely opposed to the document.


The “United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime” was founded in 2017 after Russian diplomats wrote a letter to the international body’s secretary-general explaining the plan.

Two years later, over US and European resistance, the General Assembly established an intergovernmental committee entrusted with developing such a convention.

After a two-week session, the draft text will be presented to member states for a vote.
However, after seven negotiation sessions, criticism has only increased.

If the updated document has “some welcome improvements,” according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ office, concerns remain “about significant shortcomings, with many provisions failing to meet international human rights standards.”

“These shortcomings are particularly problematic against the backdrop of an already expansive use of existing cybercrime laws in some jurisdictions to unduly restrict freedom of expression, target dissenting voices and arbitrarily interfere with the privacy and anonymity of communications,” according to a report.

The draft treaty aims to effectively prevent and combat cybercrime, as well as increase international cooperation on child pornography and money laundering.


However, its adversaries argue that the text claims authority over far too broad a sector, as seen by its subtitle: “crimes committed through the use of an information and communications technology system.”

The language might so force governments “to facilitate investigations into things like same-sex conduct, criticizing one’s government, investigative reporting, participating in protests or being a whistleblower,” said Human Rights Watch executive director Tirana Hassan.


The draft, rather than a cybercrime treaty, “resembles a global surveillance treaty that would address all crime,” she told reporters. She also stated that it goes beyond the scope of its mandate.

The debate over the draft has brought together some unexpected bedfellows, with rights organizations aligning with corporate behemoths like Microsoft, which stated in a written contribution that “no outcome is better than a bad outcome.”

Nick Ashton-Hart leads the Cybersecurity Tech Accord delegation at the treaty talks, which represents over 100 technology businesses.

“There is a need for more cooperation by most states, especially developing states, on cybercrime,” Ashton-Hart told AFP. She continued, however: “This convention does not have to be the vehicle for that cooperation.”
He suggested the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention on Cybercrime or the UN Convention Against Organized Transnational Crime as better possibilities.

Unless the present text is significantly changed, Ashton-Hart stated, his organization will urge member states not to sign or ratify the pact.

“Democratic states would expect opposition from the private sector, very aligned with the civil society world, were this to come up for ratification at the national level,” Ashton-Hart told reporters.

Russia, meantime, has supported its vision.

“Excessive attention to human rights provisions in the Convention is significantly detrimental to international cooperation and will in fact hinder the cooperation between law enforcement agencies of states,” according to the Russian delegation.

In a statement, it accused Western nations of seeking to “politicize discussions.”

The Russians want to return to the text’s original 2019 title, which called for a “international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes” rather than the current “United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime.”