UN treaty 'could allow Country A to spy on you for Country B'
An anti-cybercrime treaty drafted by the United Nations is expected to usher in a totalitarian censorship regime around the world, human rights groups warn.
A global crackdown on ‘criminal content’
The UN Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime last month approved a final draft of a convention against cybercrime. The treaty, which will be put to a vote at the UN General Assembly later this month, has the following stated purpose:
Strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communications technology systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes.
Free speech groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and Human Rights Watch have pointed out that the document does not define “certain crimes” or “serious crimes.” In broad, sweeping terms, it requires governments to crack down on “additional criminal offenses as appropriate,” leaving it up to authorities to determine what constitutes an offense.
The treaty would serve as a legal justification for censorship in countries with free speech protections. Governments bound by the anti-cybercrime accord could define cybercrime as they wish and point to the accord if accused of flouting free speech.
‘Confidential’ investigations
Another clause in the convention requires participating countries to pass laws that force social media companies “to keep confidential” any investigations into “cybercrimes.” In other words, governments would be legally permitted to seize information about users and their communications without the users being notified.
Legalize censorship in ‘democracies’
Although the treaty started as an initiative of Russia, China, and Iran in 2019, it would be a boon for Western “democracies” that are facing criticism for persecuting taxpayers who voice disfavored opinions.
Last month, for example, Germany’s federal police demanded that the social media platform Gab provide private information about a certain user. German authorities said they were investigating the netizen for referring to a politician as “fat,” which violates the government’s criminal code. Gab refused to comply with the investigation.
The United Kingdom has gained global attention for arresting taxpayers who criticize gender ideology, immigration policies, or offer other “offensive” views online. British authorities have already passed laws that make “harmful content” a crime.
The United States, particularly under the Biden-Harris administration, has been somewhat successful in suppressing scientific content and speech that counter the government’s messaging. These efforts have been frustrated, however, by free speech laws and and First Amendment advocates like billionaire Elon Musk.
Last week, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov was arrested by French authorities for refusing to cooperate with law enforcement investigations into users for “cybercrimes.”
These incidents strongly suggest that the UN is likely to receive the 40 votes it needs to ratify the anti-cybercrime treaty at the General Assembly. Countries that vote for the treaty will be bound by its rules.
‘Treaty could allow Country A to spy on you for Country B’
Once united under the accord, governments will collaborate with each other to form a “global criminal justice” web that ensnares users who post illegal content.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) illustrates how this might play out:
If you’re an activist in Country A tweeting about human rights atrocities in Country B, and criticizing government officials or the king is considered a serious crime in both countries under vague cybercrime laws, the UN Cybercrime Treaty could allow Country A to spy on you for Country B. This means Country A could access your email or track your location without prior judicial authorization and keep this information secret, even when it no longer impacts the investigation.
Criticizing the government is a far cry from launching a phishing attack or causing a data breach. But since it involves using a computer and is a serious crime as defined by national law, it falls within the scope of the treaty’s cross-border spying powers, as currently written.
This isn’t hyperbole. In countries like Russia and China, serious “cybercrime” has become a catchall term for any activity the government disapproves of if it involves a computer. This broad and vague definition of serious crimes allows these governments to target political dissidents and suppress free speech under the guise of cybercrime enforcement.
