For the past seven years, Russia campaigned hard for an “international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes.” The Kremlin succeeded. A working group published a proposed treaty this summer and a yes or no vote is scheduled at the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting.
It will be a close call. Democratic governments seem divided, with their security services in favor and human rights officials opposed.
“Russia has acted as the inspirer and leader of the negotiations,” claimed a delighted Russian Foreign Ministry. The US State Department welcomed the outcome, claiming that “the agreement extends the fight against cybercrime.” The European Commission asserted that the “UN convention ensures stronger protection of fundamental rights and provides an efficient framework for international cooperation.”
But civil society and industry experts are united in opposition. More than 100 civil society groups called for radical changes to the draft text to “avoid potentially disastrous impacts on human rights.” They criticize the treaty’s provisions as too broad and vague, allowing Russia and other authoritarian governments to take advantage.
Under the proposed treaty, security researchers, whistleblowers, activists, and journalists face dangers. Authoritarian governments could label their activities a “serious crime”, under terms typically used for organized crime networks, subjecting them to imprisonment. Since any activity considered a crime in Russia or China would justify a data request, obliging democracies will be obliged to process and transfer personal information.
Not typical allies, businesses have aligned with civil society to voice opposition. The International Chamber of Commerce urged governments to reject the treaty, arguing that the treaty lacks necessary safeguards and judicial oversight to protect privacy and free expression, stifles economic growth, and threatens national security. The US Chamber called the treaty “fundamentally flawed.”
The criticism seems to be having an impact. More than 40 governments that make up the Freedom Online Coalition issued a joint statement that mirrors civil society and industry criticisms. The US signed on. It agreed that the proposed “treaty could be misused as a tool for acts of domestic and transnational repression and human rights abuses.”
How strange. What is the real US policy? If the democratic government officials charged with protecting free expression and human rights are worried, why aren’t their respective law enforcement colleagues who negotiated the UN cybercrime treaty? Is this a similar case to US Trade Representative Katherine Tai unilaterally abandoning three decades of digital US trade policy promoting the free flow of data?
European negotiators also must answer tough questions. How does Brussels which sees itself as the global leader and data privacy champion reconcile supporting a treaty that enables unchecked surveillance and unauthorized data access?
Brussels answers that the new treaty will complement the existing Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, an agreement that the majority of European governments and the US have ratified. However, the proposed new UN treaty lacks Budapest’s due process and rule of law requirements. Russia, China, and other authoritarian countries have not signed because they don’t believe in due process or the rule of law.
Cybercrime is real and dangerous. However, it is not a solution to share the private information of users with governments that do not respect privacy safeguards. The US Congress and European national parliaments soon could be tasked with ratifying a dangerous treaty. They should block Russian authoritarian overreach.
Fiona M. Alexander is a Senior Fellow for the Digital Innovation Initiative at CEPA. She is both a Distinguished Policy Strategist in Residence at the School of International Service and a Distinguished Fellow at the Internet Governance Lab at the American University in Washington. She is a former Department of Commerce official, specializing in technology policy.
Bandwidth is CEPA’s online journal dedicated to advancing transatlantic cooperation on tech policy. All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis.
The post UN Threatens Internet Freedom, Privacy, and Due Process appeared first on CEPA.
