UN may hand authoritarian governments new weapon to silence dissent

If you ask an average person what should be done to fight “cybercrime,” they’d probably say that police should track down those involved in acts like hacking or ransomware attacks. Such crimes are a real and legitimate threat, and international cooperation is often imperative to combat them. 

But a new anti-cybercrime treaty at the United Nations doesn’t stop there. Not even close.

Instead, if ratified, it will embolden governments to define cybercrime however they choose and obligate other countries to help them enforce their laws, making it easier for authoritarian states to target political speech — and handing them more tools to crush it.

The treaty risks not just encouraging authoritarianism within a country’s borders, but helping it extend beyond them.

Treaty defines cybercrime as whatever authoritarian countries say it is

On Aug. 8, the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime approved treaty language by consensus after years of discussion and tinkering. The resolution to create a convention to fight cybercrime was first sponsored by countries including Russia, China, and Iran in 2019. This fall, it will go to the General Assembly, where it will need 40 votes for ratification. Those states voting in support will be bound by the treaty.

Retired ambassador Deborah McCarthy served on the committee on behalf of the United States. In a statement addressing its position, the U.S. explained it would “welcome” adoption of the treaty but asserted it would “work to combat the persistent human rights abuses that we see around the globe” and that failure to implement human rights safeguards would “contraven[e] international law.” 

The treaty, in theory, seeks to improve international cooperation in fighting crimes taking place using computer systems. However, this cooperation is not limited to specific criminal acts. Rather, the treaty coerces nations to hand over personal data that other governments request about individuals accused of committing “serious crimes” involving computers.  

But what counts as a “serious crime”? There isn’t much of an explanation in the treaty’s freewheeling definition, aside from the requirement that it warrants at least a four-year prison sentence.

Why is that bad? Consider the fact that countries around the world treat basic free speech — either online or offline — as a serious crime. 

Thailand sentenced a lawyer and activist to four years on royal insult and computer crimes charges because he advocated reforming the very same royal insult law under which he was charged. A Cambodian court gave out jail terms of up to eight-to-ten years to activists from an environmental group for discussing political cartoons over Zoom. A Pakistani court sentenced two men to death for posting videos of a defaced Quran on TikTok. Uganda sentenced a TikToker to six years in prison on hate speech and “misleading and malicious” information charges after he criticized the president online.

The United States and other nations committed to free speech must vociferously reject this treaty when the time comes. 

These examples are just from the past few weeks. I could produce a very long list of other instances like these from countries like Russia, China, and Iran — some of the very same nations pushing for the original cybercrime convention. 

The treaty also would command nations to adopt legislation and measures “as may be necessary to oblige a service provider to keep confidential” the execution of government searches for user data. Not only that, a nation seeking data from another “may require that the requested State Party keep confidential the fact and substance of the request” and may demand that the user under surveillance not be notified.

Treaty risks worsening repression of political activists

There are some meager protections in the treaty, like the provision that it should not be interpreted as “imposing” an obligation on states to abide by information requests they believe are made for the purpose of punishing “political opinions.” But as Human Rights Watch notes, the current treaty “defers to domestic law” of the requested country “to provide for human-rights safeguards” and “grounds for refusal are entirely discretionary and so become the exception rather than the rule.” Many countries have very poor domestic laws governing free expression, in contrast with international standards, and on a global scale protections for free speech are weakening.

Free Speech Dispatch

Page

The Free Speech Dispatch is a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world.

Read More

The likely outcome here is obvious: The treaty will streamline unfree countries’ involvement with other unfree countries’ repression and pressure freer ones into helping, too. And it can all take place confidentially, without the knowledge of the public or even those being targeted.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation puts the issue in stark terms:

​​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.

And as though existing national laws punishing political expression aren’t enough, the treaty could even incentivize governments to enact harsher penalties on expressive acts. After all, if you’d like other nations to assist you in punishing your critics on the internet, you’ll want to ensure their expression qualifies for inclusion under the treaty’s definition of “serious crimes.”

The United States and other nations committed to free speech must vociferously reject this treaty when the time comes. The current U.S. support for the existing committee’s treaty is cause for serious concern.