Carding Forum
Professional
- Messages
- 2,788
- Reaction score
- 1,174
- Points
- 113
Human rights activists want to prevent the adoption of the treaty before journalists become targets of repression.
Human rights activists have expressed serious concerns about the current version of the draft UN Treaty on Cybercrime. At the upcoming talks, it is planned to approve a document that, according to activists, will strengthen surveillance and criminalization of journalists, human rights defenders, children and representatives of civil society around the world. Representatives of human rights organizations expressed their opinion to The Record Media.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that in recent years, many countries in the Middle East and North Africa have introduced cybercrime laws that go beyond protecting computer systems and are aimed at suppressing dissent, human rights defenders and journalists, which threatens freedom of expression.
The draft U.N. Cybercrime Treaty is worrisome because of its broad scope and lack of human rights guarantees for those who challenge repressive Governments. The possible increasing marginalization of women and members of sexual minorities is also a matter of concern.
In its current form, the document can help rewrite criminal laws around the world, creating new expanded powers for the police, which will actually make it an unprecedented multilateral tool for cross-border surveillance without sufficient guarantees of human rights. Instead of addressing issues related to attacks on computer networks and data, the treaty changes the definition of cybercrime to include crimes committed using international communication technologies, which HRW believes will facilitate and strengthen national repression.
During a virtual panel discussion organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an HRW representative and other human rights activists expressed concerns about the treaty. Access Now notes that many countries prefer "a bad contract over no contract", seeking greater international cooperation on cybercrime issues within the UN.
There are differences between the countries involved in the negotiations on a new UN treaty. China, for example, has tried to expand the definition of cybercrime to include "spreading false information" on the Internet. Although this proposal was removed from the draft, problems remain, according to human rights activists.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) called the activists concerns exaggerated, noting that the treaty is not about "global surveillance, but about cybercrime, and it reflects agreements that have been in place for decades. According to CSIS, opponents of the treaty actually support crime.
Activists dispute this view. Human rights activists say the treaty poses a serious threat to freedom of speech and privacy, as well as a powerful tool for repressive governments. A representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) stressed that the document will force private companies to become state agents, monitor and intercept data in real time without the knowledge of users.
The agreement also requires service providers to remain silent, which makes it impossible for citizens to know when their data is being tracked and used. The EFF believes that the document returns to the era "before the Snowden revelations", when the right to privacy in the digital space was not yet recognized as fundamental.
When asked about the likelihood of adopting the treaty in its current form, the activists did not give a direct answer, but stressed the need to put pressure on the States participating in the negotiations to eliminate the risks associated with the draft treaty. According to HRW, the risks are well documented and urgent action is needed to prevent adoption of the contract in its current form.
Source
Human rights activists have expressed serious concerns about the current version of the draft UN Treaty on Cybercrime. At the upcoming talks, it is planned to approve a document that, according to activists, will strengthen surveillance and criminalization of journalists, human rights defenders, children and representatives of civil society around the world. Representatives of human rights organizations expressed their opinion to The Record Media.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that in recent years, many countries in the Middle East and North Africa have introduced cybercrime laws that go beyond protecting computer systems and are aimed at suppressing dissent, human rights defenders and journalists, which threatens freedom of expression.
The draft U.N. Cybercrime Treaty is worrisome because of its broad scope and lack of human rights guarantees for those who challenge repressive Governments. The possible increasing marginalization of women and members of sexual minorities is also a matter of concern.
In its current form, the document can help rewrite criminal laws around the world, creating new expanded powers for the police, which will actually make it an unprecedented multilateral tool for cross-border surveillance without sufficient guarantees of human rights. Instead of addressing issues related to attacks on computer networks and data, the treaty changes the definition of cybercrime to include crimes committed using international communication technologies, which HRW believes will facilitate and strengthen national repression.
During a virtual panel discussion organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an HRW representative and other human rights activists expressed concerns about the treaty. Access Now notes that many countries prefer "a bad contract over no contract", seeking greater international cooperation on cybercrime issues within the UN.
There are differences between the countries involved in the negotiations on a new UN treaty. China, for example, has tried to expand the definition of cybercrime to include "spreading false information" on the Internet. Although this proposal was removed from the draft, problems remain, according to human rights activists.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) called the activists concerns exaggerated, noting that the treaty is not about "global surveillance, but about cybercrime, and it reflects agreements that have been in place for decades. According to CSIS, opponents of the treaty actually support crime.
Activists dispute this view. Human rights activists say the treaty poses a serious threat to freedom of speech and privacy, as well as a powerful tool for repressive governments. A representative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) stressed that the document will force private companies to become state agents, monitor and intercept data in real time without the knowledge of users.
The agreement also requires service providers to remain silent, which makes it impossible for citizens to know when their data is being tracked and used. The EFF believes that the document returns to the era "before the Snowden revelations", when the right to privacy in the digital space was not yet recognized as fundamental.
When asked about the likelihood of adopting the treaty in its current form, the activists did not give a direct answer, but stressed the need to put pressure on the States participating in the negotiations to eliminate the risks associated with the draft treaty. According to HRW, the risks are well documented and urgent action is needed to prevent adoption of the contract in its current form.
Source
