Carding
Professional
- Messages
- 2,870
- Reaction score
- 2,511
- Points
- 113
Is digital security at risk? Experts review the UN Treaty.
Human rights organizations are sounding the alarm about the UN treaty on cybercrime, which is being discussed this week in New York. Experts fear that the treaty could give governments too much power to monitor the Internet and become a tool of repression.
The treaty was proposed by Russia in 2017, and its main goal is to develop international standards related to the problem of transnational Internet crimes. However, representatives of human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Now, Kenya ICT Action Network, Article 19 and Privacy International believe that the current draft treaty has a number of problematic points.
Deborah Brown, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, stressed that since the treaty was first drafted in 2019, the international community has not reached a consensus on its necessity and objectives. It is unclear what crimes should fall under the treaty, as well as what restrictions should be imposed on the activities of governments in the field of cybercrime.
Experts have expressed concerns that some countries may use the treaty as a tool to advance their own political goals. During the negotiations, proposals were put forward that raise serious concerns. For example, China has proposed to include the distribution of false information online in the concept of cybercrime. Representatives of Pakistan and Iran tried to introduce an amendment that could recognize religious insults as cybercrime.
For its part, the United States expressed optimism about the outcome of the talks. They support the idea of creating a "narrowly specialized treaty" that would promote international cooperation, respect for human rights and the participation of all stakeholders.
However, the concerns of human rights experts are not limited to this. They expressed concern that the treaty could expand the powers of Governments to conduct surveillance and cooperation not only in the field of cybercrime, but also in relation to any "crimes" that they define as "serious". Experts pointed out the lack of regulations governing the collection and transfer of personal data, the lack of restrictions on the powers of investigation and the lack of judicial control.
The criticism also touched on Article 23 of the treaty, which requires the parties to create a mechanism for conducting investigations of cybercrime, including " collecting evidence in electronic form of any criminal offense." Experts described the treaty as a "vast global surveillance pact," cautioning that it gives governments the power to intercept and monitor communications and metadata in real time for virtually any criminal investigation.
Experts called for the establishment of minimum data protection standards and mandatory judicial authorization before any investigations, monitoring or data collection. They also expressed concerns about cybersecurity researchers and white-hat hackers who ethically report vulnerabilities. The agreement prohibits actions that are" practiced on a daily basis by security researchers and ethical hackers, " including unauthorized access to networks, interception of communications, interference with computer systems, and misuse of devices.
Negotiations will last until September 1, and many hope to reach consensus on the text of the treaty, which will then be considered by member States in January 2024.
Human rights organizations are sounding the alarm about the UN treaty on cybercrime, which is being discussed this week in New York. Experts fear that the treaty could give governments too much power to monitor the Internet and become a tool of repression.
The treaty was proposed by Russia in 2017, and its main goal is to develop international standards related to the problem of transnational Internet crimes. However, representatives of human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Now, Kenya ICT Action Network, Article 19 and Privacy International believe that the current draft treaty has a number of problematic points.
Deborah Brown, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, stressed that since the treaty was first drafted in 2019, the international community has not reached a consensus on its necessity and objectives. It is unclear what crimes should fall under the treaty, as well as what restrictions should be imposed on the activities of governments in the field of cybercrime.
Experts have expressed concerns that some countries may use the treaty as a tool to advance their own political goals. During the negotiations, proposals were put forward that raise serious concerns. For example, China has proposed to include the distribution of false information online in the concept of cybercrime. Representatives of Pakistan and Iran tried to introduce an amendment that could recognize religious insults as cybercrime.
For its part, the United States expressed optimism about the outcome of the talks. They support the idea of creating a "narrowly specialized treaty" that would promote international cooperation, respect for human rights and the participation of all stakeholders.
However, the concerns of human rights experts are not limited to this. They expressed concern that the treaty could expand the powers of Governments to conduct surveillance and cooperation not only in the field of cybercrime, but also in relation to any "crimes" that they define as "serious". Experts pointed out the lack of regulations governing the collection and transfer of personal data, the lack of restrictions on the powers of investigation and the lack of judicial control.
The criticism also touched on Article 23 of the treaty, which requires the parties to create a mechanism for conducting investigations of cybercrime, including " collecting evidence in electronic form of any criminal offense." Experts described the treaty as a "vast global surveillance pact," cautioning that it gives governments the power to intercept and monitor communications and metadata in real time for virtually any criminal investigation.
Experts called for the establishment of minimum data protection standards and mandatory judicial authorization before any investigations, monitoring or data collection. They also expressed concerns about cybersecurity researchers and white-hat hackers who ethically report vulnerabilities. The agreement prohibits actions that are" practiced on a daily basis by security researchers and ethical hackers, " including unauthorized access to networks, interception of communications, interference with computer systems, and misuse of devices.
Negotiations will last until September 1, and many hope to reach consensus on the text of the treaty, which will then be considered by member States in January 2024.
