After nearly three years of negotiations, United Nations member states have adopted the Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes, otherwise called the Cybercrime Treaty. The treaty, initially proposed by Russia in 2017, is designed to create a globally agreed legal framework to fight against online fraud, scams, and harassment and can help define how countries investigate and criminalise cybercrime.
Several changes were proposed to Russia’s original treaty. The final text, the UN Convention Against Cybercrime, was adopted by unanimous consensus of all member states on August 8, 2024, following a two-week ad hoc committee session held in New York.
However, while the treaty has been adopted, member nations are still critiquing the final draft. There’s still some time before the treaty gets implemented.
Several articles in the final draft raise concerns regarding global surveillance and threats to fundamental freedoms.
Specifically, articles 28 to 30 have been especially controversial. These articles deal with the search and seizure of electronic data, real-time collection of traffic data, and the intersection of content data. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) had previously called for removing these chapters entirely.
There is a total lack of oversight regarding details regarding the right of nation-states to access and share captured electronic data as legal evidence. Additionally, there are no measures for legal training or judicial oversight over collecting said data. No information on properly using data in legal arguments and cases has been revealed either, leading to concerns over personal data security and global surveillance.
Another controversial clause in Articles 29 and 30 can grant nation-states more power, potentially crushing dissent and political opposition. The clause allows governments to adopt laws requiring a service provider to hide the fact that any power under the articles has been executed and prevents them from releasing any information.
To make matters worse, the Iranian UN delegation wanted to remove Chapter 1, Article 6 of the treaty. The article says that nothing in the convention should be interpreted as allowing the suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms, further weakening the treaty’s human rights safeguards.
In the News: Privacy group NOYB challenges X’s EU data processing in 9 countries
