A proposed United Nations treaty to combat cybercrime could allow governments around the world to censor their citizens' speech, free speech groups warned Thursday.
United Nations Committee Approved Euronews reported that the global treaty was adopted on August 8, despite opposition from tech companies and human rights groups. The treaty is set to be voted on by the UN General Assembly this fall, according to the outlet. Forty countries will reportedly need to ratify the treaty.
The treaty aims to improve “international cooperation to combat certain crimes committed through information and communications technology systems and to share electronic evidence of serious crimes.” Article. (Related: China convicts journalist for 'illegal thoughts' in landmark Hong Kong case)
Sarah McLaughlin, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Observed In a news release, he said the definition of “serious crimes” was vague and argued the treaty could become “another weapon to silence dissent.”
“Other than the requirement that the offense be punishable by at least four years' imprisonment, the treaty's liberal definition offers little explanation,” McLoughlin wrote.
To me, this may be the most worrying part of the UN Cybercrime Convention: if the treaty targets vaguely defined “serious crimes,” and you want to use it to target online dissent, then there is a strong incentive to treat online dissent as a “serious crime.” https://t.co/YizaoCfaUy
— Sarah McLaughlin (@sarahemclaugh) August 29, 2024
The treaty defines a “serious crime” as one punishable by “maximum deprivation of liberty” for a minimum of four years. Or receive a more severe punishment.
The treaty also repeatedly references the “domestic laws” of UN member states in its efforts to prevent abuse. McLoughlin gave the example of a country where political dissent is not tolerated and criticizing the government can become a “serious crime.” (Related: Venezuelan dictator suspended from major social media platforms after dispute with Elon Musk)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said The proposed treaty could be misused by countries with laws that criminalize political dissent. They would be forced to accept that criticizing their government while in another country is a criminal offense. Both countries consider criticism of government officials illegal. Allowed “Country A spies on you for Country B.”
“Criticizing a government is a far cry from launching a phishing attack or causing a data leak,” EFF said, “but it involves the use of a computer and is a serious crime defined in domestic law, so falls within the current treaty's cross-border espionage remit.”
EFF argued that the treaty's broad language poses serious threats and “must be limited to core cybercrimes. Otherwise, we risk cross-border espionage and pervasive surveillance, enabling Russia, China and other countries to target and spy on activists, journalists and vulnerable communities for protected speech,” the organization argued. (Related article: 'Dictator' Judge Punishes Elon Musk's Ex-Husband for Refusing to Follow 'Illegal Orders')
The treaty was passed Unanimously After Russia voted, the Record reported: support According to a statement obtained by McLoughlin, he came from the United States.
The Biden administration has come under fire after Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Monday that the administration has pressured Facebook to censor speech.
The Daily Caller reached out to the United Nations but had not received a response as of press time.
