'Disaster for human rights': surveillance and data access enabling Russian treaty on cybercrime is passed by United Nations

Here's a piece of news that should make everyone sit up, and tell our representative to the United Nations to have a think about what New Zealand could be committing itself to.

Last week, the UN approved the Convention Against Cybercrime. It is the first such UN treaty and the organisation's Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime unanimously voted for it.

The problem with the treaty is that Russia kicked it off seven years ago, and it reads like an authoritarian nation's charter for enabling multinational state surveillance and data collection from internet service providers (ISPs).

Nations that have signed and ratified the treaty can ask each other for assistance in cybercrime cases as per above. It doesn't take much imagination to understand how that can be abused by authoritarian countries.

Scores of human rights organisations, and tech companies have all opposed the treaty as a bad and dangerous idea.

If states adopt this fundamentally flawed #UNCybercrime treaty, they’ll be doing so despite stark warnings from leading human rights experts, the UN’s human rights authority @UNHumanRights , 100+ NGOs, and industry.

This👇🏻from @davidakaye is 🔥 https://t.co/QmBJIXtxgH

— Deborah Brown (@deblebrown) August 8, 2024

The purpose of the treaty isn't hidden at all. In the chilling words of the Russian delegation:

"We fully share the position of the Egyptian, Iranian, Pakistani, Vietnamese, and Mauritanian delegations that the treaty is oversaturated with human rights safeguards.

This would lead to an excessive use by certain states of the opportunities to reject requests for legal assistance, and, in the worst-case scenario, could thwart the efforts of the international community to develop a foundation for law enforcement collaboration. What is it, if not a deal-breaker?

We know too well what we will hear in response. In anticipation of feeble counter-arguments, I will say: no one in this room is against human rights. The problem is that, in this particular case, certain countries pursue narrow selfserving goals under the banner of democratic values. Although "pseudodemocratic" would be a more appropriate word to use," the Russian representatives wrote.

Brown of Human Rights Watch is on record as calling the treaty "effectively a legal instrument of repression".

Executive director Tirana Hassan of HRW expounded on the Russia-driven treaty, and was clear that it aims to stifle dissent.

"Instead of protecting people from abuses of power, the draft UN Cybercrimes treaty would facilitate transnational repression," Hassan wrote.

Former UN Special Rapporteur and University of California's Irvine School of Law professor David Kaye also warned the treaty would be a disaster for human rights.

for any democratic governments still on the fence on this, i urge you not to be complacent.

take, for example, article 6. it proposes to be a safety net for human rights. dear lawyers, read this. would you rely on it? weak sauce at best. unconvincing & ultimately worthless. https://t.co/9uOqOh68QT pic.twitter.com/NBGIdES3VL

— David Kaye (@davidakaye) August 8, 2024

Collaboration against cybercrime among nations is a good thing, and it produces results. For Western nations to sign up to authoritarian countries' notion of "law enforcement" and potentially enabling it to have domestic reach is quite another issue altogether.

The irony of Russia, which hosts some of the most active and successful ransomware gangs in the world, sponsoring the cybercrime treaty cannot be overlooked either.

Now, the treaty is one step closer to becoming reality, with the UN General Assembly voting on it next.

The treaty is expected to pass the General Assembly.