An anti-cybercrime treaty proposed by the United Nations (UN) may allow governments worldwide to engage in censorship of their citizens’ speech, a free speech group warned Thursday.
A UN committee approved the worldwide treaty on Aug. 8 despite pushback from tech companies and human rights organizations, Euro News reported. It will be put up to a vote from the General Assembly this fall, according to the outlet. Forty nations must reportedly ratify the treaty.
The treaty aims to improve “international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communications technology systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes,” according to the text. (RELATED: China Convicts Journalists Over ‘Illegal Ideologies’ In Landmark Hong Kong Case)
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s (FIRE) Sarah McLaughlin observed how “serious crime” is ill-defined and argued the treaty could prove to be a “new weapon to silence dissent” in a news release.
“There isn’t much of an explanation in the treaty’s freewheeling definition, aside from the requirement that it warrants at least a four-year prison sentence,” McLaughlin wrote.
This to me might be the most worrying part of the UN cybercrime treaty: If the treaty is for vaguely defined “serious crime”, and you want to use it to target online dissent….you have a big incentive to treat online dissent as a “serious crime.” https://t.co/YizaoCfaUy
— Sarah McLaughlin (@sarahemclaugh) August 29, 2024
The treaty’s text states a “serious crime” is an offence that could be punished by a “maximum deprivation of liberty” for a minimum of four years — or a more significant punishment.
The treaty repeatedly references the “domestic law” of UN member countries, even in its efforts to prevent abuse. Criticizing a government may constitute a “serious crime” in nations where political dissent is not tolerated, McLaughlin argued, citing examples. (RELATED: Venezuelan Dictator Suspends Major Social Media Platform After Sparring With Elon Musk)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said the proposed treaty could be abused by countries with laws criminalizing political dissent. They claimed that criticizing one government while in another country — when both nations consider criticism of government officials illegal — could authorize “Country A to spy on you for Country B.”
“Criticizing the government is a far cry from launching a phishing attack or causing a data breach,” the EFF stated. “But since it involves using a computer and is a serious crime as defined by national law, it falls within the scope of the treaty’s cross-border spying powers, as currently written.”
The broad language in the treaty poses a serious threat “and must be limited to core cybercrimes,” the EFF argued. “Otherwise it risks cross-border spying and extensive surveillance, and enabling Russia, China, and other countries to collaborate in targeting and spying on activists, journalists, and marginalized communities for protected speech,” the organization claimed. (RELATED: ‘Dictator’ Judge Punishes Elon Musk’s X For Refusing To Comply With ‘Illegal Orders’)
The treaty passed unanimously after Russia put it up for a vote, The Record reported. It also received support from the United States, as described by a statement obtained by McLaughlin.
The Biden administration came under fire after Mark Zuckerberg admitted it put pressure on Facebook to censor speech in a letter Monday to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.
The Daily Caller reached out to the UN but has not heard back as of publication.
