Background and Purpose of the Treaty
More than 60 countries signed a United Nations (UN) treaty against cybercrime in Vietnam on Saturday, despite opposition from technology companies and human rights organizations concerned about increased state surveillance. The new global legal framework aims to strengthen international cooperation in combating digital offenses, ranging from child pornography to transnational cybercrime and money laundering.
Key Players Involved
The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, hailed the signing as a “significant milestone,” but emphasized that it was merely the beginning. He highlighted the growing sophistication of online scams, which destroy families, defraud migrants, and drain billions from the global economy. A robust and interconnected global response is necessary, he stressed during the opening ceremony in Hanoi, Vietnam’s capital.
History and Content of the Treaty
The UN Convention against Cybercrime was first proposed by Russian diplomats in 2017 and unanimously approved last year following extensive negotiations. Critics argue, however, that its broad language could lead to abuses of power and enable cross-border repression against government critics.
Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, founder of the Tech Global Institute expert group, expressed concerns about the treaty’s potential to compel companies to share data. “It’s almost endorsing a highly problematic practice used against journalists and in authoritarian countries,” she told AFP.
Support and Concerns
The Vietnamese government stated that 60 countries had registered for the official signing, without disclosing their identities. However, it’s likely that the list includes countries beyond Russia and China. Cybercrime is a global issue, acknowledged Diya, with the online fraud industry booming in Southeast Asia and affecting victims worldwide.
Democratic nations might view the UN convention as a “commitment document” due to its provisions on human rights, according to the Tech Global Institute expert. However, these safeguards were criticized as “weak” by over a dozen human rights groups and other organizations in a joint letter.
Technology Sector’s Perspective
Major technology companies have also voiced their concerns. The Technology Agreement on Cybersecurity delegation, representing over 160 companies including Meta, Dell, and Infosys from India, did not attend the signing in Hanoi, according to its head, Nick Ashton-Hart.
Among other objections, these companies previously warned that the convention could criminalize cybersecurity researchers and allow states to collaborate on almost any chosen illicit act. The potential for excessive authority poses “serious risks to corporate computer systems relied upon by billions daily,” they argued during negotiations.
In contrast, an existing international agreement, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, includes guidelines for using it “in a rights-respecting manner,” according to Ashton-Hart.
Location Concerns
The choice of venue has also raised eyebrows, given Vietnam’s history of suppressing dissent. Authorities often use laws to censor and silence online expressions critical of the country’s political leaders, according to Deborah Brown from Human Rights Watch.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the UN Cybercrime Treaty? It’s a global legal framework signed by over 60 countries to strengthen international cooperation in combating digital offenses.
- Who opposes the treaty? Technology companies like Meta and human rights organizations are concerned about increased state surveillance and potential abuses of power.
- What are the critics’ main concerns? Critics argue that the treaty’s broad language could enable cross-border repression and force companies to share data, posing risks to corporate computer systems.
- What is the existing international agreement on cybercrime? The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime includes guidelines for using it in a rights-respecting manner.
- Why is the location of the signing controversial? Vietnam’s history of suppressing dissent raises concerns about the potential for censorship and silencing online criticism of political leaders.
