The UN Cybercrime Treaty, scheduled for a vote before the UN General Assembly, is expected to receive support from most member states, including the United States. Critics, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and various civil society groups, have warned that the treaty threatens human rights by granting sweeping evidence-gathering powers for crimes related to cyber activities, despite having minimal safeguards. The treaty has garnered the unanimous approval of over 100 countries, but it raises significant concerns regarding invasive surveillance measures that could exacerbate issues related to privacy and freedom of expression.
The proposed treaty includes several clauses that fail to meet international human rights standards and allows individual member states to determine the extent of human rights protections, many of which are lacking in jurisdictions with poor human rights records. There are already alarming examples of countries employing cybercrime laws to monitor communications and restrict free speech. For instance, in countries like Algeria and Egypt, laws permit extensive data collection without proper judicial oversight, while Jordan’s legislation has been weaponized against marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals and journalists.
In acknowledging these threats, the U.S. has expressed its commitment to combating potential abuses of the treaty by states that may use it to infringe on human rights, particularly targeting journalists and activists. Nevertheless, the U.S. plans to vote in favor of the convention, arguing that its terms do not endorse human rights violations. While this stance is notable, it does not adequately address the underlying issues present in many signatory states’ legal frameworks, which may lack adequate protections for personal freedoms and privacy.
Despite the alarming nature of the treaty, civil society organizations achieved some victories during the negotiation process. They successfully campaigned for the removal of explicit speech-related offenses from early drafts of the treaty and secured the inclusion of provisions on fundamental rights, yet notable gaps remain. Gender expression, for example, was excluded from the final language intended to protect fundamental rights. The U.S. has called on member states to ensure domestic laws align with the treaty’s human rights provisions, but there is skepticism about whether these calls will result in actionable change.
The likelihood that governments will reform their existing cybercrime laws in light of the treaty appears slim. Instead, there is concern that the treaty could normalize existing frameworks that lack sufficient human rights protections. The treaty’s failure to include specific oversight mechanisms raises questions about the effectiveness of any promised accountability for abuses. The U.S. has indicated it may not ratify the treaty without these necessary legal protections from member states, but there are uncertainties about its commitment should political dynamics shift—especially with the potential return of a more isolationist administration.
The urgency of the upcoming vote underscores the need for member states to think critically about the treaty’s implications. Proponents of human rights and civil liberties are advocating for a reconsideration of the treaty’s adoption, urging states to prioritize individual privacy and freedom of expression over sweeping surveillance powers. As the UN Cybercrime Treaty approaches a crucial juncture, the discourse surrounding its implications becomes increasingly critical, with profound implications for millions of people globally who may be affected by its enforcement.
