Potential U.S. Backing for Worldwide Monitoring Agreement, Favored Only by Autocratic Regimes
The United States is set to back an international cybercrimes accord that numerous businesses and human rights groups have expressed concerns will reduce global cybersecurity and facilitate surveillance and prosecution of citizens by authoritarian regimes, as reported by various news outlets privy to the decision.
The United Nations committee concluded the treaty's linguistic details in August after a challenging, multi-year process marked by disagreement. In essence, the upcoming agreement encourages participating nations to gather more information pertaining to potential cybercrimes, exchange data about suspects, and simplify the process of extraditing criminals and seizing stolen funds.
Human rights activists, including the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have voiced concerns that the treaty utilizes an excessively broad definition of cybercrime, allowing nations to request international assistance when investigating almost any crime facilitated by technology. This could encompass crimes such as cyber defamation or incitement to violence, which have been used to prosecute journalists and protesters in certain countries.
The treaty includes a provision stating that no interpretation should infringe upon human rights, but critics argue the language is vague and will not significantly hinder authoritarian governments from exploiting the new powers to suppress political dissidents, minority groups, and individuals in same-sex relationships.
Human Rights Watch's executive director, Tirana Hassan, wrote, "By expanding government surveillance to investigate crimes, the treaty could create an unparalleled tool for international cooperation related to a wide range of offences, without adequate safeguards to protect people from the misuse of power."
Nations agreeing to the accord pledge to collaborate and share information about cybercrimes. They are also mandated to institute laws requiring digital service providers to preserve real-time web traffic data, subscriber information, and message content and share such information with law enforcement in response to legal requests. The treaty instructs signatories to legislate that service providers maintain confidentiality regarding highly sensitive government data requests.
These provisions have inspired sharp critique not only from privacy and human rights advocates but also from international business organizations and technology companies.
Nemanja Malisevic, Microsoft's director of digital diplomacy, stated during a hearing prior to the approval of the treaty's final language, "The fact that industry and civil society share similar concerns to an unprecedented extent ought to continue to make member states think twice. At its core, this treaty remains a data access, global surveillance treaty disguised as a cybercrimes treaty, lacking sufficient safeguards to prevent government misuse of power. In its current form, this treaty threatens data privacy, challenges digital sovereignty, and undermines online rights and freedoms globally."
According to sources in the Biden administration, as reported by Politico, the U.S. is expected to support the treaty during its upcoming vote at the U.N. However, it's highly unlikely that the U.S. will ratify the treaty itself, as such approval requires consensus from two-thirds of the Senate.
The treaty's focus on gathering information and exchanging data about cybercrimes could potentially escalate the role of technology, known as 'tech', in future surveillance and investigations. Critics argue that the treaty's vague language on human rights may allow authoritarian regimes to misuse its new powers, potentially jeopardizing online freedoms and privacy.
