[ad_1]
The text adopted by the United Nations Convention on Cybercrime is a victory for digital authoritarianism that Europe and like-minded countries must fight, writes Tobias B. Bacherle.
Tobias B. Bacherle is a member of the German Parliament and Coordinator of the Digital Affairs Committee of Alliance 90/The Greens.
Research Convention on Cybercrime I realized that all my fears had been confirmed. In one of the most effective attacks by digital authoritarianism, Internet freedom and human rights in the digital space were not achieved in the negotiations.
The reaction to the convention was even more puzzling, with the first reports of the agreement sparking undisguised joy and subsequent tweets from diplomats. After three years, the ad hoc working group has finally agreed on a convention on cybercrime. Hooray! ? Unfortunately no.
The convention appears to be aimed at establishing a set of international rules that, at first glance, appear to complement the fight against crime in the digital space and transform it into international law. However, the content of this agreed document bears little resemblance to the ambitious goals mentioned in its title.
What has happened so far
Since Moscow first pushed for a Cybercrime Convention in 2017, it has become clear that the authoritarian dream team of Russia and China will use the negotiations to present themselves as important negotiating partners on the international stage. At worst, they may use the convention to legitimize their ideas of mass surveillance and digital repression.
Although the negotiations failed in February, the negotiating schedule was extended last week after a deal was reached. Many, including me, had warned against this outcome, saying that no deal was better than a bad deal. It was better to maintain the status quo than to be significantly worse off. As much as we all love international cooperation, no deal should be made just for the sake of making a deal.
Fewer safeguards, more monitoring
Human rights groups, the tech community and businesses point out that the conditions and safeguards listed in Article 24 are insufficient. It does not commit to the right to anonymity, digital privacy, secure communications, encryption, the right to self-government on the Internet, or the exclusion of mass surveillance. In addition, the safeguards are vague: they apply only to Chapter III, not to the entire convention.
However, anyone following the debate in Germany about the so-called “hacker clause” will find that there is more to it than that. The discussion has been mainly about how to deal with hackers and IT experts who discover and publicize vulnerabilities. This work is crucial because discovering vulnerabilities is a prerequisite for addressing them – preferably before they can be exploited. Unfortunately, Articles 7 and 11 of the Cybercrime Convention do not distinguish between the hacker’s intent and the treatment of discovered vulnerabilities.
Article 35 creates the possibility for data exchange without significant security precautions, which poses a threat to human rights, especially privacy and freedom of expression. For example, there is a fear that Russia will be able to demand data stored abroad for use as electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. They could thus invoke the convention to prosecute opposition members for extremism. We should avoid at all costs the role of digital assistants to authoritarianism.
The fundamental issue of vital importance
Warnings from civil society, the tech community, politicians and affected companies have clearly not been heeded. A critical debate is now urgently needed regarding the upcoming vote and possible ratification by the UN General Assembly.
Some might argue that nearly every international treaty is flawed and that reaching agreements during difficult geopolitical times is a success for multilateralism. I disagree.
On the contrary, it shows that the assault on freedom by authoritarian states is successful. The tug-of-war over our freedoms and human rights has long since moved to the digital space. Authoritarian states are aware of our lack of vigilance in this regard and are taking advantage of it.
This recognition generates a mission that goes far beyond upcoming UN negotiations such as the Global Digital Compact. It also applies to standardization processes and Europe’s own regulations. After the agreement on the convention on cybercrime, which is a clear victory for digital authoritarianism, this mission must be recognized urgently. Freedom, autonomy and self-determination in the digital space must be defended. These values cannot be easily undermined or abandoned for the sake of some kind of agreement. In the digital world of the 21st century, they are the foundation of our democratic and liberal order.
(Editing by Rajnish Singh)
[ad_2]
Source link
