EFF's Concerns About the UN Cybercrime Treaty
The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticizes the proposed UN Cybercrime Convention for vague definitions that may criminalize legitimate activities, allowing extensive surveillance with weak safeguards, risking human rights violations, especially for marginalized groups.
Read original article
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has raised significant concerns regarding the proposed UN Cybercrime Convention, which it views as a potential tool for extensive surveillance and human rights abuses. The draft convention mandates cooperation among states in cybercrime investigations, allowing for the collection and sharing of electronic evidence with minimal human rights protections. EFF argues that the broad definition of cybercrime could criminalize legitimate activities, such as online expression and support for marginalized communities. The draft's expansive scope includes provisions that could lead to over-criminalization and invasive surveillance practices, undermining protections for freedom of expression and privacy. EFF emphasizes the need for clear definitions of cybercrime, limited evidence-gathering powers, and robust human rights safeguards, including judicial oversight and transparency in surveillance activities. The organization also highlights the risks posed to vulnerable groups, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals, due to the potential misuse of the convention's provisions. EFF calls for revisions to ensure that the treaty does not facilitate state abuse or transnational repression and that it protects the rights of individuals engaged in legitimate activities, such as security research and journalism.
- EFF criticizes the UN Cybercrime Convention for its broad and vague definitions that could criminalize legitimate activities.
- The draft allows extensive surveillance with weak safeguards, raising concerns about human rights violations.
- EFF urges for clear definitions of cybercrime and limitations on evidence-gathering powers to prevent abuse.
- The convention poses specific risks to marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals, due to potential misuse.
- EFF advocates for robust human rights protections and judicial oversight in any surveillance measures.
Related
EU cancels vote on private chat app law amid encryption concerns
The European Union cancels vote on law targeting child sexual abuse material over encryption concerns. Proposed measures involve scanning images on messaging apps, sparking privacy debates among member states. Negotiations ongoing.
EFF Statement on Assange Plea Deal
The Electronic Frontier Foundation expresses concern over Julian Assange's Espionage Act conviction, highlighting threats to press freedom. EFF urges safeguarding journalistic activities and preventing similar incidents.
An open letter to the United Nations
An open letter to the United Nations expresses concerns over potential regulations threatening the decentralized nature of the Internet. Signatories, including Tim Berners-Lee, advocate for maintaining the collaborative, multistakeholder model. They caution against centralized governance.
Hate the Proposed UN Cybercrime Treaty
The proposed UN Cybercrime Treaty, backed by Russia, aims to enhance international cooperation but raises concerns over civil liberties, surveillance, and potential repression, prompting criticism from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Fair Use May Be Narrowed to Serve Hollywood Profits
The D.C. Circuit Court upheld Section 1201 of the DMCA, limiting fair use and raising concerns about corporate favoritism and government overreach, while the EFF plans to advocate for individual rights.
- Many commenters express skepticism about the treaty's potential to empower those in power while undermining accountability and safety for individuals.
- There are concerns about the vague definitions in the treaty that could lead to increased surveillance and potential human rights violations.
- Some commenters highlight the historical context of international agreements and their implications for local laws and democracy.
- Critics argue that the treaty may prioritize censorship over effectively addressing cybercrime.
- Questions arise about the legitimacy of the treaty's origins, particularly its initiation by Russia.
15 comments When I was at EFF, we did try to get UN official accreditation, but China would consistently veto it.. I was EFF's international activist and later international director for a number of years.. more of the work than you'd imagine has a global side to it. This has been true since the days of [DMCA].. elements of which were rejected by the US Congress in the mid-Nineties, then policy-laundered through WIPO into the 1996 Copyright Treaty, which meant that it had to become law after the US Senate consented to it in 1999. (Treaties don't need the support of both houses in the US). EFF and other orgs at the time learned the lesson that regional and international agreements can often be an end-run around local democracy or norms -- and that local laws (from the DMCA to the GDPR) can have wider ramifications on a global network..
EFF and partner groups often contribute to government and international proposals (a hundred-or-so of them have been involved in the cybercrime treaty process for many years [1] and I believe got it to a fairly good place before a last-minute push by some states to introduce more surveillance into it.)
Earlier HN threads:
UN Cybercrime Convention To Overrule Bank Secrecy, 40 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41221403
UN cybercrime treaty unanimously approved, 50 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210110
Of course, if all the other monkeys get wise to your game you're going to have to institute more violent measures to retain your position, and mass surveillance is a means to that end. Which is why the Saudis buy all that Israeli spyware, to keep their own population in line, right?
Private, remote communication was not a thing until a couple of decades ago: how can we consider it a basic human right?
Why is it back on the front page and posted "5 hours ago"? I'm not implying underhandedness or anything but I'd like to know why this happens. Anyone know?
These are the comments it got at the time:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210091
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41210379
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41212594
I would understand if this was coming from the states but why is the UN even considering such a proposal coming from Russia?
Related
EU cancels vote on private chat app law amid encryption concerns
The European Union cancels vote on law targeting child sexual abuse material over encryption concerns. Proposed measures involve scanning images on messaging apps, sparking privacy debates among member states. Negotiations ongoing.
EFF Statement on Assange Plea Deal
The Electronic Frontier Foundation expresses concern over Julian Assange's Espionage Act conviction, highlighting threats to press freedom. EFF urges safeguarding journalistic activities and preventing similar incidents.
An open letter to the United Nations
An open letter to the United Nations expresses concerns over potential regulations threatening the decentralized nature of the Internet. Signatories, including Tim Berners-Lee, advocate for maintaining the collaborative, multistakeholder model. They caution against centralized governance.
Hate the Proposed UN Cybercrime Treaty
The proposed UN Cybercrime Treaty, backed by Russia, aims to enhance international cooperation but raises concerns over civil liberties, surveillance, and potential repression, prompting criticism from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Fair Use May Be Narrowed to Serve Hollywood Profits
The D.C. Circuit Court upheld Section 1201 of the DMCA, limiting fair use and raising concerns about corporate favoritism and government overreach, while the EFF plans to advocate for individual rights.