The UN is moving to fight cybercrime but privacy groups say human rights will be violated

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A global deal on the criminal use of computer technology is moving ahead despite worries it will let governments around the world violate human rights by probing electronic communications and bypassing privacy safeguards.

Nearly 200 nations approved the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime on Thursday afternoon at a special committee meeting that capped months of complicated negotiations. The treaty — expected to win General Assembly approval within months — creates a framework for nations to cooperate against internet-related crimes including the illegal access and interception of computer information; electronic eavesdropping and online child sex abuse.

Like outer space or even some parts of the deep sea, cyberspace is a relatively new area for regular human activity and many governments and businesses are rushing to keep up.

The convention expected at the General Assembly later this year began with a Russian initiative several years ago and critics said they can see those Russian origins in much of the treaty’s oppression-friendly language. Libertarians and business groups who objected to the treaty helped pack the conference room where it was negotiated.

Many cited examples of probable downsides like the case against Rappler, an online Philippine news outlet that angered former President Rodrigo Duterte by reporting critically on his deadly crackdown on illegal drugs and alarming human rights record. Founded by 2021 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner Maria Ressa, libertarians said the site is the type that will become vulnerable around the world thanks to the new treaty but advocates including the Biden administration said the deal reflects the interests of the U.S. and its allies.

It balances privacy concerns with the need for every country to pursue criminal activity around the world, the Biden administration said.

“We see this convention as a means to expand global law-enforcement cooperation,” a senior U.S. administration official familiar with the negotiation process told reporters on Friday. The official said that the U.N. negotiation process had allowed essential improvements in the treaty.

“We sought to find — to achieve — a balance, and we felt that we got to a balance between authorities for law enforcement and human rights,” the official said.

Other participants in the negotiation process praised the deal’s approval by consensus after more than five years of discussions that were marked by disagreements between countries over whether the convention would be relatively liberal, or contain the tougher language requested by countries like Iran. Business groups particularly called the treaty overly vague and open to abuse.

Along with representatives of nearly 200 nations, negotiations on the convention included Amazon, Microsoft, the International Chamber of Commerce, the United States Council for International Business and other groups that see the deal as cover for countries to intrude into private enterprise.

“The deal allows two countries to cooperate on any serious crime with a tech link,” said Nick Ashton-Hart, spokesman for the Cybersecurity Tech Accord, a group of 158 technology companies.

The United Nations label attached to the convention could provide cover for repressive countries that want to go after people who use the internet in ways they dislike, according to private companies, international civil rights groups and electronic freedom advocates.

“I think it’s a blank check for abuse because it has a very broad scope for domestic and cross-border spying and surveillance and a lack of robust checks and balances,” said Katitza Rodríguez, the policy director for global privacy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The text of the 39-page U.N. convention opens with a portrait of a world in which communications technology can amplify the scale, speed and scope of “terrorism and transnational organized crime,” including trafficking weapons, arms, people and illicit goods. It calls for “a global criminal justice policy aimed at the protection of society against cybercrime.”

It bars, among other things, electronic eavesdropping or hacking without government permission. That language — “without right” — was one of multiple points that rights advocates tried to remove during negotiations, arguing that they gave governments too much power to determine which systems are closed.

Once approved by the General Assembly, the treaty becomes law upon the approval of 40 nations.

The final result doesn’t create more online safety and will be used to justify repression, Ashton-Hart said.

“It’s going to happen more now because now countries that want to do this can point to a U.N. treaty to justify cooperating on repression,” he said.