Biden Administration to support the UN convention against cybercrime sponsored by autocratic nations

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,706   +499
Staff
A hot potato: A controversial proposal to strengthen international cooperation against cybercrime has gained US support. The Biden Administration is interested in signing the treaty, while politicians are still warning about its potential for misuse and human rights abuse.

Senior US government officials have confirmed that the Biden Administration is ready to support a United Nations treaty on cybercrime. The legally binding agreement would be a first and could help shape the UN's future legal initiatives and cooperation in fighting and investigating cyber threats.

The treaty pushes for a global criminalization of child sexual abuse material and non-consensual online sharing of intimate imagery. Officials said that the treaty could also help the United States gain more comprehensive access to cybercrime-related digital evidence, while novel extradition rules would help with arrests and investigations.

The US, Europe, and other nations initially opposed the treaty. According to an Electronic Frontier Foundation timeline, the Russian Federation presented a letter with the original draft in 2017. The resolution asking for a new international treaty against cybercrime was also sponsored by Belarus, Cambodia, China, Iran, Syria, and other "rogue nations" with no particular interest in defending people's rights to fair and impartial trials.

Human rights organizations opposed the draft, urging the UN General Assembly to vote against the resolution. Yet, the ruling body created an Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) to draft a new convention to fight the use of communication technologies for criminal purposes, which seemed more palatable.

Earlier this year, the AHC reached an agreement on the new draft, which is now awaiting formal adoption. The treaty will likely pass a General Assembly vote. However, human rights advocates and NGOs still describe the convention as a severe threat to privacy, security, freedom of expression, and AI safety.

A recent letter by six US Democratic senators said that Russia, China, and other authoritarian regimes could exploit the treaty to increase their censorship efforts, infringe online privacy, and abuse human rights. Washington said that it would enforce safeguards against human rights abuses, with the Department of Justice refusing cooperation in blatantly abuse attempts.

"While the executive branch's efforts to steer this treaty in a less-harmful direction are commendable, more must be done to keep the convention from being used to justify such actions," the Democrats' letter said.

Unnamed officials told Bloomberg that the Biden Administration would not support any UN resolution if it did not implement proper safeguards in the new treaty.

Permalink to story:

 
Convention. It better be just a beginning of something bigger. Something like practical sanctions against countries who sponsor or even openly create "firms" who involve into this business (looking at you Russia).
 
Convention. It better be just a beginning of something bigger. Something like practical sanctions against countries who sponsor or even openly create "firms" who involve into this business (looking at you Russia).
Given that this convention was originally created by Russia, I think it would be best to scrap it, and start up some new agreement from scratch on this issue.
 
A high-quality law is simple, easy to understand, general, and nondiscriminatory, safeguarding fundamental human rights. Conversely, a low-quality law tends to be specialized, catering to specific groups such as blacks, whites, the wealthy, the impoverished, children, women, adults, internet users, non-internet users, animals, etc. The law should be neutral and protect humanity in general, not just specific likenesses or individuals.
 
"Washington said that it would enforce safeguards against human rights abuses, with the Department of Justice refusing cooperation in blatantly abuse attempts."

that's rich coming from Biden's admin autocratic tendencies to force social media companies to censor or basically delete people's VOICES on them (twitter, facebook, etc.) during the plandemic.
 
This reminds me about how Saudi Arabia was put in charge of the human rights tribunal for the UN. Absolute clown world.
"Washington said that it would enforce safeguards against human rights abuses, with the Department of Justice refusing cooperation in blatantly abuse attempts."

that's rich coming from Biden's admin autocratic tendencies to force social media companies to censor or basically delete people's VOICES on them (twitter, facebook, etc.) during the plandemic.
Given what passes as "human rights abuses" these days, this is royally ripe for abuse. Look at australia. It is now law there that if you are in a relationship with a woman and you criticize her, that is "establishing abusive control" and will land you a year in jail. Or look at the UN, which is actively trying to censor anime in japan because they claim its abusive to women simply by existing. That's the kind of nonsense this will lead to.
 
"Washington said that it would enforce safeguards against human rights abuses, with the Department of Justice refusing cooperation in blatantly abuse attempts."

that's rich coming from Biden's admin autocratic tendencies to force social media companies to censor or basically delete people's VOICES on them (twitter, facebook, etc.) during the plandemic.
I smell a rabbit hole around here...
 
Look at australia. It is now law there that if you are in a relationship with a woman and you criticize her, that is "establishing abusive control" and will land you a year in jail.

I'm in oz. What state? Or is it national?

I don't believe it. Then most women would be in jail over their mind control games.
 
Freedom, rights and privacy will not be the same in the future. These will be privileges if you comply with the UN's Agenda. Think Bilderberg Group as well.
 
Freedom, rights and privacy will not be the same in the future. These will be privileges if you comply with the UN's Agenda. Think Bilderberg Group as well.
There is no nefarious UN agenda. Like any governing body, its "agenda" is an aggregation of all its members' individual agendas (similar to the concept of the resultant force in physics). That's why cooperation and diplomacy are crucial to everyone's wellbeing.

The social contract always has and always will involve compromising or curtailing some freedoms for the greater good (e.g., screaming "Fire!!!" when there is none in a venue full of people).

It is a give-and-take, and those not benefitting from certain governing actions will almost always oppose said actions, while those benefitting from said actions will usually support them.

Oftentimes, as participants in human society, we face choices we don't like, in which case we must choose the least of all said evils. It's called living in the real world. Overall, the UN has had, and continues to have, a positive impact on the world.
 
Back