One thing is clear, anything the UN is involved in turns bad, given its agenda for the creation of a one world government, and the lust for power. Thus, the UN cybercrime treaty should be a way of controlling cybercrime, such as digital criminal activities like ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, and the exploitation of children online, if it was anything at all.
However, it has evolved into a battle between the US on the one hand, and Russia and communist China and Iran on the other. Russia, China and Iran want to extend the scope of the concept of cybercrime: “You could end up in a situation where a treaty intended to boost global cooperation on cybercrime becomes a means for authoritarian states to surveil their populations, access and share personal data of their citizens, and criminalize online content and behaviors they don’t like,” said Megan Roberts, interim managing director of the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the German Marshall Fund think tank.”
I do not doubt that the Biden regime would also be pleased, perhaps in secret, to have the UN go in this direction as well, which is certainly consistent with its New World Order goals. Some of the things set to come include:
▪️ Restriction of free speech globally
▪️ Criminalising protected speech
▪️ Mandates governments to authorise “special spying” techniques
▪️ Turns protest & questioning into terrorism
▪️ Allows government to listen in on all devices.
These are just the sorts of measures we are also seeing in the West.
“Negotiations over a U.N. cybercrime treaty have evolved into a diplomatic proxy war between democracies and their authoritarian rivals over competing future visions of the internet, technology, and human rights in the digital age, pitting the United States and its allies yet again against Russia and China at the United Nations.
Over the past 10 days, delegates from around the world have convened at the United Nations headquarters in New York for a sixth round of negotiations on the draft text of a first-ever U.N. convention combating cybercrime.
The aim of the treaty, at least on paper, is to make it easier for countries to share information on the astronomical rise of digital criminal activities like ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, and the exploitation of children online. A bulk of countries involved in the negotiations are hard at work in marathon closed-door negotiating sessions to do just that, according to diplomats and experts tracking the negotiations.
But a group of authoritarian governments is seeking to advance its own agenda through the U.N. treaty—and the consequences could be dire if it is successful.
The treaty, Western officials, experts, and human rights advocates say, could be used as a pretext to extend state repression into the digital realm—if autocratic governments in Russia, China, Iran, and elsewhere have their way on the final text. One risk is that the treaty could expand the scope of cybercrimes and allow states to crack down on political dissent, free media, or online content in general.
“You could end up in a situation where a treaty intended to boost global cooperation on cybercrime becomes a means for authoritarian states to surveil their populations, access and share personal data of their citizens, and criminalize online content and behaviors they don’t like,” said Megan Roberts, interim managing director of the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the German Marshall Fund think tank.
The treaty, and its evolution, is steeped in arcane U.N. processes and technocratic language: The formal name for the negotiation rounds is the “Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes.” Negotiators are fighting over a 72-page document, with tracked changes from countries suggesting different words, phrases, and priorities.
But how these negotiations play out will determine whether the axes of democracies or autocracies will win out in their vision of global governance in the digital age.
A U.N. treaty, even if not every country in the world signs on, would set a major marker for how national governments and regional blocs could establish their own practices on cybercrime and digital rights in the future. “The top-level thing is just to remember that a treaty is still a massive signaling force,” said Raman Jit Singh Chima, senior international counsel and Asia Pacific policy director at the digital rights group Access Now. “Even if the implementation can be spotty, it’s going to have a massive impact on the design of cybercrime laws for the next 20, 30 years.”
Get the treaty right, experts argue, and it could help countries go after cybercriminal networks much more efficiently, while also setting the standard for future international agreements on cyber issues without eroding human rights. Get it wrong, however, and it could be a major win for autocratic regimes looking to normalize and justify their repression on the net.
“Imagine a lot of cross-border geopolitical surveillance,” said Katitza Rodríguez of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights advocacy group. The problem, Rodríguez said, is the potential for collaboration between authoritarian regimes. “You’re legitimizing their activities by providing these powers [a way] to be legitimized under a U.N. umbrella treaty.””