UN Cybercrime Convention: A blueprint for human rights violations

ARTICLE 19 is seriously concerned about the Draft of the UN Convention on Cybercrime (the Draft Convention), which is pending formal adoption by the UN General Assembly later in 2024. It does not provide for adequate human rights safeguards and provides states with the language to reconfigure sovereign controls over a global and open internet and enables them to use these controls to violate the rights of their citizens. ARTICLE 19 urges UN member states to not sign and ratify this Convention or use it as a template for designing domestic cybercrime legislation.

While we agree that addressing cybercrime is important, we warn that the Draft Convention does little to actually prevent or deter transnational cybercrime. Instead, it retains several provisions that enable or legitimise the violation of international human rights law both through domestic legislation and international cooperation without the provision of adequate human rights safeguards.

Our comprehensive analysis reveals critical issues that could undermine human rights protections and cybersecurity globally. In particular, we highlight the following concerns:

• Insufficient human rights safeguards: The Draft Convention lacks robust protections for fundamental rights across its provisions, potentially enabling rights violations under the guise of cybercrime prevention.
• Overly broad scope: While several cyber-enabled crimes were removed during the negotiation process, a broadly-worded preamble clause combined with a future General Assembly Resolution could enable their reintroduction through a 'back door'.
• Threats to security research: Several provisions of the Draft Convention serve as barriers for legitimate security researchers and security research, thus undermining cybersecurity and privacy worldwide.
• Expansive surveillance powers: The Draft Convention enables intrusive surveillance measures without adequate judicial oversight or checks and balances.
• Problematic cross-border cooperation: The Draft Convention allows for extensive data sharing between countries with potentially incompatible human rights standards, lacking sufficient safeguards.
• Lack of provisions ongovernment accountability: Multiple provisions of the Draft Convention shield state actions from scrutiny, making it difficult for individuals to challenge potential rights violations.
• Finally, the Draft Convention legitimises and encourages the 'establishment of jurisdiction' through a range of sovereign controls that violate human rights.

ARTICLE 19 strongly urges UN member states to refrain from signing or ratifying this Convention or using it as a template for designing domestic cybercrime legislation.

Read our full analysis to understand the far-reaching implications of this proposed convention and why it demands urgent attention from policymakers, civil society, and the global public.

Read the full analysis