Cisco recently expressed reservations about the UN Convention Against Cybercrime, questioning its effectiveness in strengthening global cybersecurity law enforcement while also protecting fundamental rights and values. The convention was established in response to the increasing threat of cybercrime, with criminal organizations using sophisticated technology to operate across borders. This rise in cyberattacks has pushed law enforcement agencies to enhance their capabilities to prevent, investigate, and prosecute these crimes, all while upholding human rights.
In a blog article, Cisco highlighted concerns about the Convention’s broad approach in addressing the misuse of computer networks to disseminate objectionable information. The company argued that this approach might conflict with the values of free speech in liberal democracies and suggested that amendments should be made before member states adopt the Convention.
While acknowledging the importance of enabling governments, law enforcement, and security officials to combat crime and terrorism, Cisco emphasized the need to maintain a balance with shared values and commitments to human rights and the rule of law. Eric Wenger, Senior Director of Technology Policy at Cisco, recommended aligning the UN Convention more closely with the Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty, also known as the Budapest Convention, which has been in place for over two decades and strikes a careful balance between competing interests.
Wenger emphasized that the UN Convention’s capacity-building efforts are a positive step in combating cybercrime but cautioned against using it as a substitute for comprehensive reforms. He urged for a careful revision of the Convention’s text to align with the Budapest Convention’s principles and ensure it does not jeopardize the rights and freedoms crucial to democratic societies. Cisco expressed willingness to collaborate with governments to address these challenges and find a solution that balances effective cross-border cooperation with the protection of human rights and due process.
During the formation of the treaty, the European and United States governments raised objections due to initial leadership by the Russian government. Human Rights Watch (HRW) also criticized the UN Convention Against Cybercrime, labeling it as a tool for surveillance and a threat to human rights. The success of global efforts to combat cybercrime, including the UN Convention Against Cybercrime, will depend on striking a delicate balance between security, transparency, and human rights standards.
In conclusion, Cisco’s concerns about the UN Convention Against Cybercrime highlight the importance of balancing cybersecurity law enforcement with the protection of fundamental rights and values. Collaboration between stakeholders is essential to address these challenges and ensure that international efforts to combat cybercrime uphold human rights and due process. It remains to be seen how the Convention will evolve and whether amendments will be made to address the concerns raised by organizations like Cisco.