Who's in charge here?
On Vietnam, international crime, and the hazards of putting "human rights" on trial
Five dozen countries are expected to sign the U.N. Cybercrime Convention this weekend in, of all places, Vietnam. The UN says it includes “human rights safeguards”. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord, whose signatories form a real who’s who among tech companies, has protested that the safeguards aren’t good enough. Many of those tech companies have undermined their own public goodwill through the reckless embrace of artificial intelligence models that put the public interest far too low on the priority list.
■ But the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which may be characterized as more of an honest broker, warned plainly that “By permitting broad international cooperation in surveillance for any crime deemed ‘serious’ under national laws -- defined as offenses punishable by at least four years of imprisonment -- and without adequate robust safeguards, the draft convention risks being exploited by governments to suppress dissent and target marginalized communities.”
■ The situation highlights two important points that exist in an uneasy tension with one another. There is a reasonably clear need for international coordination to check the sinister deployment of digital tools to exploit others. The Internet makes many problems into global problems, and responding appropriately takes constructive cooperation across national borders.
■ But at the same time, the United Nations is profoundly ill-structured to respond to the nuances of managing cybercrime within the context of real security for human rights. If the definition of “crime” is left solely to individual countries, then little protection remains for those individuals who might try to exercise resistance to an oppressive government. If simple dissent can be labeled illegal, then what good is the law except as just another tool of oppression?
