A panel discussion at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) raised serious concerns over the UN Cybercrime Treaty and its potential to undermine human rights. Experts from organisations such as Human Rights Watch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation criticised the treaty’s broad scope and lack of clear safeguards for individual freedoms. They warned that the treaty’s vague language, particularly around what constitutes a ‘serious crime,’ could empower authoritarian regimes to exploit its provisions for surveillance and repress dissent.
Speakers such as Joey Shea from Human Rights Watch and Lina al-Hathloul, a Saudi human rights defender, pointed out the risks posed by the treaty’s expansive investigative powers, which extend beyond cybercrimes to any crimes defined by domestic law. Flexibility like this one could force countries to assist in prosecuting acts that are not crimes within their own borders. They also highlighted the treaty’s weak privacy protections, which could jeopardise encryption standards and further harm cybersecurity researchers.
Deborah Brown from Human Rights Watch and Veridiana Alimonti of the Electronic Frontier Foundation shared examples from Saudi Arabia and Latin America, where existing cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws have already been used to target journalists and activists. The panelists expressed concern that the treaty could exacerbate these abuses globally, especially for cybersecurity professionals and civil society.
Fionnuala Ni Aolain, a former UN Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, emphasised that the treaty’s provisions could lead to criminalising the vital work of cybersecurity researchers. She joined other experts in urging policymakers and industry leaders to resist ratification in its current form. They called for upcoming protocol negotiations to address these human rights gaps and for greater involvement of civil society voices to prevent the treaty from becoming a tool for transnational repression.
