Globalüberwachung

Die deutschen Reaktionen auf die Verabschiedung der Cybercrime Convention sind nicht sehr (Das ist aber keine gute Sache.) positiv (Das ist eine absolute Katastrophe.), und auch in Kanada hat Cory Doctorow gewisse Bedenken:

The treaty has an extremely loose definition of cybercrime, and that looseness is deliberate. In authoritarian states like China and Russia (whose delegations are the driving force behind this treaty), cybercrime has come to mean anything the government disfavors, if you do it with a computer. Cybercrime can mean online criticism of the government, or professions of religious belief, or material supporting LGBTQ rights.

Nations that sign up to the Cybercrime Treaty will be obliged to help other nations fight cybercrime – however those nations define it. They’ll be required to provide surveillance data – for example, by forcing online services within their borders to cough up their users’ private data, or even to pressure employees to install backdoors in their systems for ongoing monitoring.

These obligations to aid in surveillance are mandatory, but much of the Cybercrime Treaty is optional. What’s optional? The human rights safeguards. Member states should or may create standards for legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and legitimate purpose. But even if they do, the treaty can oblige them to assist in surveillance orders that originate with other states that decided not to create these standards.