Surveillance worldwide: German government approves UN Cybercrime Convention

The decision in the Federal Cabinet was made on Wednesday without much fanfare, but its implications for data protection and the global human rights situation are significant. The German government has officially given the green light for the signing of the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, which has been controversial for years. Germany thus commits to a framework intended to elevate international cooperation in combating IT offenses to a new level.

At its core, Berlin is focused on an improved exchange of electronic evidence (E-Evidence) to enable faster cross-border action in serious criminal offenses. However, what sounds technically sensible is viewed by civil society organizations as a Trojan horse in terms of security policy.

Back in October, at the signing ceremony in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi, civil rights organizations sounded the alarm. Their concern is with the first global agreement of its kind, operating under the acronym UNCC (United Nations Convention against Cybercrime). They see it less as an instrument for greater cybersecurity and more as a legal framework that facilitates cross-border human rights violations through cooperation obligations. The international community emphasizes the need to get a grip on organized crime online. NGOs, however, are demanding an end to the ratification process or at least improvements to safeguard fundamental rights.

Between Diplomacy and Data Protection Concerns

The Federal Ministry of Justice defends the participation. A spokesperson told heise online that Germany, together with the EU and other like-minded states, had strongly advocated for the guarantee of human rights standards and corresponding safeguards. “Appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure these in criminal prosecution and international cooperation.” In particular, there are specific grounds for refusal within the framework of cooperation if standards are not met. The federal government remains committed to this human rights approach in the future.

Nevertheless, criticism is primarily directed at the almost boundless scope of the UN Convention. It is not limited to classic cyberattacks such as cracking databases or disabling critical infrastructure. Instead, it obliges participants to comprehensive electronic surveillance and cooperation in a variety of offenses that often have no direct relation to information systems. Any offense that can be punished with at least four years of imprisonment under national law is classified as a serious criminal offense.

An Inheritance from Russia and China

This vague definition opens the door for abuse. What is considered legitimate protest or investigative journalism in a democracy can be interpreted as a serious criminal offense in authoritarian regimes. Activists fear that the convention will be reinterpreted to criminalize government critics and whistleblowers. As the agreement calls on governments to collect digital evidence without adequate safeguards and share it with foreign authorities, the trust in secure communication is at risk of being undermined. Critics also warn of the criminalization of vulnerable groups in repressive states.

The treaty originated from an initiative by Russia and China. That Western states are now supporting it is seen by civil rights advocates as a fatal course-setting. The Ministry of Justice, on the other hand, points to the formal nature of the current decision: it is “a usual preparatory step for the signing of an international agreement.” The actual ratification will follow later.

(wpl)