Re: [hrpc] ***SPAM**** Re: Censorship

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 3/15/22 2:57 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 15.03.22 15:50, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>>
>>  * Provoking Russia on national security and it will have 
>> ramifications at the UN on the cybercrime treaty and any future hope 
>> of a cybersecurity treaty, 
>
> This in and of itself is worthy of discussion.  Is the UN the right 
> venue for such a treaty?  What do we envision the teeth in such a 
> treaty would be?  I have seen argument out of Sec. Blinken and his 
> State Department that there is room for either direction.
>
We have already the Budapest Convention from the EC but it is old (22 
years!) and has not-so-great bits (intellectual property gets 
disproportionate treatment, etc). Cybercrime treaties are easier to 
create and "enforce" than cybersecurity because their teeth are almost 
all incentives, not punishments. Those incentives are expanded 
jurisdiction and increased cooperation between law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies.

The best we can do in the public interest is limit scope and mandate as 
much as possible or else 'every crime in the digital age is a 
cybercrime'. Civil society has consistently held the line that 
cybercrime must not touch content issues and rather focus on 
core-cybercrimes and it undermines our efforts when there is discord 
about what where content issues are handled, how, and by whom. For 
example, if a cybercrime treaty MUST NOT deal with issues like hate 
speech and incitement to violence because those are already covered by 
other treaty mechanisms and have nothing at their core to do with the 
internet, then we ought not to be seen recommending that we mitigate 
them with internet-specific mechanisms.

Rather than "let god sort them out", can we start saying "let the 
content layer sort them out".

-Mallory

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780