Is the UN Cyber Security Pact Legitimizing Surveillance? 

The United Nations has signed a new Cyber Crime Pact in Hanoi. The pact sounds like a landmark step towards a safer internet. But haven’t we seen too many of these pacts signed under the UN’s leadership with no results? One reckons that the same is the case with this cybersecurity pact. 

When a treaty addressing “illegal access to computer systems” is signed in Vietnam, a country notorious for repressing online expression, it is hard not to question the intent of the treaty. Many countries have been pushing for an “Information Security” framework that allows government oversight over individual rights. 

What was meant to protect the network from criminals is now being used to legitimise surveillance. Instead of defending digital freedom, the treaty risks turning cybersecurity into a global permission slip for repression. 

The Vague Definition of “Cyber Crime”

On the face of it, the treaty sounds like it’s fighting the hacker, but the language is broad enough that it can be used to silence anyone. Words that aren’t really defined with a boundary, such as “Illegal Access” and “Cyber Fraud”, could allow the governments to label activists, journalists, and even cybersecurity experts as criminals. 

Countries like Russia and China already use similar laws to go after people who criticise the state, calling them cyber-criminals. This treaty gives this behaviour an internal clean chit. The agreement effectively internationalizes repressive domestic models already seen in China’s “Great Firewall” and Russia’s “Sovereign Internet.” 

Rather than setting a global standard for freedom and safety online, the UN (as always) has facilitated a legal framework for justifying surveillance, silencing dissent, and consolidating digital authoritarianism under the cover of vague definitions and subjective interpretation.  

What About Ethical Hacking? 

The pact and its broad definition of things could turn the cybersecurity experts into criminals. These “Ethical  Hackers” report and curb security threats before bad actors can exploit them. But they often have to do so without permission, given the time-sensitive nature of digital warfare. Which means, under the new treaty, if an ethical hacker uncovers government system flaws, he could be branded as a criminal or spy. 

Instead of helping security, the treaty might scare experts into silence, leaving real vulnerabilities unfixed. The treaty exposes a fundamental contradiction at the heart of global cyber security governance: protecting systems requires exploration, but exploration can now be criminalized.

USA’s “Wavering” Support

Washington, despite supporting the pact in general and applauding the intent behind it, has been a little unsure about joining in. It has been critical of its definitions and terminology since last year, labeling it well-intentioned but problematic. 

The treaty actually clashes with American First Amendment rights that gives a legal cover to free speech and whistleblowers. The treaty’s vague definitions and rules may make normal U.S. practices an act of crime in other countries. By staying on the sidelines, America admits that the treaty needs some serious alterations. 

The UN cybercrime treaty marks a victory for digital authoritarianism, using vague laws and weak safeguards to turn cybersecurity into a pretext for surveillance and repression. Instead of protecting users, it legitimizes state control over the digital space in the name of global security.