DOCSLIB.ORG

A/74/130 General Assembly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A/74/130 General Assembly United Nations A/74/130 General Assembly Distr.: General 30 July 2019 Original: English Seventy-fourth session Item 109 of the provisional agenda* Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report has been prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 73/187, entitled “Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes”. In that resolution, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the challenges that they faced in countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes and to present a report based on those views for consideration by the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session. The report contains information on the views of Member States submitted pursuant to the aforementioned resolution. __________________ * A/74/150. V.19-08182 (E) 190819 200819 *1908182* A/74/130 Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 4 II. Replies received from Governments ............................................... 4 Argentina ..................................................................... 4 Armenia ...................................................................... 6 Australia ..................................................................... 8 Austria ....................................................................... 10 Belarus ....................................................................... 11 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) ................................................... 12 Botswana ..................................................................... 14 Brazil ........................................................................ 15 Canada ....................................................................... 16 China ........................................................................ 18 Colombia ..................................................................... 19 Costa Rica .................................................................... 20 Czechia ...................................................................... 22 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea ............................................ 23 El Salvador ................................................................... 23 Estonia ....................................................................... 24 France ....................................................................... 25 Georgia ...................................................................... 26 Germany ..................................................................... 27 Ghana ........................................................................ 28 Hungary ...................................................................... 28 India ......................................................................... 30 Iran (Islamic Republic of) ....................................................... 32 Iraq .......................................................................... 33 Ireland ....................................................................... 35 Israel ........................................................................ 36 Italy ......................................................................... 36 Japan ........................................................................ 37 Jordan ....................................................................... 39 Lebanon ...................................................................... 39 Liechtenstein .................................................................. 41 Malaysia ..................................................................... 41 Mongolia ..................................................................... 43 Morocco ..................................................................... 44 Myanmar ..................................................................... 46 2/82 V.19-08182 A/74/130 Netherlands ................................................................... 48 New Zealand .................................................................. 49 Nicaragua .................................................................... 51 Norway ...................................................................... 51 Peru ......................................................................... 52 Philippines .................................................................... 53 Portugal ...................................................................... 55 Qatar ........................................................................ 57 Romania ..................................................................... 57 Russian Federation ............................................................. 59 Saudi Arabia .................................................................. 60 Serbia ........................................................................ 61 Singapore..................................................................... 63 Slovakia ...................................................................... 64 Slovenia ...................................................................... 66 South Africa .................................................................. 66 Spain ........................................................................ 68 Sri Lanka ..................................................................... 70 Switzerland ................................................................... 71 Syrian Arab Republic ........................................................... 72 Tajikistan ..................................................................... 74 Thailand ...................................................................... 74 Turkey ....................................................................... 76 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ............................... 77 United States of America ........................................................ 79 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) ............................................... 81 V.19-08182 3/82 A/74/130 I. Introduction 1. In its resolution 73/187, entitled “Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes”, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the challenges that they faced in countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes and to present a report based on those views for consideration by the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session. 2. Pursuant to that request, in notes verbales CU 2019/55/DTA/OCB/CMLS and CU 2019/90/DTA/OCB/CSS, dated 13 February 2019 and 19 March 2019 respectively, and issued by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Secretariat invited Member States to submit information on the challenges they faced in countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes. The Secretariat informed Member States that the information would be used to prepare the report on the implementation of resolution 73/187, to be presented to the General Assembly for consideration at its seventy-fourth session. The Secretariat noted that national submissions for the purposes of the report should not exceed 1,000 words, excluding the text of any laws or legislation that the Member State might wish to submit. Laws and/or legislation appended to the submission would be made available on the Sharing Electronic Resources and Laws on Crime (SHERLOC) knowledge management portal as an additional information resource. 3. In response to the invitation, the following Member States provided their views: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). 4. Those views are reflected in the summaries prepared by the Secretariat that are presented below. The submissions covered challenges at both the national level and the international level, as well as actions taken to address them at both levels, including in the framework of existing specialized mechanisms. Member States provided information on technical and technology-related challenges and shared their experiences in tackling them. They also highlighted the importance of international cooperation in countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes. II. Replies received from Governments Argentina 5. Argentina noted that the greatest challenges that States faced in countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes included: (a) The scope of international instruments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Convention on Cybercrime
    Convention on Cybercrime Nilupul Gunawardena* November 2018 *Nilupul Gunawardena is a Research Fellow at the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKI). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own views. They are not the institutional views of LKI, and do not necessarily represent or reflect the position of any other institution or individual with which the author is affiliated. Copyright © 2018 Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKI) About the LKI Explainers LKI Explainers examine an agreement or another aspect of Sri Lanka’s international relations. They summarise key points and developments, with up-to-date information, facts, and figures. Terms of use LKI is not responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained herein. The views expressed in a LKI Explainer are those of the author(s). They are not the institutional views of LKI and do not necessarily reflect the position of any other institution or individual with which an author is affiliated. Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKI) 24 Horton Place, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka Email: [email protected] Website: www.lki.lk Contents 1. What are Cybercrimes?.............................................................................................1 2. What is Cybersecurity and why is it important……………………………………………………..1 3. What is the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime?……………………………………………….1 4. What are the key features of the Convention?...........................................................2 5. What are the objectives and priorities of this Convention?.......................................3 6. What are the responsibilities & obligations incumbent upon the State Parties to this Convention?...................................................................................................................4 7. Benefits and drawbacks of the Convention ……………………………………......4 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyberstalking to in Your Area and the People You Care About from Posts How to Stay Safe and Protect and Pictures
    How can I prevent someone from stalking me online? • Be careful what personal information you share online including in email, on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter and chat rooms. It is very easy to glean information about where you live, the places you love to go Cyberstalking to in your area and the people you care about from posts How to stay safe and protect and pictures. • Create a different email account for registering in social yourself online networking sites and other online spaces. It will help avoid spam and your personal email won´t be revealed if the online service doesn't have a good privacy practice. What is cyberstalking? • Do not feel obligated to fill out all fields when registering Cyberstalking includes (repeatedly) sending threats or online or provide identifying information such as birthdates false accusations via email or mobile phone, making and place in required fields. threatening or false posts on websites, stealing a person's • In your online user profile, use a photo that doesn't identity or data or spying and monitoring a person's identify you or your location, so you can't be recognised. computer and internet use. Sometimes the threats can escalate into physical spaces. • Consider using a name that is not your real name or a nickname as your email name, screen name or user ID. And There are just as many predators on the internet as there try not to use common dates such as your birthday as the are in real life. Anyone can be stalked online but the digits in your email name or password.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Localization the Unintended Consequences of Privacy Litigation
    American University Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 3 Article 6 2018 Data Localization The ninU tended Consequences Of Privacy Litigation H Jacqueline Brehmer American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Brehmer, H Jacqueline (2018) "Data Localization The ninU tended Consequences Of Privacy Litigation," American University Law Review: Vol. 67 : Iss. 3 , Article 6. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol67/iss3/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Data Localization The ninU tended Consequences Of Privacy Litigation Keywords cybersecurity threats, data localization, data privacy, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Microsoft Ireland This comment is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol67/iss3/6 NOTE DATA LOCALIZATION: THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PRIVACY LITIGATION H JACQUELINE BREHMER* This Note addresses a key unintended consequence of recent data privacy litigation before the European Court of Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court. Two cases—Data Protection Commissioner v. Schrems and United States v. Microsoft Corp.—contravene the principles upon which the internet was founded by removing legal and scalable mechanisms for cross-border data transfers. While these cases do not directly create data localization regimes, they highlight the irreconcilably different approaches to data privacy held by the United States and the European Union and eliminate valid options for transfer such that localization is the only remaining scalable solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 97 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2007 At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W. Brenner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Susan W. Brenner, At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 379 (2006-2007) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9702-0379 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 97. No. 2 Copyright 0 2007 by NorthwesternUniversity. Schoolof Low Printedin U.S.A. "AT LIGHT SPEED": ATTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE TO CYBERCRIME/TERRORISM/WARFARE SUSAN W. BRENNER* This Article explains why and how computer technology complicates the related processes of identifying internal (crime and terrorism) and external (war) threats to social order of respondingto those threats. First, it divides the process-attribution-intotwo categories: what-attribution (what kind of attack is this?) and who-attribution (who is responsiblefor this attack?). Then, it analyzes, in detail, how and why our adversaries' use of computer technology blurs the distinctions between what is now cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyberwarfare. The Article goes on to analyze how and why computer technology and the blurring of these distinctions erode our ability to mount an effective response to threats of either type.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Governance Forum – Nairobi, Kenya, 27-30 September 2011
    Global Project on Cybercrime The cybercrime legislation of Commonwealth States: Use of the Budapest Convention and Commonwealth Model Law Council of Europe contribution to the Commonwealth Working Group on Cybercrime Data Protection and Cybercrime Division Strasbourg, 27 February 2013 www.coe.int/cybercrime Global Project Commonwealth Cybercrime Legislation Page 2 Project funded by Estonia, Japan, Monaco, Romania, United Kingdom, Microsoft and the Council of Europe Contact Disclaimer For further information please contact: This technical report does not necessarily reflect official positions of the Council of Europe or of Data Protection and Cybercrime Division the donors funding this project or of the parties Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law to treaties referred to. Council of Europe Strasbourg, France Tel +33-3-8841-2103 Fax +33-3-9021-5650 Email: [email protected] Global Project Commonwealth Cybercrime Legislation Page 3 Contents 1 Background ______________________________________________________________ 9 1.1 Commonwealth Secretariat Mandate on Cybercrime __________________________________ 9 1.2 Purpose of the report _________________________________________________________ 10 1.3 Sources of information ________________________________________________________ 12 1.3.1 Documents submitted to the Cybercrime Working Group ___________________________ 12 1.3.2 Council of Europe activities carried out under different projects (www.coe.int/cybercrime) _ 12 2 Budapest Convention/Commonwealth Model Law: Overview
    [Show full text]
  • The Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime Was Opened For
    The Budapest’s Convention as a guarantee limit against cybercrime By Eleni D. Chrysopoulou J.D., Department of Law, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece, B.Sc., M.Sc., Department of Applied Informatics, University of Macedonia, Greece. 1. Introduction The vertiginous growth of the Internet has dramatically changed the way entities interact. Cyberspace enables people to share ideas over great distances and engage in the creation of an entirely new, diverse and chaotic democracy, free from geographic and physical constraints [Aldesco I.A., 2002]. The rapid progress of information technology has achieved significant advances in processing and transmitting data through use of computers and computer networks resulting in substantial benefits to society, including the ability to communicate with others real-time, access a library of information and transmit data instantly [Hopkins L.S., 2003]. The dark side of the above phenomenon is the fostering of new kinds of crimes, additional means to commit existing crimes and increased complexities of prosecuting crimes, since historical obstacles to international crime, such as distance, time and space, have now been eliminated. This international element in the commission of crime, whether it be traditional or new technological computer crime, creates new problems for both legal policy and law enforcement. The above described challenge resulted in the Budapest‟s Convention, which with respect to human rights, aims at the adoption of appropriate and adequate international legal measures by the contracting
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Implications of Crime Control in the Digital
    International Journal of Cyber Criminology Vol 2 Issue 1 January 2008 Copyright © 2008 International Journal of Cyber Criminology (IJCC) ISSN: 0974 – 2891 January-June 2008, Vol 2 (1): 271–285 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike License, which permits unrestricted non- commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This license does not permit commercial exploitation or the creation of derivative works without specific permission. Jurisdictional and definitional concerns with computer-mediated interpersonal crimes: An Analysis on Cyber Stalking Lynne Roberts1 Curtin University of Technology, Australia Abstract Cyber-stalking is a crime that transcends national and jurisdictional boundaries. Victims and perpetrators of cyber-stalking may be geographically separated by physical borders (for example, residing in different countries) when the offences occur. This is problematic for investigating the crime, in determining the jurisdiction in which alleged offences have taken place and in which charges may be filed. Legal definitions of stalking (and cyber-stalking) and applicable sentences vary across jurisdictions, if indeed they exist, further muddying the water. This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on cyber-stalking and ends with an examination of the difficulties in investigating and prosecuting cyber-stalkers. Keywords: Stalking; Cyber Stalking; Victims; Perpetrators; Introduction Cyber-crime is emerging as a major international criminological issue. Networked computers provide the media for new types (or variations on old types) of criminal activity to emerge. Cyber-stalking is one such crime enabled by the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Voter Fraud 7 Clerical Or Typographical Errors 7 Bad “Matching” 8 Jumping to Conclusions 9 Voter Mistakes 11 VI
    Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to redistricting reform, from access to the courts to presidential power in the fight against terrorism. A sin- gular institution—part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group—the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER’S VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS PROJECT The Voting Rights and Elections Project works to expand the franchise, to make it as simple as possible for every eligible American to vote, and to ensure that every vote cast is accurately recorded and counted. The Center’s staff provides top-flight legal and policy assistance on a broad range of election administration issues, including voter registration systems, voting technology, voter identification, statewide voter registration list maintenance, and provisional ballots. © 2007. This paper is covered by the Creative Commons “Attribution-No Derivs-NonCommercial” license (see http://creativecommons.org). It may be reproduced in its entirety as long as the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is credited, a link to the Center’s web page is provided, and no charge is imposed. The paper may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without the Center’s permission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Cyberstalking Statute, Content Discrimination and the First Amendment
    The Federal Cyberstalking Statute, Content Discrimination and the First Amendment James Weinstein* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 2555 I. THE CONTESTED SCOPE OF THE RULE AGAINST CONTENT DISCRIMINATION .................................................................... 2559 A. The All-Inclusive Approach v. The Democratic Self- Governance Model ........................................................... 2560 B. Criticism of the All-Inclusive Approach............................ 2566 II. THE FEDERAL CYBERSTALKING STATUTE AND THE ALL- INCLUSIVE APPROACH ............................................................. 2569 III. THE FEDERAL CYBERSTALKING STATUTE AND THE DEMOCRATIC SELF-GOVERNANCE MODEL .............................. 2577 A. An Elaboration and Defense of the Democratic Self- Governance Model ........................................................... 2577 B. The Democratic Self-Governance Model and § 2261A(2)(B) ................................................................ 2580 C. Section 2261A(2)(B) Caselaw ......................................... 2584 * Copyright © 2021 James Weinstein. Dan Cracchiolo Chair in Constitutional Law, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. I am grateful to Arthur Hellman, Robert Post, and the participants in the online symposium on “Cheap Speech Twenty-Five Years Later: Democracy & Public Discourse in the Digital Age” for their helpful comments and suggestions, and to law students Emiley Pagrabs
    [Show full text]
  • I Facebook and Panopticism: Healthy Curiosity Or Stalking?
    Facebook and Panopticism: Healthy Curiosity or Stalking? A thesis presented to the faculty of the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Mary Catherine Kennedy November 2009 © 2009. Mary Catherine Kennedy. All Rights Reserved. i This thesis titled Facebook and Panopticism: Healthy Curiosity or Stalking? by MARY CATHERINE KENNEDY has been approved for the School of Media Arts and Studies and the Scripps College of Communication by Karen E. Riggs Professor of Media Arts and Studies Gregory J. Shepherd Dean, Scripps College of Communication ii ABSTRACT KENNEDY, MARY C., M.A., November 2009, Telecommunications Facebook and Panopticism: Healthy Curiosity or Stalking? (108 pp.) Director of Thesis: Karen E. Riggs This study deepens existing knowledge concerning social networking sites, with specific interest in the social networking site Facebook and the phenomenon, “Facebook stalking”. By providing insights into lesser-known studies concerning user curiosity and surveillance online, the present research reveals that the terms ‘monitoring’ and ‘keeping up with’ or ‘keeping in touch with’ are most commonly used when referring to social searches within social networks; only when asked to think about surveillance in terms of stalking did interview participants refer to it as such. The present study aims to discover Facebook users’ perception of their friends’ disclosure while delving into the idea of “Facebook stalking”, specifically with regard to how users define it. Facebook’s evolution and prominence in the public sphere is dependent upon user satisfaction with and general understanding of the functionality of social networking websites. A discussion of these issues is beneficial to understanding how Facebook is used as a modern-day panopticon.
    [Show full text]
  • Twitter and Millennial Participation in Voting During Nigeria's 2015 Presidential Elections
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2021 Twitter and Millennial Participation in Voting During Nigeria's 2015 Presidential Elections Deborah Zoaka Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Public Administration Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Walden University College of Social and Behavioral Sciences This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Deborah Zoaka has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Lisa Saye, Committee Chairperson, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Raj Singh, Committee Member, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Dr. Christopher Jones, University Reviewer, Public Policy and Administration Faculty Chief Academic Officer and Provost Sue Subocz, Ph.D. Walden University 2021 Abstract Twitter and Millennial Participation in Voting during Nigeria’s 2015 Presidential Elections by Deborah Zoaka MPA Walden University, 2013 B.Sc. Maiduguri University, 1989 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Administration Walden University May, 2021 Abstract This qualitative phenomenological research explored the significance of Twitter in Nigeria’s media ecology within the context of its capabilities to influence the millennial generation to participate in voting during the 2015 presidential election. Millennial participation in voting has been abysmally low since 1999, when democratic governance was restored in Nigeria after 26 years of military rule, constituting a grave threat to democratic consolidation and electoral legitimacy. The study was sited within the theoretical framework of Democratic participant theory and the uses and gratifications theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Cut? | SPECIAL REPORT | Sept
    DATA PRIVACY & SECURITY SPECIAL REPORT SEPT. 24, 2020 After EU judges struck down the Privacy Shield data-transfer agreement, what’s next for US tech Making giants, thousands of other companies and regulatory the Cut? regimes around the world? INSIGHT | COMMENTARY | ANALYSIS Editor’s Letter Lewis Crofts MLex Editor-in-Chief We have arranged it in three thematic sections to reflect the multiple moving parts of the topic: 1) the EU court’s decision and immediate effects on Facebook and other companies; 2) the scramble by the US and EU to work out what to do about replacing the binned agreement and making SCCs more robust; and headache. A bombshell. A seismic shift. 3) the concerns and responses by other affected However dramatic you might like your countries around the world — including the UK, A metaphors, there is little doubt that EU Japan and Australia. judges delivered an extraordinarily significant We trust you enjoy reading this report and ruling on July 16. In striking down Privacy Shield, find it a useful guide to a complex, evolving issue. the EU-US data-transfer framework, they instantly The reporting here is a brief example of the threw into doubt the operations of more than insight and predictive analysis that MLex brings 5,000 US companies that relied on it. subscribers to our data privacy and security The ruling — essentially based on the failure service every day. of the mechanism to protect EU citizens’ data The stories included were all published from US government snooping — doesn’t as events unfolded, bringing our subscribers prevent companies transferring data between unrivalled insight into the significance of the EU and other foreign countries under developments and the likely next steps in an issue “standard contractual clauses.” But these can’t that will affect the operations of many thousands protect data in countries, including the US, that of businesses around the world.
    [Show full text]