Will the cybercrime law harm workers’ rights?

The understanding is that cybercrime legislation applies to the use of a computer, computer and communications systems, networks and databases, and aims to protect and safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and data stored therein from all forms of misuse, abuse and illegal access. The law is meant to punish those who commit acts that breach the rules which govern the use of the Internet and the social media platforms that are associated with it.

In 2001, the Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime or the Budapest Convention, became the first international treaty which was introduced to address Internet and computer crime by harmonising national laws, improving investigative techniques, and increasing cooperation amongst nations. 

It follows that countries which have an interest in bringing cybercrime legislation into effect are particularly interested in establishing domestic criminal procedures necessary for the investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes, as well as other offences committed by means of a computer system or evidence in relation to which is in electronic form.

It is important to know that the Convention on Cybercrime sets out such procedural law issues as expedited preservation of stored data, expedited preservation and partial disclosure of traffic data, production order, search and seizure of computer data, real-time collection of traffic data, and interception of content data. The convention identifies a number of offences: illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, computer-related forgery, computer-related fraud, offences related to child pornography, and offences related to copyright and neighbouring rights.

Based on the extensive provisions of the Convention of Cybercrime, it is reasonable that workers and citizens alike should share a common concern on how their human rights and liberties may be impacted, pursuant to the protection they should enjoy under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This common concern may also be supported by making reference to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads in part, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

The nature of the law to be established, the enforcing of cybercrime legislation in any jurisdiction and the imposition it has on its citizens, can be the subject of debate – regarding the extent to which legislation comes into conflict with Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 30 states, “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or persons or any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

It would be a matter of interest to know how the introduction of cybercrime legislation could be used to ensure that workers cannot use social media or the Internet to voice their concerns, to prevent trade unions from organising, agitating, and workers for protesting. Are they subject to being accused of instigating, inciting, aiding, promoting activities which do not meet with the approval of the government or may be determined as undermining national unity? 

Governments should be reminded, and be respectful of the fact, that freedom of speech is about the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without the interference or retaliation from the government.

Dennis De Peiza is a Labour and Employee Relations Consultant with Regional Management Services Inc.