#FactCheck - Viral Photos Falsely Linked to Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's Helicopter Crash

The United Nations in December 2019 passed a resolution that established an open-ended ad hoc committee. This committee was tasked to develop a ‘comprehensive international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes’. The UN Convention on Cybercrime is an initiative of the UN member states to foster the principles of international cooperation and establish legal frameworks to provide mechanisms for combating cybercrime. The negotiations for the convention had started in early 2022. It became the first binding international criminal justice treaty to have been negotiated in over 20 years upon its adoption by the UN General Assembly.  

This convention addresses the limitations of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime by encircling a broader range of issues and perspectives from the member states. The UN Convention against Cybercrime will open for signature at a formal ceremony hosted in Hanoi, Viet Nam, in 2025. The convention will finally enter into force 90 days after being ratified by the 40th signatory.

Objectives and Features of the Convention

• The UN Convention against Cybercrime addresses various aspects of cybercrime. These include prevention, investigation, prosecution and international cooperation. 
• The convention aims to establish common standards for criminalising cyber offences. These include offences like hacking, identity theft, online fraud, distribution of illegal content, etc. It outlines procedural and technical measures for law enforcement agencies for effective investigation and prosecution while ensuring due process and privacy protection. 
• Emphasising the importance of cross-border collaboration among member states, the convention provides mechanisms for mutual legal assistance, extradition and sharing of information and expertise. The convention aims to enhance the capacity of developing countries to combat cybercrime through technical assistance, training, and resources. 
• It seeks to balance security measures with the protection of fundamental rights. The convention highlights the importance of safeguarding human rights and privacy in cybercrime investigations and enforcement.
• The Convention emphasises the importance of prevention through awareness campaigns, education, and the promotion of a culture of cybersecurity. It encourages collaborations through public-private partnerships to enhance cybersecurity measures and raise awareness, such as protecting vulnerable groups like children, from cyber threats and exploitation.

Key Provisions of the UN Cybercrime Convention

Some key provisions of the Convention are as follows:

• The convention differentiates cyber-dependent crimes like hacking from cyber-enabled crimes like online fraud. It defines digital evidence and establishes standards for its collection, preservation, and admissibility in legal proceedings.
• It defines offences against confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and includes unauthorised access, interference with data, and system sabotage. Further, content-related offences include provisions against distributing illegal content, such as CSAM and hate speech. It criminalises offences like identity theft, online fraud and intellectual property violations.
• LEAs are provided with tools for electronic surveillance, data interception, and access to stored data, subject to judicial oversight. It outlines the mechanisms for cross-border investigations, extradition, and mutual legal assistance.
• The establishment of a central body to coordinate international efforts, share intelligence, and provide technical assistance includes the involvement of experts from various fields to advise on emerging threats, legal developments, and best practices.

Comparisons with the Budapest Convention

The Budapest Convention was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at the 109th Session on 8 November 2001. This Convention was the first international treaty that addressed internet and computer crimes. A comparison between the two Conventions is as follows:

• The global participation in the UNCC is inclusive of all UN member states whereas the latter had primarily European with some non-European signatories. 
• The scope of the UNCC is broader and covers a wide range of cyber threats and cybercrimes, whereas the Budapest convention is focused on specific offences like hacking and fraud. 
• UNCC strongly focuses on privacy and human rights protections and the Budapest Convention had limited focus on human rights.
• UNCC has extensive provisions for assistance to developing countries and this is in contrast to the Budapest Convention which did not focus much on capacity building.

Future Outlook

The development of the UNCC was a complex process. The diverse views on key issues have been noted and balancing different legal systems, cultural perspectives and policy priorities has been a challenge. The rapid technology evolution that is taking place requires the Convention to be adaptable to effectively address emerging cyber threats. Striking a balance remains a critical concern. The Convention aims to provide a blended approach to tackling cybercrime by addressing the needs of countries, both developed and developing.

Conclusion

The resolution containing the UN Convention against Cybercrime is a step in global cooperation to combat cybercrime. It was adopted without a vote by the 193-member General Assembly and is expected to enter into force 90 days after ratification by the 40th signatory. The negotiations and consultations are finalised for the Convention and it is open for adoption and ratification by member states. It seeks to provide a comprehensive legal framework that addresses the challenges posed by cyber threats while respecting human rights and promoting international collaboration. 

References

• https://consultation.dpmc.govt.nz/un-cybercrime-convention/principlesandobjectives/supporting_documents/Background.pdf 
• https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1158521 
• https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2024/INTERPOL-welcomes-adoption-of-UN-convention-against-cybercrime#:~:text=The%20UN%20convention%20establishes%20a,and%20grooming%3B%20and%20money%20laundering 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/united-nations-adopts-landmark-global-treaty-to-combat-cybercrime-19529854.htm 

Pretext

On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline.  Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).

The Issue

Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –

• The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
• The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
• The market for general web search services in India
• The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
• The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.

Supreme Courts Opinion

In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.

Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.

‍

Conclusion

As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.

Introduction

The G7 nations, a group of the most powerful economies, have recently turned their attention to the critical issue of cybercrimes and (AI) Artificial Intelligence. G7 summit has provided an essential platform for discussing the threats and crimes occurring from AI and lack of cybersecurity. These nations have united to share their expertise, resources, diplomatic efforts and strategies to fight against cybercrimes. In this blog, we shall investigate the recent development and initiatives undertaken by G7 nations, exploring their joint efforts to combat cybercrime and navigate the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. We shall also explore the new and emerging trends in cybersecurity, providing insights into ongoing challenges and innovative approaches adopted by the G7 nations and the wider international community.

G7 Nations and AI

Each of these nations have launched cooperative efforts and measures to combat cybercrime successfully. They intend to increase their collective capacities in detecting, preventing, and responding to cyber assaults by exchanging intelligence, best practices, and experience. G7 nations are attempting to develop a strong cybersecurity architecture capable of countering increasingly complex cyber-attacks through information-sharing platforms, collaborative training programs, and joint exercises.

The G7 Summit provided an important forum for in-depth debates on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s transformational potential, the G7 nations have participated in extensive discussions to investigate its advantages and address the related concerns, guaranteeing responsible research and use. The nation also recognises the ethical, legal, and security considerations of deploying AI cybersecurity.

Worldwide Rise of Ransomware

High-profile ransomware attacks have drawn global attention, emphasising the need to combat this expanding threat. These attacks have harmed organisations of all sizes and industries, leading to data breaches, operational outages, and, in some circumstances, the loss of sensitive information. The implications of such assaults go beyond financial loss, frequently resulting in reputational harm, legal penalties, and service delays that affect consumers, clients, and the public. The increase in high-profile ransomware incidents has garnered attention worldwide, Cybercriminals have adopted a multi-faceted approach to ransomware attacks, combining techniques such as phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain Using spear-phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain hacks to obtain unauthorised access to networks and spread the ransomware. This degree of expertise and flexibility presents a substantial challenge to organisations attempting to protect against such attacks.

Focusing On AI and Upcoming Threats

During the G7 summit, one of the key topics for discussion on the role of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in shaping the future, Leaders and policymakers discuss the benefits and dangers of AI adoption in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s revolutionary capacity, they investigate its potential to improve defence capabilities, predict future threats, and secure vital infrastructure. Furthermore, the G7 countries emphasise the necessity of international collaboration in reaping the advantages of AI while reducing the hazards. They recognise that cyber dangers transcend national borders and must be combated together. Collaboration in areas such as exchanging threat intelligence, developing shared standards, and promoting best practices is emphasised to boost global cybersecurity defences. The G7 conference hopes to set a global agenda that encourages responsible AI research and deployment by emphasising the role of AI in cybersecurity. The summit’s sessions present a path for maximising AI’s promise while tackling the problems and dangers connected with its implementation.

As the G7 countries traverse the complicated convergence of AI and cybersecurity, their emphasis on collaboration, responsible practices, and innovation lays the groundwork for international collaboration in confronting growing cyber threats. The G7 countries aspire to establish robust and secure digital environments that defend essential infrastructure, protect individuals’ privacy, and encourage trust in the digital sphere by collaboratively leveraging the potential of AI.

Promoting Responsible Al development and usage

The G7 conference will focus on developing frameworks that encourage ethical AI development. This includes fostering openness, accountability, and justice in AI systems. The emphasis is on eliminating biases in data and algorithms and ensuring that AI technologies are inclusive and do not perpetuate or magnify existing societal imbalances.

Furthermore, the G7 nations recognise the necessity of privacy protection in the context of AI. Because AI systems frequently rely on massive volumes of personal data, summit speakers emphasise the importance of stringent data privacy legislation and protections. Discussions centre around finding the correct balance between using data for AI innovation, respecting individuals’ privacy rights, and protecting data security. In addition to responsible development, the G7 meeting emphasises the importance of responsible AI use. Leaders emphasise the importance of transparent and responsible AI governance frameworks, which may include regulatory measures and standards to ensure AI technology’s ethical and legal application. The goal is to defend individuals’ rights, limit the potential exploitation of AI, and retain public trust in AI-driven solutions.

The G7 nations support collaboration among governments, businesses, academia, and civil society to foster responsible AI development and use. They stress the significance of sharing best practices, exchanging information, and developing international standards to promote ethical AI concepts and responsible practices across boundaries. The G7 nations hope to build the global AI environment in a way that prioritises human values, protects individual rights, and develops trust in AI technology by fostering responsible AI development and usage. They work together to guarantee that AI is a force for a good while reducing risks and resolving social issues related to its implementation.

Challenges on the way

During the summit, the nations, while the G7 countries are committed to combating cybercrime and developing responsible AI development, they confront several hurdles in their efforts. Some of them are:

A Rapidly Changing Cyber Threat Environment: Cybercriminals’ strategies and methods are always developing, as is the nature of cyber threats. The G7 countries must keep up with new threats and ensure their cybersecurity safeguards remain effective and adaptable.

Cross-Border Coordination: Cybercrime knows no borders, and successful cybersecurity necessitates international collaboration. On the other hand, coordinating activities among nations with various legal structures, regulatory environments, and agendas can be difficult. Harmonising rules, exchanging information, and developing confidence across states are crucial for effective collaboration.

Talent Shortage and Skills Gap: The field of cybersecurity and AI knowledge necessitates highly qualified personnel. However, skilled individuals in these fields need more supply. The G7 nations must attract and nurture people, provide training programs, and support research and innovation to narrow the skills gap.

Keeping Up with Technological Advancements: Technology changes at a rapid rate, and cyber-attacks become more complex. The G7 nations must ensure that their laws, legislation, and cybersecurity plans stay relevant and adaptive to keep up with future technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and IoT, which may both empower and challenge cybersecurity efforts.

Conclusion

To combat cyber threats effectively, support responsible AI development, and establish a robust cybersecurity ecosystem, the G7 nations must constantly analyse and adjust their strategy. By aggressively tackling these concerns, the G7 nations can improve their collective cybersecurity capabilities and defend their citizens’ and global stakeholders’ digital infrastructure and interests.