In several countries around the world, vulnerable communities are threatened by broad cybercrime and surveillance laws. One of these countries is Jordan, where a cybercrime law, enacted in 2023, has been used against LGBTQ+ individuals, journalists, human rights defenders, and those who criticize the government. This legal framework has raised significant concerns about its social implications and human rights, and was issued hastily, without a thorough analysis of its legal aspects.
The law broadly criminalizes online content that is deemed “pornographic” or that is considered to “expose public morals,” in addition to prohibiting the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPN) and other proxies. Recently, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has joined thirteen digital rights and free expression organizations in an open letter demanding the repeal of this controversial law. The letter is organized by Article 19, and calls on Jordanian authorities to cease using the cybercrime law to attack and punish dissenting voices, as well as to stop the repression of freedom of expression. It also urges the new Parliament to repeal or substantially amend the cybercrime law, as well as any other legislation that violates the right to freedom of expression, aligning it with international human rights standards.
The situation in Jordan is a troubling example of how cybercrime laws can be misused to target marginalized communities and suppress dissent. This type of legislation has been a concern of the UN General Assembly, which in 2019 and 2021 warned about the use of cybercrime laws to target human rights defenders. These concerns have been supported by years of UN human rights experts’ reports, which have highlighted how these abusive laws facilitate rights violations.
Furthermore, the UN Cybercrime Treaty poses serious threats to freedom of expression. Far from protecting against cybercrime, this treaty could become a means for repressive cross-border surveillance practices. By allowing international cooperation in surveillance for any offense considered “serious” under national laws, defined as offenses punishable by a minimum of four years in prison, and without robust safeguards or detailed operational requirements to ensure that expression is not suppressed, the treaty could be used by governments to suppress dissent and target marginalized communities. The future of the UN Cybercrime Treaty will depend on decisions made by member states, who will evaluate its adoption later this year.
Referrer: MiMub in Spanish
