Prior to the vote, concerns had been expressed, with U.S. Deputy Ambassador Cherith Norman Chalet of the Assembly saying that the resolution “would undermine international cooperation on cybercrime at a time when enhanced coordination is needed.” “Such a treaty can become problematic in terms of human rights and the protection of the rule of law, it can undermine it and not contribute to cooperation on cybercrime or to the security of evidence,” Alexander Seger, head of cybersecurity at the Council of Europe, told EURACTIV. The convention contains a list of offences that each signatory state must transpose into its own right. It requires the criminalization of such activities as piracy (including the production, sale or dissemination of hacking tools) and crimes related to child pornography, and expands criminal liability for intellectual property infringement. In addition, it calls on each signatory state to implement certain procedural mechanisms within the framework of its legislation. For example, enforcement authorities must be empowered to compel an internet service provider to monitor an online person`s activities in real time. Finally, the Convention obliges signatory states to cooperate, as far as possible, at the international level in investigations and procedures relating to offences related to computer systems and data or the collection of evidence in the electronic form of a criminal offence. Law enforcement agencies must assist police forces in other participating countries to cooperate with their requests for assistance.  Last month, UN governments met to vote on a resolution on cybercrime, adopted by Russia, that could have irreversible consequences on the management of cybercrime in countries and cooperate in cybercrime investigations. While the resolution was firmly rejected by a number of major Western powers and human rights groups, it succeeded in adopting it in a final vote on 27 December 2019. With this passage, proponents of an open, free and secure model of the Internet – supported for years by the United States, Europe and other like-minded countries – should now change their global engagement strategy on cybercrime and develop broader approaches and clearer narratives to rally more countries to their cause. When the December resolution was adopted, a Russian representative said that the new committee would take into account the work of the UN expert group on cybercrime, which will publish a report on cybercrime before the end of the year. According to the current timetable, detailed work on the new convention is expected to begin in 2021.
Although Egypt has not signed the convention, the government of Egyptian President Al Sisi has passed two important cybercrime laws in 2018. In the crosshairs of social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter, the legislation criminalizes fake news and terrorism and puts a flag on accounts with more than 5,000 subscribers or subscribers. The first laws had been criticized by Amnesty International, so sites can appeal to the courts within seven days of the blacklist.    The additional protocol to the Cybercrime Convention came into force on March 1, 2006. States that have ratified the Additional Protocol are required to criminalize the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems, threats and insults motivated by racism or xenophobia.  First, T.C. issues are complex issues and debates on this issue should be better linked. According to the UN Secretary-General, many decision-makers still lack the technical know-how to participate in these debates and the UN General Assembly is negotiating ICT issues in three separate committees, with discussions on the development of cyber standards and cybercrime separate. For countries that are relatively new to this debate and may not have the expertise required, this fragmentation can be confusing, even if the separation is due to the nature of the issues or the pref