UN CYBERCRIME TREATY has been highly criticized it is widely reported to overlook, violate Human Rights. Expands global evidence collection, encompasses a long list of non-cybercrimes, has huge over-reaching powers beyond those even detailed in the Un Treaty. The UN Treaty draft was prompted by the UN General Assembly vote in December 2019, the negotiating a cybersecurity accord after Russia took issue with the previous ‘UN Budapest Convention. Russia demanded that the issue they had needs to be addressed. The first draft of the UN Cybercrime Treaty caused some great concerns but now the second draft published on 28^th November is being called a tool of repression. The original purpose of the UN Treaty was combatting cybercrime, but this has now morphed into an globally expansive treaty with far reaching over-reach in both National and International investigations.

It empowers States to cast a wider net of having the ability to access data , thus violating a Nation States privacy laws. The Treaty falls short of reining in  intrusive surveillance powers this endangers human rights undermining the original cybercrime fighting intent

Human Rights Watch acting associate director Deborah Brown said the latest draft is “primed to facilitate abuses on a global scale” because it gives governments expansive cross-border powers to investigate “virtually any imaginable crime – like peaceful dissent or expression of sexual orientation – while undermining the treaty’s purpose of addressing genuine cybercrime.” She said that “Govts should not rush in to conclude this Treaty without ensuring that it elevates, rather than sacrifices our fundamental rights. UN Member State Government have had negotiation sessions over the past few days 19-20^th December in Vienna before the draft is considered in the Headquarters of the UN Assembly at the end of January where yet another session will take place.

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29^th January to February 9^th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18^th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

Parliaments role in International Treaties was published 17^th April 2019 by NZ Parliament. Documents What is a Treaty:- An agreement between 2 countries or with an international entity like the UN or WTO, that binding under International Law. Often known as International Agreements.

Parliaments role in International Treaties. In practice the Prime Minister and the PM’s Cabinet with help from their officials negotiates, decides on whether NZ will join or withdraw from a Treaty. The governments decision is effective whether or not Parliament endorses the Treaty or not. Since 1998 it’s been an constitutional convention that the govt will not (except in an emergency) bind NZ to a Treaty until Parliament has been allowed a minimum period to scrutinize it (This is set out in the Cabinet Manuel). All Treaties in the House are referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, they refer to the Treaty itself, or refers to a more relevant subject matter in the Treaty to a Select Committee to consider.

Although an International Treaty is binding at an International level, it cannot change NZ Domestic Law, only Parliament can do that. Non-binding International Treaties (UN) sit in a place call ‘Soft Law’ where this is easily accessible, can be adopted quickly and non transparently into Domestic Policy making it binding- legally by parliamentary legislation. Binding Internal Laws are also entered into Domestic Laws to make these binding. Non-Binding International laws can be referenced to by the judicial in certain cases as they arise. A Select committee has 15 sitting days in which to report back to the House on Treaty issues, objections etc.,

There were 17 submissions on the consultation as to Cybercrime, this was processed and closed in September 2020. These were received by a range of private companies, organization and individuals. Individual names have been withheld to protect personal information. 13 names of organization however were published. • Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa/The Māori Law Society (THRMOA) • Interim Māori Spectrum Commission (IMSC) • Mega Limited (MEGA) • Internet NZ • Telecommunications Forum (TCF) • Spark • Microsoft • PaloAlto Networks • Copyright Licensing Limited • NZ Authors • ANZ Screen Association • WeCreate • Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). There were other formal submissions, engagements undertaken with several Iwi/Māori groups and individuals.

It is reported that the UN Cybercrime Treaty risks being a ‘Global Surveillance Pact’ that will trample data privacy, these are human rights concerns. Will pave the way for regimes such as China, North Korea, Iran for regimes to legalize surveillance across borders, to criminalize online speech with the support of the International Community, giving the green light for governments to persecute protestors, activists, independent journalist and marginalized groups. Any person that draw attention to the authoritarian regime aim to criminalize free speech. “That’s where we’re at,” said Katitza Rodriguez, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s policy director for global privacy. “The draft treaty provides the legal basis for governments to make highly intrusive surveillance mechanisms like interception of content and real time tracking of metadata, available ‘to the fullest extent possible’ to foreign governments for almost any sort of criminal investigation of a serious crime with minimal safeguards.”

Specifically: the draft would authorize police to help foreign governments investigate activities that may not be a punishable offense in both countries, she explained.

“The dual criminality principle safeguards human rights, but it is treated as optional,” Rodriguez said. “To uphold global human rights, the proposed treaty must mandate dual criminality.” Deborah Brown, senior researcher and advocate on technology and human rights at Human Rights Watch, said the vague wording in the treaty’s Article 17 is especially concerning because it could allow governments to punish certain speech by defining it as a crime because it was posted online. For many governments, this means cracking down on online dissent or expanding digital surveillance.”

The UN Cybercrime Treaty is to be finalized between 29^th January to February 9^th 2024 at the New York Headquarters of the UN Assembly.. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021. It has been widely reported that the adoption of the UN Treaty by Nation States in the Treaty’s present form will erode private data, weaken cybercrime, undermine online rights and freedoms across the world. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord has been participating in the cybercrime treaty negotiating process since it began in 2021.The new provision extend to extra-territorial surveillance without safeguards

Some of the concerns are:- Removal of sections of the original draft limit the Treaty’s powers to narrowly define cybercrime.  Nation State surveillance across borders without safeguards and expansion of online fraud. The Treaty as it is now presented allows every government in the world to transfer the personal information of citizens between themselves in secret in perpetuity, and to force the service providers who are responsible for that data to hand it over without any ability to object or refuse on any grounds. There is little UN Nation State objects to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, there is very limited or zilch response to robust human rights safeguards.

NZ Government website (DPMC) reported that NZ is currently engaging in the UN International Cybercrime Treaty (29/4/2022). The Government once again states it promotes a International Rules Based Order, that its important that NZ is in the conversation that shaped this new instrument of international cooperation. The Govt website reports that there were consultations in October 2021  and feedback was sought on NZ’s written submissions as to Treaty negotiations, general provisions, procedural measures and law enforcement referring to the UN Cybercrime Treaty. NZ Government is committed to constructively promoting the Internal Rules based Order.

65 Countries ratified the UN Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Budapest Treaty was developed by the Council of Europe in 2001, entered into force in 2004.  18^th February 2021 speeches in the Beehive by David Clark and Kris Faafoi was the announcing of joining the Council Of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, referencing the decisions process was due to the recommendation by the Royal Commission of the Inquiry into the Christchurch Terror Attack (15/3/2019)’ With Kriis Faafoi saying “The government needs to ensure that NZ is confident, secure in the digital world, so we can tackle threats to online wellbeing”

Kris Faafoi said “the government made a number of changes to its policy proposals, looking at ways that Māori have an ongoing oversight role in the implementation and participation to the UN Convention”/ Thus the Convention was submitted to the House Of Representatives for Parliamentary Treaty examination. It was announced by Faafoi that the Convention addresses cross-border cybercrime by aligning the Nations laws with this, facilitating information sharing on current threats and best practice (best practice for the govt and UN Nation States), increases and fosters International dialogue

The new New Zealand Coalition, no politician in Parliament have shared this information with the people of New Zealand WHY?

LINKS;

https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/fhd7EW-Summary-of-Submissions-Budapest-Convention.pdf

15 page Summary of Submission-Budapest Convention NZ on Cybercrime Convention

https://therecord.media/un-cybercrime-treaty-draft-criticized

https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/national-security/cyber-security-strategy/united-nations-cybercrime-treaty

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-join-council-europe-convention-cybercrime

https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/parliament-s-role-in-international-treaties/

THE DANGER IN THE TERMINOLOGY ‘FOR THE COMMON GOOD’

Especially in politics you hear ‘For The Common Good’, but who is it that determines this. Are they appealing for the ‘Common Good’ when defending their own positions of interests. Universal health care, the jabs are mandated for the ‘common good’ eem of whom? Yes and this is usually about restrictions of the rights of individuals to freely choose what they believe is good for them. “The many outweigh the needs of the few”.  Yes there are significant dangers with this conception of the ‘Common good’ and the curbing, limiting of freedoms, the freedom to make ones own individual choice.

UNESCO and World Health Org., (UN)  Education 2030 All UN Nation States have enforced an Sexuality and Relationship Education in every classroom universally. The universal sexually grooming of children the watching of porn in children’s classrooms, how can this be for the universal common good of all humankind, its not its just sheer evil and extremely criminal but they get away with it. We are yet to be shown the full fallout from this in mental heal, physical, emotional, medical health impacts, I shudder to think and it still continues. How can these politicians allow this to happen to our children, thank God I pray that this coalition government of New Zealand will stop this in its tracks. The prior government, and that includes two of the coalition should own up to their part in this sexuality grooming of our children. The Local Government, Auckland Council for the Drag Queens in Libraries story times for young children. Drag Queens are for ‘Grandpa Happy Road’ not the grandkids. Shame on you Auckland Council. Tell me “do you believe this is for the good of all children”? (Shame, shame on you’s)

The ’Common Good’ can be the ‘Commonly bad’ the expansion of government power and the loss of individual freedoms. More power to the authoritarian government and more harm to the people. The ‘Common Good’ for the Elite class and those that seek power to control and destroy others. (Known as the Ruling Class and the Dictators of this world). The “Common Good” is invoked to expand the power of rulers at the expense of the ruled, but it gives the process a veneer of morality.

J.R.R. Tolkien illustrates this danger in his classic The Lord of the Rings. After the wizard Saruman’s defeat, he begs Gandalf to join with him so together they can overthrow Sauron and rule Middle Earth. Note how he tempts the virtuous Gandalf:

“Much we could still accomplish together, to heal the disorders of the world. Let us understand one another, and dismiss from thought these lesser folks! Let them wait on our decisions! For the common good I am willing to redress the past, and to receive you. Will you not consult with me? Will you not come up?” (emphasis added).

What Saruman really wanted was power; he was using the Common Good to advance himself, not the people. However, the result is greater power to those who are supposed to serve us, but instead rule us. Individuals and families lose their rights, and the government gains power. So here I am referring I guess to the ‘Ruling class good) those whom have self interests those that will benefit the most, it’s definitely not about the rights and freedoms of individuals to choose.  11th December 2020 Oxfam reported they were disappointed NZ Government at the time would not back a peoples vaccine for coronavirus (Oxfam New Zealand’s Communications and Advocacy Director Dr Joanna Spratt said

“In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person” (CCC 1907). It is only by respecting individual and family rights against government expansion that the Common Good can truly be achieved. The Jacinda Ardern responded that the government had the purchasing power to persuade pharmaceutical corporations to voluntarily share their COVID19 intellectual property and technology saying ´  “There simply comes a time when humanity’s common good must take precedence over private profit. This is that time. The only way we can truly put an end to the coronavirus pandemic is by providing a free vaccine to everyone in the world who needs one.” Dangerous very sad times “For the Common Good Of All” Just how many people died from the COVID Jab, I would say far, far too many and how many serious injuries, there is zilch transparency maybe for the common good of all, all being them the politicians themselves.. FOR THEIR COMMON GOOD. And Ardern wanted to jab all of humanity on this planet (Source of information Oxfam NZ Media Release)

Carol Sakey

WakeUpNZ

MANY GROUPS WITH MAORI BLOOD DO NOT CALL THEMSELVES INDIGENOUS

The terminology ‘Indigenous Peoples’ first came to NZ in the early 1970’s.

President of the UN World Indigenous Council visited to NZ in early 1970. Also visited Aborigine in the Northern Territories of Australia thus the expansion of this terminology worldwide

Please visit my video link below for further information

How did this terminology enter New Zealand learn more from my video. Click on the image which will link you to my video

Indigenous Peoples in transforming our world have an invested interest in United Nations Agenda 21, universal global development goals, which is extremely strong and hypo-political. Indigenous Indicators are integrated into UN Agenda 2030. (Indicators  (1.42 )and (5 a 1 ) on land Iwi/Maori interests and rights. This is established at a global level, is actioned, promoted at a country level thus advancing UN Agenda 2030, monitoring, measuring, promoting Indigenous  tribal progress as to UN Agenda 2030 Global Development Goals at a local level. This is reported as a work in progress.

A UN  high level political meeting referenced to in a 2030 Resolution follow up review  A/RES/701299)  11^th July 2016  which included thematic discussions with Indigenous peoples at the very core of UN Agenda 2030, as  Indigenous Tribal Rights, Indigenous Development Goals .are reported to be essential self-determination to accelerate promote growth modification

Indigenous Indicators embedded in UN Agenda 2030 key players in NZ are Iwi Elite in partnership with NZ Government. Global, regional, national political forums support the framework of this strategic plan to accelerate UN Agenda 2030 in New Zealand, with UN Member State governments facilitating Indigenous Peoples at national level to be given ‘rights’ that other do not have (As per non-binding agreement 2007 UNDRIP). The using of Indigenous Agenda 2030 indicators, with specific measurements through an established Iwi/Māori Digital Sovereignty, an Iwi tribal Sovereignty with Iwi Aspirations

Prof. Dawn Freshwater of Auckland University documented  an article referencing Iwi/Maori knowledge to research Disinformation and to tackle UN Agenda 2030 goals, to drive the global development goals of Agenda 2030 in relation to climate change and the  decolonization agenda.

Iwi/Māori  Elite have the ability to interrogate information to maximize impacts through Indigenous Sovereignty Data transferred, translated into different contexts.

The United Nations Association of NZ hosted an Advancing Agenda 2030 Conference  in the  Banquet Hall in Parliament. It was  reported that NZ was at mid-point to achieving UN Agenda 2030 however accelerated actions are needed. The conference highlighted  key speakers such as  Ashley Bloomfield .

Other speakers were Ibrahim Omer, Carolyn Schwaiger NZ Representative to the UN New York, Mary Wareham Advocacy Director of the Arms Div., of the human Rights watch and Sophie Handford Kapiti Coast District Council.

Topics at the gathering included ‘Climate Change, reforming the UN and countering Disinformation. Hosted by the UN Association NZ.  And also New Zealand advances UN Agenda 2030 through Iwi/Maori Digital Sovereignty and multi-stakeholder partnership with the government implemented at a High Political Level by the UN as to Indigenous Peoples Rights to ‘self determination’. Co-Governance in NZ.

Researched By Carol Sakey

WakeUpNZ