Octopus Conference on “Co-operation against Cybercrime“

(To be checked against delivery)

Speech by Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Strasbourg, 11 June 2007

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me start by welcoming you all to the Council of Europe, and to this important conference on co-operation against cybercrime.

There is no doubt that societies worldwide benefit more and more from the use of information and communication technologies, but that in the process, they are also becoming increasingly vulnerable to criminal misuse of these technologies.

Today, more than one billion people are believed to be Internet users and technologies continue to develop at breathtaking speed, opening up ever more opportunities for societies.

At the same time:

Tens of thousands of new viruses and malicious codes are detected every year;
Millions of attempts to steal personal and confidential information of Internet users – the so-called phishing – are reported every day;
Cybercriminals are becoming more organised and illegal profits from cybercrime are growing rapidly.

We know that the Internet is increasingly misused for the sexual exploitation of children and more and more child pornography sites appear to be of a commercial nature.

Also, the Internet is regularly used by terrorists for communication, planning and propaganda purposes.

This morning, I would like to share with you five main points:

First, Cybercrime is a serious global threat. It is an attack on the values of the Council of Europe. It is in our common interest to make sure that Internet is safe and human rights and the rule of law are respected in cyberspace as well. This is the key message the Council of Europe will advocate in the Second Internet Governance Forum which will take place in Rio de Janeiro in November this year.

My second point is that the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime is an effective instrument to fight against criminal abuse of Internet in a way which protects fundamental rights and freedoms and does not undermine its open character.

The Convention is one response to the challenge of cybercrime. It is also the first, and so far, the only international treaty against this threat.

What is the added value of the Council of Europe Convention?

First of all, it requires countries to criminalise certain behaviours. These range from hacking and the creation and dissemination of viruses to cyber-fraud and child pornography on the internet.

Moreover, our Convention introduces effective investigative tools to help preserve the evidence of criminal conduct.

Then, it applies to all criminal offences involving computer systems, including money laundering or “cyber laundering” , “cyber terrorism” and “cyber human trafficking”.

Finally, it provides a mechanism for international co-operation aimed at overcoming some of the problems and delays normally associated with judicial co-operation.

It is also important to note that, while measures to prevent and control cybercrime are essential, we must not forget that the vast majority of people use the Internet for legitimate purposes and their rights must be protected. The Convention strikes a careful balance between the need for efficient enforcement and the checks and balance needed to protect the privacy and the freedom of expression of citizens.

My third point is the fact we cannot fight against Cybercrime at national or regional levels alone. This is why the Convention is open to non-members of the Council of Europe and therefore represents a global response to a global threat.

The ratification of the Convention by the US Congress in 2006 is very important. Canada, Japan and South Africa have signed the treaty and will hopefully soon ratify it. Costa Rica and Mexico were invited to accede to the Convention in February 2007 and countries such as Brazil, Egypt, Korea, and India are currently reforming their legislation against the background of the provisions of the Convention.

The legislation in many other countries is to a large extent already in conformity with the Council of Europe Convention. I will not hide our expectation that this will motivate other countries in the world to seek accession to the Convention on Cybercrime in the very near future.

My fourth point is that the fight against cybercrime requires co-operation at all levels, between countries, international organisations, and between the public and private sectors.

Close co-operation of the private sector – especially industry and service providers – with public authorities including police and criminal justice authorities is of vital importance. Such co-operation requires a clear legal basis so that the rights and obligations of all parties are clearly understood, accepted and respected.

Initially, the private sector and civil society organisations were rather critical of the Convention. Some were apprehensive of the additional burden placed on the industry and service providers, others warned of intrusions into the privacy of citizens.

This has now changed and the Convention is strongly supported by the industry.

A good example is Microsoft which has made a substantial contribution to the Council of Europe for a project promoting the implementation of the Convention worldwide and we warmly encourage other companies to follow suit.

The fact is that the Convention on Cybercrime is the only international, legally binding treaty in this field but it is not the only international response to this challenge.

A large number of actions are being carried out; some by international organisations or bodies and others by the private sector or civil society associations.

To give you only a few examples; the Council of Europe is co-operating with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, the International Telecommunication Union, Interpol, G8, the United Nations and other partners, and our experience shows that this co-operation has been mutually beneficial and has reinforced the efficiency of the international response against cybercrime. I hope that this conference will help us to make further progress in this direction.

My fifth and final point is that Council of Europe member states must set the example and ratify this treaty as soon as possible.

Decision-makers throughout Europe continue to voice their concerns about child pornography on the internet, xenophobia and racism, cyber-fraud or the threat of cyber-terrorism, and many propose strong actions or the development of new instruments.

Their concerns should be taken seriously, but before developing new tools governments should make sure to avoid duplication and start with the ratification of an instrument which already exists.

The Convention on Cybercrime has been ratified by 21 European countries and the United States of America. Another 22 countries, including 19 member states of the Council of Europe have signed, but not yet ratified it.

The Protocol on Xenophobia and Racism on the Internet has been ratified by 11 Council of Europe member states and signed by 19 European States and Canada.

Our challenge, above all, is to ensure that Parties adhere to these standards by enacting and enforcing laws against cybercrime.

The countries which have already become Parties to the Convention and the Protocol deserve our congratulations. Others are warmly encouraged to follow suit.