The 2023 cybercrime law in Jordan has sparked significant backlash due to its potential to infringe upon basic human rights. Critics argue that the law was rushed through the legislative process, lacking adequate scrutiny regarding its legal ramifications and societal consequences. The law criminalizes online content labeled as “pornographic” or deemed harmful to “public morals,” and it imposes strict prohibitions on the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and other tools designed to enhance online privacy.
In a recent open letter, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) joined forces with thirteen other organizations dedicated to digital rights and freedom of expression. Organized by Article 19, the letter urges Jordanian authorities to halt the enforcement of the cybercrime law against dissenting voices and to stop the broader crackdown on freedom of expression. The signatories emphasize the need for the newly elected Parliament to repeal or amend the law to align it with international human rights standards.
The implications of Jordan’s cybercrime law extend beyond its borders. It serves as a cautionary tale of how expansive cybercrime legislation can be weaponized against vulnerable populations. The United Nations General Assembly has previously expressed concern about such legislation, highlighting risks during discussions in 2019 and 2021 regarding the misuse of cybercrime laws against human rights defenders. This sentiment has been echoed in numerous reports from U.N. human rights experts, who assert that abusive cybercrime laws can facilitate systemic human rights violations.
Furthermore, the proposed U.N. Cybercrime Treaty has ignited fears that it could exacerbate these issues. While the treaty is intended to combat cybercrime, critics argue that it could transform into a mechanism for intrusive cross-border surveillance. By enabling international cooperation in monitoring for any crime deemed ‘serious’ under national laws—defined as offenses punishable by a minimum of four years in prison—the treaty lacks sufficient safeguards to protect against the suppression of free expression. This has led to concerns that governments could exploit the treaty to target dissenters and marginalized communities, similar to the consequences seen under Jordan’s current cybercrime law.
The decision regarding the U.N. Cybercrime Treaty will rest with member states, who are expected to deliberate on its adoption later this year. As global scrutiny intensifies, the future of both Jordan’s cybercrime law and the broader treaty remains uncertain, amid calls for greater accountability and the protection of human rights in the digital age.
In conclusion, the outcry against Jordan’s cybercrime law and the potential pitfalls of the U.N. Cybercrime Treaty reflect a broader struggle for freedom of expression and human rights worldwide. As advocates continue to push for reforms, the global community must remain vigilant against legislation that threatens to undermine these fundamental principles.
You Might Be Interested In