Peru’s signature and ratification of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which is the only binding international instrument dealing with cybercrime, was a great step towards advancing a cyber agenda.
In 2019, Peru passed a
Cyber Defence Act, with the objectives of defending and protecting sovereignty, national interests, critical national assets and key resources to maintain national capabilities against threats or attacks in and through cyberspace, when these affect national security.Peru has also passed a
Cybersecurity Framework for the private sector, with the objective of identifying and protecting information assets, detecting security events, and providing for response and recovery from cybersecurity incidents.
In this context, there are more and more reports of cybercrime in the country. According to
data from the Public Prosecutor's Office, in 2021 they received 18,596 reports of cybercrime cases, which represents a percentage increase of 92.9% compared to 2020, with phishing and ransomware being the
most common attacks.
The ROK is generally a
strong advocate of strengthening global cooperation against cybercrime. While it is not formally a signatory to the Budapest Convention, the country voted against the Russian-sponsored UNGA
resolution calling for a new binding cybercrime treaty.
To promote cooperation among law enforcement agencies, the ROK’s Supreme Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) convenes regular meetings with the FBI, while also engaging with the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in Germany and the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) in the Netherlands.
On the basis of an increased awareness that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are becoming
“important partners to secure electronic evidences”, the SPO works along with Microsoft to operate the Government Security Program (GSP).
Canada’s
National Cyber Security Strategy identifies the activities of malicious cyber actors as a “growing challenge”. Following the adoption of the ‘Protecting Canadians from Online Crime’ Act, Canada acceded to the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention in 2015 and has since consistently
promoted the instrument as the “best tool to fight cybercrime at the international level”. Canada has
specifically “encourage[d] countries to bolster their anti-cybercrime efforts by becoming Parties to the Convention, or using it as a model to implement their own cybercrime laws”. Moreover, upon Canada’s initiative, the Quintet of Attorneys General (which brings together Attorneys General from Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and the UK) issued a
public statement at their July 2019 meeting, expressing their support for the Budapest Convention as a “necessary basic framework for fighting cybercrime” and for the work of the United Nations Open-Ended Intergovernmental Expert Group on Cybercrime (UNIEG). Being part of the ‘like-minded’ group of states, Canada voted against the Russian-sponsored
UNGA Resolution 74/247 aiming at establishing an alternative cybercrime instrument; upon the passage of 74/247 and its follow-up
UNGA Resolution 75/282, however, Canada has been a vocal member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime. Prior to the Committee’s May 2021 organizational session, the
Canadian position paper on the Implementation of 74/247 noted that the Committee must “ensure consistency with existing UN treaties in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, in particular the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the United Nations Convention against Corruption and take into account multilateral instruments that have already proven their usefulness in the fight against cybercrime, in particular the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime”. In the same document, Canada emphasized the need for an “inclusive, transparent, constructive, and consensus-based process that will lead to a fair outcome to the benefit of all”. The
first session of the Ad Hoc Committee will be held in New York from 17 to 28 January 2022. Canada’s perspective on the scope, objectives, and structure of the convention was submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee in advance of the start of the first negotiation session (
E).