Job Opportunity: External Project Evaluator

Terms of Reference: 

External Project Evaluator, CYRILLA

Timeline:

March to April 2019

Contact:

Grant Baker, CYRILLA Project Director (collaborative@cyrilla.org)

SMEX is seeking a consultant to perform an external midterm evaluation for a two-year program. The consultant will have experience with monitoring and evaluation, and program assessment for digital rights and internet freedom-related projects, or, alternatively, projects related to technology and human rights with strong legislative/policy analysis, research, and advocacy campaigning components.

About the Project:

The CYRILLA Collaborative is a global initiative that seeks to map and analyze the evolution and impacts of legal frameworks in digital environments by aggregating, organizing, and visualizing distributed legal data through open research methodologies, data models, taxonomies, and databases. The Collaborative’s keystone initiative is CYRILLA.org, an open, federated online database that facilitates and accelerates the sharing, comparison, visualization, and interoperability of legal information on digital rights. 

The Collaborative is comprised of the Association for Progressive Communications, the Center for Intellectual Property and Information Technology (CIPIT) at Strathmore Law School, Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression, Derechos Digitales, HURIDOCS, and SMEX. 

Evaluation Objectives:

The chief aim of the external midterm evaluation is to perform a comprehensive analysis of results and learning emerging from CYRILLA, relative to its stated objectives and activities, in order to assess overall impact, effectiveness of approach, and progress of the project towards desired outcomes during its first year. This should, in turn, yield a detailed set of findings and recommendations that will inform project design, operations, and priorities for its second year.

Approach:

The midterm external evaluation will examine the extent to which CYRILLA has progressed with its objectives and activities, how activities have translated into the community-level outcomes that are central to its success and sustainability, and any operational challenges that have impacted this progress. This will include drawing on key sources of information: project reporting, monitoring evaluation framework and performance monitoring plan (PMP), internal documentation of activities and their outputs, and interviews with key stakeholders (both project partners and beneficiaries).

About SMEX:

Founded in 2008, SMEX is a registered Lebanese NGO that develops media and information literacy, expands knowledge of internet policy and governance, and advocates for human rights online throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) via research, training, and advocacy. Since August 2018, SMEX has served as the incubator for the CYRILLA Collaborative, a consortium-based initiative to expand and amplify responsive, evidence-based internet freedom legal and policy advocacy in the Global South, through coordinated approaches to systematizing digital rights law and case documentation. 

Application Materials:

  • Cover letter
  • CV
  • Two references on previous consulting projects

Email materials to collaborative@cyrilla.org and grant@smex.org with the subject line: “CYRILLA Evaluator Application” by March 24th, 2020. Salary commensurate with experience.

Glenn Greenwald and the Fight for Press Freedom in Brazil

The constitutional protections for press freedom are being challenged in Brazil. Last month, federal prosecutors in Brazil filed charges against US journalist, Glenn Greenwald, for cybercrimes. Greenwald, the journalist who published Edward Snowden’s intelligence leaks, and one of the founders of news site, The Intercept, has a history of exposing government corruption and criticizing President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration. Last year, Greenwald released private chats between top government officials, which revealed possible corruption by Justice Minister, Sergio Moro. The Intercept asserted that the exchanges were obtained from an “anonymous source” while implicated politicians, including Moro and Bolsonaro, alleged that Greenwald had encouraged hackers to obtain the information. 

Brazil has robust press freedom laws. The Constitution includes special protection for journalists from criminal liability for publishing information from illegally obtained sources if it’s within the public interest to do so, and the journalists have not participated in the theft itself. In an extraordinary move, the Supreme Court barred the federal government from investigating Greenwald for receiving the intercepted messages exchanged between top officials. “The right corollary of freedom of expression is the right to obtain, produce and disseminate facts and news by any means. The constitutional secrecy of the journalistic source makes it impossible for the State to use coercive measures to constrain professional performance and to investigate the form of reception and transmission of what is brought to public knowledge,” the ruling stated.

Last December, Brazil’s federal police concluded their investigation into the hacking. The police claimed that Greenwald was not the subject of the investigation, and therefore they were not circumventing the Supreme Court decisions, but his name emerged in communications with the hackers. Police established that “it is not possible to identify moral or material participation by the journalist [Greenwald].” In the transcribed audio files, Greenwald tells the hacker to evade criminal liability for participating in the hack, he would have to prove he only spoke to the source after the criminal action was completed. Authorities noted that Greenwald exercised caution when interacting with the hackers and acknowledge his legal duties as a journalist.

Federal prosecutors charged Greenwald with criminal association and illegal interception of communications, alleging that some audio tapes demonstrate he “helped, encouraged and guided” the hackers. However, a federal judge declined to proceed with the charges because of the previous injunction issued by the Supreme Court against investigations into him. But Greenwald feels that refusing to move forward on procedural grounds is not the victory for press freedom it appears to be: “Anything less would leave open the possibility of further erosion of the fundamental freedom of the press.” The judge ultimately noted that if the injunction was overturned, he would be open to formally charging Greenwald.

Greenwald intends on approaching the Supreme Court for a more conclusive ruling on press freedom. As this unfolds, press freedom and the rule of law in Brazil, as well as the strength of the country’s institutions, will be tested. We hope that the judiciary once again defends the rights of journalists who are acting in the public interest, and does not foster an environment of fear, corruption and secrecy.

The court documents referred to above will be available on CYRILLA in the coming months.

New on CYRILLA: Online freedom of expression cases from around the world

CYRILLA has now uploaded 383 additional online freedom of expression cases. The cases were collected by Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University (CGFE), which is a member of the CYRILLA Collaborative. As part of their work, CGFE maintains the Global Database of Freedom of Expression Law, which includes an Arabic-language version recently launched at SMEX’s annual regional unconference, Bread&Net 2019, as well as a Spanish-language version. The database surveys jurisprudence around the world, critically reviews exemplary cases, engages in comparative analysis, and aims to identify national, regional and global trends. It currently includes more than 1,370 freedom of expression cases from over 130 countries. 

One of the new cases available on CYRILLA is WA and WB v. Mamedov from Kazakhstan. In 2018, Mamedov E.A. filmed two women kissing in a cinema in Kazakhstan, and posted the video on his Facebook page immediately after. He left a comment on the post: “They are possibly someone’s children, sisters or acquaintances. Repost to start a conversation, maybe it is possible to reach them, to change, or at least to shame them.” The video went viral, and, by the time Mamedov took down the post 24-hours later, it had already amassed 60,000 views. Reactions to the video included hate speech and violent threats directed at the women, who, fearing for their safety, were forced to flee the country. Last year, they sued Mamedov for violating their right to privacy.

The court of first instance found for the women, and held that Mamedov, by failing to ask their permission, had indeed caused them harm. The appellate court, however, overturned this verdict, holding that Mamedov was simply exercising his freedom of expression to defend the morals of Kazakh society. By posting the video on Facebook, a media entity, this brought Mamedov’s actions in line with the Law on Mass Media, which contains an exemption from liability for failing to obtain consent to share a video or image if it’s done with the aim of protecting morals. The women appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which held that Mamedov violated the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 18(1) of the Constitution of Kazakhstan and Article 115(3) of the Civil Code. Because of Mamedov’s actions, the women became objects of scrutiny, their private lives became public, and their relationships with colleagues and relatives deteriorated. The Supreme Court reinstated the first instance judgment, and the women were eventually compensated.

WA and WB v. Mamedov demonstrates the complexities of balancing freedom of expression with other fundamental rights, like privacy and dignity, and how technology has transformed the arguments and defenses raised by either side. Hawley Johnson, Associate Director of CGFE, explains: “In an age where freedom of expression is under siege on many fronts, we aim to provide lawyers, human rights defenders, academics and others with tools to uphold international standards of protection. The database provides comparative case law on numerous digital rights issues as diverse as defamation, surveillance, blasphemy and data privacy among many others. Partnering with the CYRILLA has provided us with an unparalleled opportunity to collaborate with advocacy organizations working on the frontlines of digital rights so we can expand our coverage of emerging legal trends globally.”

Case Recap: The Kashmir Internet Shutdown

Image via Tauseef Mustafa/Getty Images

On August 4 2019, the government of Kashmir shut down mobile networks and internet services in the disputed territory. The next day, the President of India revoked the region’s semiautonomous status. Anticipating unrest, India deployed thousands of army personnel, restricted movement within and across borders, and launched what would be the longest internet shutdown in a democracy. 

A number of Kashmiri citizens, including the executive editor of the Kashmir Times, petitioned the Supreme Court of India to set aside the government’s order to suspend “all modes of communication”, including the mobile networks and internet services. The petitioners argued that the internet shutdown was a restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, and the decision should thus be “tested on the basis of reasonableness and proportionality” as required by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The court delivered its judgement on January 10th, 2020. It had to first consider whether access to the internet was part of freedom of expression under Part III of the Constitution. The court recognized the primacy of the internet in everyday life: “the importance of the internet cannot be underestimated, as from morning to night we are encapsulated within the cyberspace and our most basic activities are enabled by the use of internet.” It considered the internet as a medium for expression, and not necessarily as a fundamental right in itself. “Expression through the internet has gained contemporary relevance and is one of the major means of information diffusion.” Accordingly, the court found that freedom of expression over the medium of the internet was indeed constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a).

The question then turned to whether the internet shutdown, and therefore the restriction of a fundamental right, was carried out in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In terms of Article 19(2), the following conditions must be met for the restriction to be constitutional, namely:

  1. The action must be sanctioned by law
  2. Restriction must be reasonable
  3. Must be in the furtherance of inter alia security of the state

The shutdown was conducted under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives effect to the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency of Public Service) Rules, 2017. Further, the court recognized government’s concerns of terrorism proliferating via the internet during this time. The main contention was the reasonableness of the internet shutdown. The court underwent a lengthy analysis of the legal meaning of “reasonableness”: “The degree of the restriction and the scope of same, both territorially and temporally, must stand in relation to what is actually necessary combat an emergent situation.” The court had to balance the legitimate state objective of security with the impact of restricting citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of expression over the internet.” 

In analyzing the impact of the measures taken by the government, the court found that a sustained internet shutdown without review was unjustifiable. The Suspension Rules indicated that a shutdown of services must be temporary, yet did not define a period that could be considered such. The court held that, notwithstanding this, “an order suspending the aforesaid services indefinitely is impermissible.” The court directed the government to review whether the conditions which warranted the initial shutdown persist, on the basis that restrictions “must not be allowed to extend beyond that time period which is necessary.” The court reiterated that curtailing fundamental freedoms “cannot be done through an arbitrary exercise of power.” and gave the government 7 days to conduct its review.

The following week, the internet was partially restored for “essential services” like hospitals, banks, and government offices. Social media sites and personal internet services, however, remained banned. Then, late on January 24th, 2020, nearly six months since the shutdown was first instituted, the government enabled 2G connectivity for 300 “whitelisted” websites, including social media apps. This decision will be reviewed on January 31, 2020.

The judgment can be said to further access to the internet in India generally by recognizing the internet as a pivotal tool in the realization of well-established fundamental human rights, like freedom of expression. This would make it easier to challenge future internet shutdowns in the courts. However, it is essential that the government of India translate this sentiment into action, and not merely satisfy the order of the Supreme Court for the sake of doing so. We hope that internet connectivity will be fully restored in the Kashmir region soon.

November Roundup: Freedom on the net?

Our monthly roundup highlights trends in digital rights law from around the world. In November, Freedom House released its annual Freedom on the Net report, which revealed an overall decline in internet freedoms for a 9th consecutive year. This is consistent with news coming out of China, Spain, Lebanon, and Sweden, where governments have cracked down on fundamental freedoms online. However, one US court has taken strides towards securing them.

China

Leaked Chinese government documents revealed authorities’ use of facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence to monitor, identify and persecute the country’s minority Uyghur population – demonstrating “the power of technology to help drive industrial-scale human rights abuses.” Using a joint policing platform, Chinese authorities collate the personal data of people they interrogate, including blood type, education level, travel history, and household electric-meter readings, and this data is used by an algorithm to determine individuals who should be considered “suspicious”. Unsurprisingly, China was found to be the worst abuser of internet freedom for the fourth year in a row.

Spain

The Spanish government has made several legislative modifications which would allow them to shut down digital services without a court-issued warrant when “public order” is threatened – a move that is targeted at Catalan separatists. Acting Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, said: “I’m telling Catalan separatists. There won’t be independence either offline or online. The state of law will be as forceful online than in the real world,” The modifications came into force without undergoing proper parliamentary procedures, and grants authorities the powers to remove any content, websites or apps for the purposes of “public safety, civil protection, emergencies, defence of human life or interference with other networks.”

Lebanon

There has been an increase in the arrest and prosecution of people for exercising speech online in Lebanon, according to a recent Human Rights Watch report. While it’s common for Lebanese authorities to rely on laws that criminalize libel, slander and defamation to silence speech about the country’s fragile economic situation and corruption, the report demonstrates that these are now being used to target online speech, in particular, and at an alarming rate. Many of those arrested are journalists or editors, whose reporting constitutes “speech that is not only legitimate, but necessary for the functioning of a vibrant society governed by the rule of law.” CYRILLA partner, SMEX, also released a report this month, that focuses specifically on the restriction of online speech by the Lebanese government. As of November, they had tracked 56 cases concerning online freedom of expression in 2019 – already 20 more than last year.

Sweden

The Swedish government’s draft proposal to expand its hacking authority has been approved by the country’s constitutional advisory body. The scope of the proposed law is so broad, it has attracted the concern of human rights watchdogs, who fear the implications it may have on privacy and security. In terms of the draft proposal, anyone even remotely related to the suspect of a crime may be be monitored, and judicial oversight of the process has been diminished. The draft proposal now awaits parliamentary approval, and Sweden hopes it will come into effect in early 2020.

US

A court in Boston found that suspicionless searches of travellers’ electronic devices at ports of entry into the US are unconstitutional. Border and immigration control authorities now have narrowed powers to search and seize devices, and must show “individualized suspicion of illegal contraband before they can search a traveler’s device.” The suit, brought by the EFF and ACLU of Massachusetts, comes after the unprecedented increase in the searches of devices entering the country, which many international travellers reported as “abusive”.

tl;dr

Tools to Understand the Legal Aspects of the ICT Ecosystem: the CYRILLA Collaborative and the CLFR

Image via CYRILLA

As rapid developments in technology revolutionize our interactions with each other and the world, established fundamental rights, like freedom of expression and privacy, take on different, but no less significant, characters in the digital realm: censorship can be a simple social media policy, and surveillance has traded in binoculars for browser cookies. It’s imperative that these rights — these digital rights — are still protected, and that the national laws which protect them are directed at this objective, because although the possibilities are greater, so are the vulnerabilities.

But technology as regulatory concern can be vexing for human rights activists and even the most attuned policymakers. As governments scramble to bring dynamic technological advancements under their control, some countries enact laws that display a lack of awareness of technical architecture, while others apply or bend analog laws, some of which are already inconsistent with international law, to digital spaces. The result is that digital regulation is inconsistent across jurisdictions, and its subjects often lack an appreciation of the impact it has on their lives. Not only does this threaten fundamental human rights online, but it can be most harmful to the activists and researchers working to defend them.

At its core, CYRILLA addresses this obstacle by organizing and making accessible the world’s digital rights-related laws, cases, and analyses on its open database, which boasts legal resources from more than 140 countries. CYRILLA empowers researchers, journalists, civil society advocates, legal professionals, and human rights defenders to more readily assess legal trends as they shape and impact digitally-networked spaces. The aggregation of this data could potentially highlight threats to human rights online and reveal opportunities for legal reform. To supplement its extensive collection, CYRILLA has included the Global Network Initiative’s (GNI) Country Legal Frameworks Resource (CLFR) reports under its Analysis Section.

Image via GNI

The CLFR helps shed light on governments’ legal authorities to compel information and communications technology (ICT) companies to restrict access to communications services and/or content or share users’ data. This form of digital regulation warrants particular scrutiny for the potential risk to ICT users’ rights. With reports on legal frameworks in over fifty countries, the CLFR also demonstrates the challenges some ICT companies may face in honoring their international human rights responsibilities and commitments when these domestic legal frameworks authorize disproportionate restrictions or lack uniform interpretation. The CLFR reports use a shared methodology to group the pertinent laws, regulations, and policies into six categories:

1) compelling companies to allow interception of customers’ communications;

2) mandating disclosure of non-content communications data;

3) enhanced disclosure or interception requirements for national security or emergency purposes;

4) censorship-related powers, including powers to order ICT companies to block or restrict access to networks, services, and/or websites;

5) oversight of powers pertaining to access to user data; and

6) oversight of censorship-related powers.

The new and improved CLFR web tool allows users to view and compare up to four reports at once, to navigate between categories, and even to download the entire resource in CSV, allowing for better integration with other actors researching digital rights-related legislation like CYRILLA.

This integration enhances the capabilities of both resources. Via the CYRILLA database, researchers can find original laws and regulations referenced in CLFR analysis, and CYRILLA visitors can supplement their reviews of digital rights-related laws and regulations to see how they might be interpreted in practice using the CLFR. The CYRILLA database also links to pertinent case law, as well as draft legislation and legal provisions, helping showcase the implications of or potential real-world shifts in CLFR analysis. These features are particularly helpful with regard to laws permitting interception and censorship for the seemingly-narrow purposes of national security threats or emergencies, a focus of the CLFR. And CYRILLA users can take a bigger-picture view, searching for country-specific data, or by keywords which cover a variety of pressing digital rights issues, including freedom of speechfreedom of assembly, and privacy.

Digital rights advocateshuman rights expertsresearchers, and ICT companies alike have stressed that documenting the development and application of digital rights-related laws is critical to both keeping users’ around the world informed on their digital rights and ensuring policymakers protect these rights. Both the CLFR and CYRILLA are committed to this aim, especially in regions where information is not always readily accessible, like Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Together we hope to enable the research and advocacy required to understand the legal realities that exist and identify problematic trends that need to be curtailed. These tools are a step towards responsible, transparent digital regulation, and, ultimately, stronger digital communities.

Note: this post was originally published on the GNI blog.

CYRILLA at FIFAfrica 2019

In September, the sixth Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica) was hosted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Malcolm Kijirah and Jackie Akello from CYRILLA partner, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT), were in attendance to discuss and share views on digital rights and internet freedom in Africa, and to build contacts and advocate for the CYRILLA Collaborative.

FIFAfrica is a landmark event that convenes various stakeholders from the internet governance and digital rights communities in Africa and beyond. Attendees deliberate on gaps, concerns and opportunities regarding key internet issues faced by the continent, such as advancing privacy, access to information, free expression, and non-discrimination. FIFAfrica also provides a platform for responding to rising challenges to the enjoyment of internet freedom in various countries, including arrests and intimidation of online users, internet disruptions, and a proliferation of laws and regulations that undermine the potential of digital technology to drive socio-economic and political development on the continent. 

At FIFA, CIPIT hosted a CYRILLA exhibition stand, which was visited by legal practitioners, activists, organizations in the tech space, private individuals, human rights organizations, and research institutions. The team provided information to attendees on the databases being developed, as well as emphasized the significance of the project to the digital rights space. CIPIT also used the platform to build contacts from different jurisdictions, particularly Lusophone, Francophone, West and Central Africa, where it had experienced the challenge of accessing digital rights-related legal data. The exhibition was a success, with CIPIT engaging a number of people interested in learning further information about CYRILLA.

As a member of the Africa Internet Rights Alliance (AIRA), CIPIT also participated in private briefings, during which they made submissions on the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, discussed digital ID systems as a pressing issue on the continent, and attended workshops on effective organizational advocacy. Malcolm found these workshops particularly beneficial, as CIPIT is gearing up for the launch of their Africa ICT Policy Database within the next few months: “Among other things, we were taught how to properly identify what our goal is, lay down the campaign strategy, and take record of the milestones covered. The overall objective of the Collaborative is fostering digital rights literacy across the globe, and we clearly see how these strategies can help us promote the use of our database, and engage in advocacy around its contents.”  

Follow our social media channels for updates on when the Africa ICT Policy Database goes live!

We’re hiring!

Image via Caio Resende/Pexels

The CYRILLA Collaborative is seeking consultants and volunteers to assist with the collection of digital rights-related legal data in Sub-Saharan Africa.

About CYRILLA

The CYRILLA Collaborative (www.cyrilla.org) is producing an open resource toolkit and online database, to accelerate the structuring, sharing, comparison, visualization, and interoperability of legal information on digital rights. At its core, CYRILLA aims to organize, and make accessible, the world’s digital rights–related laws and cases so that a wide range of actors can more readily and confidently assess legal trends as they shape and impact digitally-networked spaces, highlighting threats to human rights and opportunities for legal reform. While the open database is the most visible part of CYRILLA, the Collaborative comprises several organizations developing open tools that can be adopted and adapted as needed by any individual or organization grappling with questions involving legal restrictions on digital rights.

How to Get Involved

To achieve and sustain our vision of providing a comprehensive first-look at the emerging legal frameworks for human rights in the digital age, the CYRILLA Collaborative is always seeking new partners and volunteers to help us collect the latest bills, law, case law, and analyses related to digital rights. The Center for Intellectual Property and Information Technology (CIPIT) at Strathmore Law School in Kenya is our Sub-Saharan African partner in the Collaborative. We’re seeking consultants across Sub-Saharan Africa, specifically in Lusophone and Francophone countries, with experience in legal research or policy analysis who can contribute legal data for national jurisdictions. CIPIT’s funds in this regard are limited. 

Responsibilities

As a consultant for the Collaborative, you can assist us in the following ways:

  • Obtaining the latest information on digital rights-related laws, policies, regulations, cases and developments in Sub-Saharan African countries
  • Translating and adapting Portugese and French case citations and summaries for upload to the ICT Policy Africa database;
  • In regions where information is not available online or in an accessible format, reaching out to authorities to obtain this information.

Consultants can expect a time commitment of 20 hours per week. 
Time commitment for volunteers is flexible.

Countries of Interest

We welcome assistance from all parties who are getting interested in getting involved, but are particularly in need of consultants for the following Lusophone countries:

  • Angola
  • Cape Verde
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Mozambique
  • São Tomé
  • Príncipe

Crediting Contributors

Ultimately, the data will be uploaded to CIPIT’s soon-to-be-launched ICT Policy Africa database, as well as the main CYRILLA database. All researchers will be properly credited as CYRILLA contributors on our website, unless they wish to remain anonymous. CIPIT and the CYRILLA Collaborative will also produce a blogpost highlighting the work of each organization or individual. 

If you would like to get involved, please send an email to cipit@strathmore.edu  and collaborative@cyrilla.org.

October Roundup: Whose internet is it anyway?

Image via Vincent Yu/AP

Our monthly roundup highlights trends in digital rights law from around the world. In October, Singapore and Nigeria introduced stricter regulations to curb the spread of disinformation that may also curb press freedom. While Zimbabwe, Indonesia, and Hong Kong authorities battle it out for the most innovative way to stifle uprisings using social media. Finally, some tips to stay connected and safe during the protests in Lebanon.

Fake news; real consequences

Singapore

This month, Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act finally went into effect. The law requires social media platforms and search engines to remove any content the government considers false. Ministers can unilaterally censor information, posted anywhere in the world, and wrongdoers face hefty fines and up to 10 years in prison. The move was welcomed by Singapore’s Prime Minister, who called it “a practical arrangement” to solve the pressing problem of disinformation. However, pretty much anyone who isn’t an elected official fears the law will be used to stifle free speech and persecute journalists who disagree with them – a development consistent with the country’s decline into authoritarianism. 

Nigeria

Quite literally taking their cue from Singapore, Nigeria’s government is also fighting the “cancer” of hate speech and disinformation that pose “a clear and imminent danger” to the country. President Muhammadu Buhari approved of the new regulatory code, which strengthens the powers of the National Broadcasting Commission by allowing for police intervention to close media stations, and increasing the value of fines imposed on offenders. Press freedom activists and human rights organizations are concerned that the new code will legitimize the government’s recent strong-arming of journalists, like the arrests of prominent newspaper editors for exposing oil revenue corruption in Nigeria’s southern Delta State.

The revolution will be live-tweeted

Hong Kong

A court in Hong Kong granted the Secretary of Justice a temporary injunction blocking information shared online which “promotes, encourages or incites” violence. The injunction application refers specifically to messages shared on Telegram and LIHKG – two of Hong Kong’s most popular messaging forums, and key platforms for organizing and communicating during the city’s almost six month-long protests. This is just the latest government attempts to bar protestors from using the courts; in addition to the legislature’s emergency ban on face-covering, and threatened internet restrictions. The injunction will remain in place until a formal hearing is held in mid-November.

Zimbabwe

Over in Zimbabwe, President Mnangagwa’s cabinet passed the Cyber Crime, Cyber Security and Data Protection Bill, which criminalizes the sharing of misleading or offensive content via social media platforms like WhatsApp. The President believes he’s cleaning up the country’s “cyber-space”, but human rights organizations and democracy watchdogs consider this an excuse to monitor citizen communications and suppress any potential uprisings. The Bill was first introduced under former President Robert Mugabe, after protests against his Presidency were fuelled by local Twitter campaigns. Mnangagwa has also faced severe public anger in the past: in January, he ordered a social media blackout after violent protests broke out in response to fuel price hikes. Now, with rising dissatisfaction pending austerity measures, the Bill is another avenue to silence his critics and crackdown on protestors.

Indonesia

An investigation by the BBC and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has revealed a large-scale social media campaign that uses bots to share pro-government content about the Papua province of Indonesia – a region whose strong separatist movement has long called for independence. Because access to the island is heavily restricted and controlled, social media is often the only way foreign press can receive information about the political situation, and the campaign appears to be an attempt to skew the international perceptions of the unrest. Facebook ads targeting users in the US, UK and Europe were paid for by a Jakarta-based media company, but the Indonesian government has denied its complicity in the campaign.

Lebanon

Lebanese protestors staged sit-ins at major state institutions in Beirut, including the Ministry of Justice, following the anti-government demonstrations that erupted in mid-October. Locals are demanding accountability and a change in the country’s sectarian political system, which has been marred by inefficiency and corruption. The scale of the protests are unprecedented in Lebanon’s history, and largely driven by young people. To support the movement, local digital rights organization and CYRILLA partner, SMEX, released a guide on how protestors can communicate safely and securely if the internet is shut down or throttled by authorities. More tips and updates can be found on their Twitter and Facebook.

tl;dr

September Roundup: Slander-in-Chief

Image via Emmanuel Herman/Reuters

Our monthly roundup highlights trends in digital rights law from around the world. In September, Indonesian, Ugandan and Tanzanian authorities went to bat for their heads of state by cracking down on media and individuals who criticize them online. Over on the subcontinent, the courts played a crucial role in enabling access to the internet for citizens, while in Ethiopia, digital rights organizations and activists convened for the 2019 Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa.

Nothing but respect for MY President

Indonesia’s legislature was ready to resurrect a 400 year old law that would “criminalize contempt” of virtually any entity that exercises state power – from the President to the courts to state agencies. Despite the Constitutional Court deciding in 2006 that the law had no place in the country’s democracy, the government agreed on amending the penal code to reintroduce it. The basis of the decision was the current criminalization of contempt for the national flag, anthem and symbols: the failure to also criminalize contempt for the nation’s leader was considered “bizarre.” But critics noted that this new law could be exploited by authorities to stifle media freedom and opposition, and, amid this fervent pushback, the President himself postponed the vote for further feedback from the public.

Although affirming the right to freedom of expression in its Constitution, Uganda uses a portfolio of laws to restrict it anyway. The country is notorious for its determined application of outdated defamation laws, which endangers activists who use the internet to oppose the government and its policies. As covered in last month’s roundup, the Computer Misuse Act is also weaponized against activists under its provisions prohibiting “cyber harassment” and “offensive communications.” Various other laws, such as those targeting terrorism, have been used to fragrantly justify interception and monitoring of communications. The President’s arsenal also includes arbitrary internet shutdowns, and a social media tax to pay for the consequences of internet “gossip” Turns out expression isn’t really free after all.

Another country in the running for most creative ways to silence dissent is Tanzania, who initially detained investigative journalist, Erick Kabendra, for questioning over his citizenship in July. Kabendra, known for criticizing President Magufuli’s government, then faced allegations of sedition, before he was eventually charged with tax evasion, money laundering, and organized crime. He’s currently being held in a maximum security prison, where he reports that his health is deteriorating rapidly. His trial has been postponed for the 6th time, and is now scheduled for October 11th, 2019.

It’s because you’re always on that phone

In a landmark judgment for digital rights in India, the Kerala High Court declared that access to the internet is part of the fundamental rights of free expression, education, and privacy under the country’s Constitution. A college student approached the court after she was expelled for violating a rule that restricted the use of mobile phones in her hostel. The court found that mobile phones are now “part and parcel of the day to day life and even to a stage that it is unavoidable to survive with dignity and freedom.” The court explained that access to the internet enhanced educational opportunities for students more than it hampered them. Additionally, restrictions could not be placed on students who were at the age of majority even if they were supported by parents, and the restriction could not only apply to girls: access to the internet also included the agency to decide when and how to access it.

Image via Islamabad High Court

The Islamabad High Court in Pakistan also emphasized the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives by holding that rights that are traditionally safeguarded offline, must also be protected online. The court held that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) was not empowered to block websites or regulate content without due process, transparency, and oversight. It must instead inform the allegedly infringing party before any action is taken against them and give them an opportunity to respond. The decision comes after the PTA shut down the website of a political party just weeks before the general election, as well as their blocking of news sites during the 2017 Faizabad protests.

The Other, Cooler FIFA

Image via Africa Internet Rights Alliance

The 2019 Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa was held in Addis Ababa from September 23rd to 26th. We were represented by one of our partners, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology (CIPIT), who shared details about CYRILLA with our colleagues in digital rights. Several initiatives towards both access and safety were launched at the forum, including South Africa’s 7-point plan for universal internet access and digital equality, Together! and Data4Change‘s project making online educational tools accessible to the visually impaired, and Safe Sister’s guide for digital security trainers in Sub-Saharan Africa. The forum culminated with host, Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), releasing their 2019 edition of the State of Internet Freedom in Africa report. Other discussions included the prevalence of internet shutdowns on the continent, the attack on independent media online, exploring feminism on social media, and the relationship between democracy and the internet. You can find more info on the sessions on CIPESA’s YouTube channel or via #FIFAfrica19.

tl;dr