Tomorrow I am appearing at the Police headquarters in Lusaka for ‘interviews’ about cyber crimes- Fred M’membe

CYBER CRIMES AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Tomorrow I am appearing at the Police headquarters in Lusaka for ‘interviews’ about cyber crimes. As we embrace digital technologies, there is growing concern that the rising state surveillance, which is partly being
enabled by the same digital technologies, is undermining our digital rights and hindering our willingness to meaningfully participate in our country’s democratic processes.

One of the “democratising effects” of the internet was that it had provided a safe and alternative engagement platform that could help circumvent and diminish the repressive state’s control over the means of communication, thereby enabling greater organising and expression of dissenting opinions. However, autocrats have appropriated the power of digital technologies to stifle dissent and to ramp up their capabilities to snoop on, punish, and silence critical and dissenting forces.

Surveillance is increasingly becoming a principal threat to our digital rights, a weakening force to civil society and independent voices, and ultimately a driver of authoritarianism. Digital surveillance is expanding in scope, with spyware as well as social media monitoring, mobile phone location tracking, and the hacking of mobile phones, messaging, and email applications being deployed.

The abuse of surveillance is rife, with high levels of impunity for rights violations and a low level of accountability for the actions of the government and its institutions. And not only has surveillance become commonplace but the right to communicate anonymously in digital spaces has been profoundly eroded through mandatory SIM card registration.

Government critics, including leading opposition leaders, human rights defenders and activists who do human rights and governance work, as well as investigative journalists, remain prominent targets of state surveillance. We have been permitting practices that permit surveillance, mandate telecommunication intermediaries to facilitate the interception of communication, stipulate the mandatory collection of biometric data and grant law enforcement agents broad search and seizure.

The fear of repercussions associated with surveillance curtails the rights of individuals who have been victims of surveillance to freely express themselves. This fear is forcing human rights defenders, activists, government critics and journalists into self-censorship, to be less vocal, and to limit expression of their opinions, especially on debates on political affairs.

Surveillance intrudes on the privacy of individuals and has become a means through which fear is instilled in political activists, the opposition, human rights defenders and the public. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the right to privacy is not only impacted by the examination or use of information about a person by a human or an algorithm. Rather, even the mere generation and collection of data relating to a person’s identity, family or life already affects the right to privacy, as through those steps an individual loses some control over information that could put his or her privacy at risk.

Overall, surveillance is undermining the ability of democracy actors to use digital communication channels – some have stopped using the channels to communicate altogether or have restricted their communications. Further, it has increased their costs on communication and operations generally.

The right to freedom of assembly and association is intricately linked to the rights and ability to freely express oneself, seek information, and mobilise. The curtailment of these freedoms can be felt in the individuals’ withdrawal from active engagements with peers, their representatives to parliament and other political actors. The rights to assembly and association have been limited for victims of state surveillance and other democracy actors.

Victims of surveillance and those who closely work with or associate with them, tended to take an overly cautious approach due to fear of repercussions such as being arbitrarily arrested, prosecuted, and detained.
The ability to organise and mobilise for activities, especially political meetings, is among the aspects that are being adversely affected by state surveillance.

The impact of surveillance goes beyond affecting peoples’ ability to meaningfully participate in democratic processes, to their personal life and relations. Individuals who are targets of state surveillance have relationships with their family, friends and society affected. Many of them lament their lack of a social life as they could no longer make new friends, visit their old friends or family members, invite them to their homes, or be seen with them in public.

Surveillance of their communication, lives and work had affected their psychological well-being and mental health in various ways. The mental toll of surveillance had resulted in constant and increased feelings of anxiety, anguish, stress, worry, depression, paranoia, fear, isolation, danger, risk, hurt, and insecurity.
Governments should repeal, amend or review existing laws, policies and practices on surveillance, and interception of communication to ensure compliance with the established international minimum standards on human rights and communications surveillance.

Fred M’membe
President of the Socialist Party