The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Good morning everyone. On behalf of digital empowerment, welcome to this particular session on cyber laws and civic space global North and Global South advocacy strategies. Our session today, idea is to share among ourselves lived experiences among CSOs or activists that are here on issues to do with cyber laws and how cyber laws are restricting civic space in our countries or in our regions, and so to discuss this in front of me, I have our panelists. Daniela Alvarado from DRI, part of the strengthening neighboring involvement initiative cofunded by the EU. Christian Leong from Internet Bolivia. Patricia Ainembabazi from CIPESA. I have Juan Diego from Charisma Columbia and Abed Kataya from CIPESA, Lebanon. Also be assisted by my colleagues Stephaine Borg Psaila from Diplo, online moderator.
So Stephanie is going to discuss, if we have anything from our online participants, please do let me know.
Before I forget, we also have Bimsara Malshan online. Couldn't make it physically. Joining online. Go to him to share his perspectives.
Kickstart our discussion this morning, I'll start with you, Abed. Recently conducted a study for the MENA region to look at cyber laws at that region. Share based on your experience some of the issues that came out of that particular case study. Thank you.
>> ABED KATAYA: Thank you. Good morning. Everyone. MENA region, we noticed that cybercrime laws are being issued, we have big threat when it comes to cybercrimes comes to cybersecurity in our region because you know, when you have many countries with rich and few and other countries that in conflict with other, so we really need to be aware of the cybercrimes and everything. Addition to that, a lot of cybercrime attacks as well as scammers attacks on US regions, so this led to the need of cybercrimes laws because there is a huge need there.
Recent years, many governments have been working on showing and also passing cybercrimes laws, but unfortunately, most of these cybercrime laws are beings used to separate civil society in general and citizens. Studies like many countries in our region, Tunisia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, some companies are well structured and well‑put comes to implementation, they are criminalizing online speech.
When we are talk about online speech, this means generalists, activists, and regular people who are using online platforms to express themselves.
In addition to that, we found that like in several countries, there is no parliaments so executive power is the only entity that are working on assuming these laws. No engagement from civil society. No engagement from anyone. Just passed these laws and regulations.
Other countries, actually, they do here public consultation with civil society, but then they do whatever they want. Okay, we are heard you, sat with you, and then we'll do whatever we want. This is something when we need to fix.
Also like more examples on an abuse, we see that we really need to focus. Countries like Lebanon, we don't have cybercrime court. Criminal court used to penalize cybercrime law or online speech. Even don't have a rule used to criminalize and used to express other opinions what we need from the government and CSO come out with recommendations share them right now.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Maybe recommendations later.
>> ABED KATAYA: Later, okay. This is like what is happening in our region in terms of CSO engagement and intergovernment governance process. Really fighting cybercrime is part of that internet governance. Regulating have a safe space online for people, something we need to regulate, but we don't need it to be oppressive.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. We move to Latin America. We have two representatives on the panel. So Christian, Internet Bolivia, and then come to Juan Diego, Bolivia, I'll give you five minutes. Split the five minutes.
>> CHRISTIAN LEONG: Pleasure to be here. Latin America catastrophically combined. First thing, regulation bad intentions. Second thing is disproportionate mostly Constitutional actions to protect security. Thing is lack of capacity and knowledge and public decisionmakers how regulate technologies.
First one several cases of anti‑NGO laws that have recently been created in Paraguay, El Salvador, pursue Venezuela. No attempts to regulate online content passes at legislation against this information or hate speech. In the truth, laws try to give sensor capacity to governments.
Of course, all the legislations that endorse strengthening the security measures including surveillance to cameras, facial recognition, and a database for the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime among the other cases. Unfortunately, from the cyber laws perspective, Latin America's playbook what not to do because cyber laws are becoming instruments to allow governments all political lines and perspectives to carry out measures only erode our rights and freedoms.
>> JUAN DIEGO: Thank you. Maybe something to add is that more increasingly, we have laws that are not just cyber laws. We used to have laws that regarding only digital spaces and digital context, increasingly we have discussions on many other issues that maybe we as organizations working on the digital space, not used to work with, for example, some issues, at least for us, in the Latin America context. It was issues of kids' protection, for example, this is being increasingly a place from which obviously experience of other parts world, we have a lot of laws trying to reclaim parts of digital space and regulate the space.
We have a lot of regulation regarding these issues and then digital organizations, we just don't have to contend with the regulators and with the courts on these issues, but also with others civil society options that have been working in other spaces. That is I think one of the main changes in the landscape. So maybe talking about cyber laws exclusively about cyber laws something, we might have to stop doing in the future because it is going to be just laws. The space is going to be flattened.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. Patricia, I understand CIPESA conducts regular studies on state of internet freedom there Africa. What key trends or insights have you made from the studies that have been conducting?
>> PATRICIA AINEMBABAZI: Thank you, Kenneth. I feel the need to, CIPESA stands for collaboration on ICT policy for Eastern and South Africa for those that did not know.
We do have this report that we do every hour we call State of Internet Freedoms in Africa, or CFA, and some sets of recurring trend or recurring things point out one being increase this surveillance communication interception and shutdowns in Africa. Between 2016 and May 2023, we had about 146 internet shutdowns that we were documented across 37 African countries.
We have seen governments use this thing about internet shutdowns to stifle dissent and hiding behind things like protection and security offices. We do know these are things they are doing are not right for the citizens in those countries.
Also, noticed a rise in tech facilitated gender‑based violence for women and girls as well as increase in the vague or repressive cyber laws. Reports we do annually partners work with across the continent Sub‑Saharan Africa. Noticed that, indeed, all of these countries have cyber laws in place, however sort of done in a vague or ambiguous manner so that the government can only use them to stifle dissent and repress people's rights as and when at the want, especially during elections, as well as any little thing that happens in this countries.
The other thing that I should note that we've noticed is the role of big tech or the role of outside energies in these countries expect Google or Meta as well as X to have a role to play for this citizens and say we cannot do this or that as well as surveillance because we've seen countries in Africa using technology from other countries. So to say I'm not going to mention specific countries, but in Europe, as we note, you would expect these technology companies to have like a moral obligation to rise up to the standards of the people.
However, this is something that is not yet being done, not yet being done properly. We do hope as we go forward, that African countries can have sets and also be able to define what they mean with them, say this is what amounts to violation of maybe what is misinformation, disinformation, and violation of laws on the specific dockets they did.
Next part of question, I will let that go. Thank you.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much Patricia. Coming to Daniela. I do understand that your projects strengthening enabling environment has been implementing area warning mechanism which, among other things, identifies the country strengths. Some issues mentioned issues that CSO are facing. Could you please highlight some issues you gathered so far and share with the audience how you're implementing this warning mechanism. Thank you.
>> DANIELA ALVARADO: Thank you for the kind invitation to follow and the project.
Yes, I am part of the use system for enabling environment for civil society or EUC, which is consortium of national organization of members working across 86 countries in Africa, Middle East, Asia, Pacific Americas, Caribbean.
System tracks developments, emerging trends, environment for civil society. We monitor six principles. One civil society access to digitals and to actors can operate freely and safely online without censorship, surveillance, cyberattacks, et cetera.
In the past six months, since we started collecting this information, we have received many consistently and many reports on this issue highlighting how cybercrimes laws are being misused to restrict civil space and Civil Society in our network members.
I'm going to mention some examples on that. January of this year, received report from Pakistan at the beginning of the year, parliament amended its cybercrime legislation, which is known as Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, and it introduced new criminal offense related to distribution of false and defamatory information. Removed content online.
Particular example of misuse came in April. Report received from Nato member. Investigative journalist, Amad was charged under this law three counts of counter‑terrorism, defamation of institution the reporting to alleged military corruption.
Report from Zambia, I think, Zambia gained attention. The parliament also passed two controversy bills, cybersecurity and crime, cybercrimes bills. Despite strong opposition from civil society organizations who criticized the bills' vague and overly broad language, granting surveillance powers to the government, and bills didn't really include oversight mechanisms to guard against privacy information. Passed almost with little public engagement or transparency to the extent gained wide attention only after embassy secured alert about this issue.
Meanwhile, Myanmar law implemented new cybersecurity law was implemented consolidating control over digital spaces curtailing satellite security. Sierra Leone, arrested live on TV show for criticizing the president and also was charged under the Cybersecurity Act of 2021. Charges later withdrawn followed by advocacy campaign from civil society groups that demonstrates how cybersecurity laws can have a chilling effect on civil society freedom.
Many examples, and quickly to finish, partners cyber laws and misuse of cyber laws have used vague and overly broad language, creation of powerful enforcement. Authorities adding a lot of enforcement power to already existing authorities and lack of meaningful consultation with civil society groups or consultations purely symbolic, arbitrary applications when laws issued. Strong safeguards regarding like privacy violations or violations from the mental rights posted here, which can continue discussing more advocacy strategies next.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. Going online now, if you can help us, Bimsara. Works for Sarvodaya‑Fusion. Share your perspective from the Asia region.
>> BIMSARA MALSHAN: Thank you. Hopefully I'm with everyone. Actually, when it comes to project, one of the organizations representing, actually only Southeast Asia region. (non‑English language) topic and civil society based IGF quiet law in our region.
Successfully completed programs and as a second part of this project, we are targeting couple of initiated projects, enhance the person with disabilities engagement with IG processing, engagement among the academia of our region. Targeted enhanced providing budgeting symposium. Our region also, we also see couple of internet breakdowns, social media breakdowns past years. So hopefully, Diplo Foundation hoping to conduct case study. This year, able to publish a comprehensive study to do that.
Thank you for this opportunity.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. We have five minutes to get quick reactions from the audience. Two mics, one which is on your left, which is my right, and then the other one there. If there is anything, pending comment, question, to our speakers, invite you to move to those mics. Anyone?
>> MIMAR: Thank you everybody for the presentation so far. Mimar from Oxfam. Mentioned Oxfam international companies or multi‑national companies have a role to play in some of these restrictions on civic space and abuse of cyber laws. I'm also wondering, in your experiences, the role of outside governments or international institutions. Have you been engaging with those, help with your strategy issues or government of your respective countries, take issue when is there international pressure from governments or international institutions? Thank you.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you. Any more from the audience? Go ahead, David.
>> DAVID: Hello. Can you hear me? Thank you so much for the presentation and the interventions. My name is David and I work with European System for Enabling Environment for Civil Society.
Quickly, issues that were raised by the panelists, especially internet restrictions and other digital restrictions including the law on legislation, same way we preempt restrictions in the physical space, maybe protest and government attacks, are there ways in which your organizations preempt these restrictions?
And secondly, the colleague from CIPESA. Good to listen to the states about internet restrictions across internet. When you document these restriction, what happens after that? Do you provide any kind of support to civil society? Do I know organizations that you know, like keep it on coalition, are you part of such coalitions that provide responses when there are shutdowns given the impact, not just on civic space, but on health, education, and almost all aspects of life?
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much, David. Okay, I think I can go to our speakers. So I'll start with you, Patricia. You've got two. I don't know if you attempt the other one. Other one is just asking everyone to say what are we doing about these things, which is I think where we're going next.
You combine his two questions and then you also share with us what do you think some of the strategies that we can take on board in order to address the issues that we have come up with.
>> PATRICIA AINEMBABAZI: Thank you. First question about the role of intermediaries, talking about outside forces on the African front, we have a new development. African union come up with a resolution 630, that looks at whole states having to hold tech companies accountable. As such, would be expecting ability on their part, what are they doing in the countries, understand laws of land. Therefore, harm or good? Really good measure we noticed and documented at CIPESA.
Internet shutdowns, we also have actually a good success story. We continue to work with different coalitions, Capiton one of them. Gone ahead to work with human rights lawyers, activists, as well as judiciaries different countries.
You talk about apart from documenting judiciaries, what next do we do. Support and worked with partners like Media Defense and UpNest International. Success stories from the eco court where rulings were to rights of people in this countries.
We have countries like Nigeria, Lagos, and rest, and Guinea, internet shutdowns around elections and other things that happen in the countries.
So we do not only document. We also go ahead to advise on the next steps and those work with the different countries or different partners that we have in this countries to come up with solutions. We do training, we do capacity‑building in all forms. I think the other question would also be answered by the rest. Thank you.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: All right. I'll go to Danielle. Apart from sharing strategies, I also want you to weigh in on I think what David asked to say in terms of what are we doing about? For the EU project, could you share countries with this, project how big is EUC project?
>> DANIELA ALVARADO: Network members in 86 countries. As I said, in Africa, Middle East, Americas, and Carribean and Asia and Pacific. I think under this EUC project, one of the first things we started to do is to build coalitions or to do provide spaces for all of these network members to share and exchange experiences about this because as we have seen during the discussion, this is different in each country, but it has like a very clear pattern of how these laws are enacted and how these laws are used.
Very recently, last week, held a conversation network members on the use of cybersecurity laws in each different countries and we discussed importance of building this international and global coalitions for a topic that has consistent patterns across different countries.
I think that is very first step to start building these coalitions, having these discussions.
Second step, tried to use coalition on platforms to influence regulation on this topic at the international level. So very recently, it was adopted, the UN Cybercrime Convention, for example, and despite many concerns from human rights actors and civil society actors, some of the things that were in the final draft still raises concerns about broad language, about clauses that may open the door for things that could be misused.
So second step I will say is, again, trying to influence as much as possibles instruments, international instruments dealing with these topics because those become somehow standards then for the governments.
Finally, I think what Patricia was saying super clear and discussing these meeting that we had last week with our network members, importance of strategic litigation and engages with judiciary authorities in the different countries because many of these laws are direct violations of the principles of legality of nondiscrimination, legitimate propositionality, discussed that yesterday as well. Think violations are very clear and engaging with the judiciaries and litigations violate effective form where possible to deal with these issues with the judiciaries.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Also presenting ReCIPE initiative, sister initiative to the Care Project. Would you also weigh in in terms of what you're doing as Internet Bolivia and ReCIPE?
>> DANIELA ALVARADO: Sure. Same as, I think I have to mention two examples. One was within Latin America coalition of 11 organizations working towards internet rights, reorganize working groups to advocate different international forums. One was in relation to the UN International Cybercrime Treaty.
For this, we created this mechanism, it was called Brain Trust, which organizes together with SCOs from the Global North campaign together. And even though treaty ended as we know, at least I think this was very good practice that we can replicate in other international forums. And this coalition also allowed us through policy calls, to share in a trustful way own learning in these forum.
Another example is project in which we are part, similar project, organizations from the Global South, we are working together with organizations from the Global North, such as Oxfam, Diplo Foundation, to exchange and capture capacities and resources related to common objectives.
Coalitions really work. Not telling you anything new or anything really novelty, but things that have proven to work especially in a moment which we know governance, global governance is in crisis, but at least civil society organizations are forging networks and collaborations across the globe that we need.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Coming to you, could you please share what you're doing. Charisma based in Columbia. What are you doing about the issues we just discussed here?
>> JUAN DIEGO: Christian mentioned one of the big things we're doing, which is participating on these coalition called Ensure, but I think engaging a lot with other organizations. Having these conversations is something that is actually helping a lot our advocacy efforts.
One of the issues we've been having a lot is we monitor more than, or at least 100 initiatives for every legislative period in Columbia, how the spectrum of legislation and other initiatives we follow has been broadened.
It is an issue of how to stay ahead of the many initiatives legislation that we have trying to think about how your local cases, local experiences, can help other processing and other organizations that are on the same level or in broader scope, regional or global scope, helps a lot.
We have, for example, in the same cybercrime convention, that was not so good example because we shared resources with other bigger organizations. For example, Electronic Frontier Foundation could have person following immediately all of these discussions and something other organizations like ours couldn't do. So this way of bringing the conversation and keeping up with it like minute by minute could help us really engage with the whole process because it's something otherwise we couldn't do so easily. These are the type of things that I found we have found are practical that could help a lot in the participation of citizens organizations from the south into other conversations that otherwise wouldn't have the resources to attend.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you so much. Coming to you Abed. Apart from sharing with us recommendations that you wanted to share, also want you to address your mentioned issue of executive dominance in terms of making the laws. What are you doing about it?
>> ABED KATAYA: First I would like to answer a question because something that I would like to share, which is like when it comes to foreign pressure and also the pressure from tech companies, actually, what we need is grassroots change, not pressure from government, because really believe this pressure would be governments and even local authorities would respond somehow positively to the foreign pressure, but they would do whatever they want.
In addition to that, really see that, foreign governments do the pressure whatever they fit them. Not what they fit local society.
When it comes to tech company, really don't care about human rights. Need to be harnessed. Seen a lot of cases in Egypt and Jordan where activists and influencers were being put in jail and reach out to these companies, they don't react, they did not even respond to this request.
And they had several meetings with authorities during the same time of these incidents and did not raise any issues regarding these influencers. Users are generating money for them as platforms. What they care about is only to stay in the countries and generate money. That's it.
Coming back to your question, Kenneth, regarding executive, powerful executive actually, as I said, mentioned here, we need grassroots change, grassroots reform which requires the CSOs to be more active, to be more engaged with society, know more about the local legislations and local dynamics because you know, I know we are living in tough countries, but really have to understand the dynamics and build these relationships and somehow to change things, and other times, to coordinate with some people who are policymakers and not to be in conflict with them all the time.
Need governments to have open up engagement channels. Sometimes I think don't work. Sometimes channels are just for the sake of just exposure or something, like propaganda. We need them. Need them to understand importance of this.
As from all discussions today, really civil society, we mentioned to them sometimes not only rights, but economic benefits of being open, of being like advocates for data protection and privacy because nowadays, system really need to be data‑protection‑oriented to have successful business. So this is something that we need to do.
In addition to that, governments should uphold human rights and should have human rights top of everything they do as policies. So we say human rights, that means everything for the sake of people and sake of regular users.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Over to you online.
>> STEPHANIE BORG PSAILA: We have a question from Abrucin. Partially answered by speakers here. I will share it.
From a communications and citizen participation standpoint, can you share any effective extras and any effective campaigns in your region that can inspire civil society organizations to act as a bridge with communities and shape policies? Thank you.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: who wants to take that one? Audience is also invited. Who wants to share any experiences?
>> I can share experiences of our network members. I know, for example, in Sierra Leone, there was a very successful case with these social influencers, mentioned advocacy efforts by civil society groups, by international actors, a lot of movement in social media that created like a lot of pressure in the government to release these persons, this woman, this person, and I think that was a successful case. A lot creativity and engaging again national actors, but also international actors, creating coalitions, and adding pressure to governments. So I think that was a successful case.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: All right.
>> PATRICIA AINEMBABAZI: In Africa, we do have the "keep it up" campaign. Success campaign to answer that. Led to the strategic litigation. Seen results. Don't know if every organization has added a hashtag to that. Thank you.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: I'm getting strategic engagements coming up frequently. Is this something that ‑‑ talk about the Global South. I heard it first from Daniela. Getting it again from Patricia. What do you think?
>> DANIELA ALVARADO: I think not easy. Depends on how strong the rule of law is in a particular country and how stable the judiciary system is, how independent it is, a lot of factors. I think come from Columbia as well. And despite many problems and issues, Diego can help me there, but I think still there is, for example, we have seen changes through strategic litigation and we have seen a progress and benefits of engaging still with the courts, etc. Of course, ad hoc thing you have to understand in the specific context. At least in some cases, it works.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Quick one.
>> STEPHANIE PSAILA: Head of board from Diplo, the lead partner for the K project. On one hand here, I heard them, for instance, you said that CSO shouldn't take a confrontation, stands with the government because they need to be working together. On the other hand, litigation aspect has come up very often. How do we balance this between the name of working together, but at the same time, we're taking governments to court. So how does that play out especially digitally?
>> I can start. Depends every country context. I cannot, like I'm sharing my experience from the region, not all regions, country from the region, same applies to other regions and other countries. You need to engage with the local governments first to know what they do, other than make this government act and make them act in favor of human rights, in favor of CSO's engagement, then see how to move and what are the next steps. For example, if I'm talking, Lebanon different from Jordan.
>> KENNETH MSISKA: Thank you. Like I said, we are have run out of time. Circulate the sheet of paper, put our names, hope to take this discussion forward. So if you can register your interest, reaching out to you continue this discussion.
Thank you so much speakers and those participants who joined us online, and thank you audience and thank you for the technicians for helping us with this session. Thank you.
[applause]
