79
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
O
VERVIEW
:
D
ESPITE
P
USHBACK
,
I
NTERNET
F
REEDOM
D
ETERIORATES
8
Although the U.S. surveillance activities have taken the spotlight in recent months, this study
reveals that most countries around the world have enhanced their surveillance powers over the past
year. In 35 of the 60 countries examined in Freedom on the Net
2013, the government has either obtained more sophisticated
technology to conduct surveillance, increased the scope and
number of people monitored, or passed a new law giving it
greater monitoring authority. There is a strong suspicion that
many of the remaining 25 countries’ governments have also
stepped up their surveillance activities, though some may be
better than others at covering their tracks.
While democratic countries have often engaged in legally
dubious surveillance methods to combat and uncover terrorism
threats, officials in many authoritarian countries also monitor
the personal communications of their citizens for political
reasons, with the goal of identifying and suppressing
government critics and human rights activists. Such monitoring
can have dire repercussions for the targeted individuals,
including imprisonment, torture, and even death. In Bahrain, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere,
activists reported that their e-mail, text messages, or other communications were presented to
them during interrogations or used as evidence in politicized trials. In many of these countries, the
state owns the main telecommunications firms and ISPs, and it does not have to produce a warrant
from an impartial court to initiate surveillance against dissidents.
Russia has emerged as an important incubator of surveillance technologies and legal practices that
are emulated by other former Soviet republics. Russia itself has dramatically expanded its
surveillance apparatus in recent years, particularly following the events of the Arab Spring.
Moreover, in December 2012, the Russian Supreme Court upheld the legality of the government’s
hacking into the phone of an opposition activist. The court grounded its decision on the fact that the
activist had participated in antigovernment rallies, prompting fears that the case would be used as a
legal basis for even more extensive surveillance against opposition figures in the future. Belarus,
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine are among the countries that have implemented
the ICT monitoring system used by the Russians authorities (known by the acronym SORM) and
have either passed or considered legislation that would further expand their surveillance powers, in
some cases mimicking the current legislation in Russia.
Until recently, only a handful of African countries had the means to
conduct widespread surveillance. However, this seems to be changing
rapidly as internet penetration increases and surveillance technologies
become more readily available. All 10 of the African countries
examined in this report have stepped up their online monitoring efforts
in the past year, either by obtaining new technical capabilities or by
expanding the government’s legal authority. In Sudan, the
government’s ICT surveillance was particularly pronounced in 2012
In 35 of the 60 countries
examined, the government has
obtained more sophisticated
surveillance technology,
increased the scope of people
monitored, or passed a new law
giving it greater monitoring
authority. Growing
surveillance is also suspected
in many of the remaining 25
countries, but they may be
better at covering their tracks.
All 10 of the African
countries examined in
this report have
stepped up their online
monitoring efforts in
the past year.
65
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
O
VERVIEW
:
D
ESPITE
P
USHBACK
,
I
NTERNET
F
REEDOM
D
ETERIORATES
9
during a series of street protests, and it became dangerous for activists to use their mobile phones.
One activist switched off his phone for a few days to avoid arrest while hiding from the authorities.
When he turned it back on to call his family, officials quickly determined his location and arrested
him the same day.
In the Middle East and North Africa, where extralegal surveillance has long been rampant, the
authorities continue to use ICT monitoring against regime opponents. In Saudi Arabia, the
government has been proactively recruiting experts to work on intercepting encrypted data from
mobile applications such as Twitter, Viber, Vine, and WhatsApp. In Egypt, President Mohamed
Morsi’s advisers reportedly met with the Iranian spy chief in December 2012 to seek assistance in
building a surveillance apparatus that would be controlled by the office of the president and
operated outside of traditional security structures. Even in postrevolutionary Libya, reports
surfaced in mid-2012 that surveillance tools left over from the Qadhafi era had been restored,
apparently for use against suspected loyalists of the old regime.
Perhaps most worrisome is the fact that an increasing number of countries are using malware to
conduct surveillance when traditional methods are less effective. Opposition activists in the United
Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Malaysia, and more than a dozen other countries were targeted with
malware attacks over the past year, giving the attackers remote access to victims’ e-mail,
keystrokes, and voice communications. While it is difficult to know with a high degree of certainty,
there are strong suspicions that these activists’ respective governments were behind the attacks.
Some democratic governments—including in the United States and Germany—have used malware
to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations, but any such use typically must be approved by a
court order and narrowly confined to the scope of the investigation.
Censorship intensifies as countries pass new laws and directives to
restrict online speech
Until several years ago, very few countries had laws that specifically dealt with ICTs. As more
people started to communicate online—particularly via social media, which allow ordinary users to
share information on a large scale—an increasing number of governments have introduced new
laws or amended existing statutes to regulate speech and behavior in cyberspace. Since launching
Freedom on the Net in 2009, Freedom House has observed a proliferation of such legislative activity.
This trend accelerated over the past year, and since May 2012
alone, 24 countries have passed new laws or implemented new
regulations that could restrict free speech online, violate users’
privacy, or punish individuals who post certain types of content.
Many authoritarian countries have used legitimate concerns about
cybercrime and online identity theft to introduce new legal
measures that criminalize critical political speech. In November
2012, the government of the United Arab Emirates issued a new
cybercrime law that provides a sounder legal basis for combatting
24 countries have passed new
laws or implemented new
regulations that could
restrict free speech online,
violate users’ privacy, or
punish individuals who post
certain types of content.
59
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
O
VERVIEW
:
D
ESPITE
P
USHBACK
,
I
NTERNET
F
REEDOM
D
ETERIORATES
10
online fraud, money laundering, hacking, and other serious abuses. However, the law also contains
punishments for offending the state, its rulers, and its symbols, and for insulting Islam and other
religions. Those found guilty of calling for a change to the ruling system can face a sentence of life
in prison. In September 2012, Ethiopia’s government passed the Telecom Fraud Offenses law,
which is supposed to combat cybercrime but also includes provisions that toughen the ban on VoIP,
require users to register all ICT equipment (including smartphones) and carry registration permits
with them, and apply penalties under an antiterrorism law to certain types of electronic
communications. Considering that free speech activists have already been tried under the
antiterrorism laws for criticism of the regime, the new legislation was met with significant concern.
Several countries have also passed new laws intended to block information that is perceived as
“extremist” or harmful to children. While such concerns have led to legitimate policy discussions in
a wide range of countries, some of the recent legislation is so broadly worded that it can easily be
misused or turned on political dissidents. For example, the Russian parliament in July 2012 passed
what is commonly known as the “internet blacklist law,” which allows blocking of any website with
content that is considered harmful to minors, such as child pornography and information related to
suicide techniques and illegal drug use. However, the law has also been used occasionally to block
other websites, such as a blog by an opposition figure (no official reason for blocking was provided)
or another blog that featured a photo-report on the self-immolation of a Tibetan independence
activist protesting the visit of the Chinese president (the official reason for blocking was that the
post promoted suicide). In Kyrgyzstan, a new law allows the government to order web hosting
services to shut down websites hosted in Kyrgyzstan, or the blocking of any sites hosted outside the
country, if officials recognize the content as “extremist,” which is very broadly defined.
In some countries, the authorities have decided to institute stricter regulations specifically aimed at
online news media. The traditional media in authoritarian states are typically controlled by the
government, and users often turn to online news outlets for independent information. The tighter
controls are designed to help rein in this alternative news source. A new law in Jordan requires any
electronic outlet that publishes domestic or international news, press releases, or comments to
register with the government; it places conditions on who can be the editor in chief of such outlets;
and it prohibits foreign investment in news media. The penalties for violations include fines and
blocking, and in May 2013 the government proceeded to block over 200 websites that failed to
comply with the new rules. Similarly, in Sri Lanka, online news outlets are now required to obtain
a license, which can be denied or withdrawn at any time.
More users are arrested, and face harsher penalties, for posts on
social media
Laws that restrict free speech are increasingly forcing internet users into courts or behind bars.
Over the past year alone, in 28 of the 60 countries examined, at least one user was arrested or
imprisoned for posting certain types of political, social, or religious content online. In fact, a
growing number of governments seem to exert control over the internet not through blocking and
filtering, but by arresting people after the posts are published online. In addition, courts in some
69
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
O
VERVIEW
:
D
ESPITE
P
USHBACK
,
I
NTERNET
F
REEDOM
D
ETERIORATES
11
countries have allowed higher penalties for online speech than
for equivalent speech offline, arguably because of the internet’s
wider reach.
As more people around the world utilize social media to
express their opinions and communicate with others, there has
been a dramatic increase in arrests for posts on sites such as
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. In at least 26 of the
examined countries, users were arrested for politically or
socially relevant statements on social-media sites. Although political activists are targeted most
frequently, more and more ordinary, apolitical users have found themselves in legal trouble after
casually posting their opinions and jokes. Unlike large media companies and professional journalists
with an understanding of the legal environment, many users of this kind may be unaware that their
writings could land them in jail.
Last year in India, for example, at least eleven users were charged under the so-called IT Act for
posting or “liking” posts on Facebook. In one of the best-known cases, police arrested a woman for
complaining on Facebook about widespread traffic and service disruptions in her town to mark the
death of the leader of a right-wing Hindu nationalist party. The woman’s friend, who “liked” the
comment, was also arrested. The detentions were widely criticized, both on social media and by
public figures, and the charges were later dropped. In Ethiopia, a student
was arrested and charged with criminal defamation after he posted a
comment on his Facebook page that criticized the “rampant corruption” at
another local university.
Users are most often detained and tried for simply criticizing or mocking
the authorities. At least 10 users were arrested in Bahrain over the past
year and charged with “insulting the king on Twitter,” and several
ultimately received prison sentences ranging from one to four months. In Morocco, an 18-year-old
student was sentenced to 18 months in prison for “attacking the nation’s sacred values” after he
allegedly ridiculed the king in a Facebook post, and a 25-year-old activist received an even harsher
sentence for criticizing the king in a YouTube video. In Vietnam, several bloggers were sentenced
to between 8 and 13 years in prison on charges that included “defaming state institutions” and
“misuse of democratic freedoms to attack state interests.”
In addition to criticism of political leaders, speech that might offend religious sensitivities is landing
a growing number of users in jail. This is most prevalent in the Middle East, but it has occurred
elsewhere in the world. In Saudi Arabia, any discussion that questions the official interpretation of
Islam commonly leads to arrest. Prominent writer Turki al-Hamad was arrested in December 2012
after tweeting that “we need someone to rectify the doctrine of [the prophet] Muhammad;” he was
held in detention for five months. In April 2013, a Tunisian court upheld a prison sentence of seven
and a half years for a man who published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad on his
Facebook page. And earlier this year in Bangladesh, several bloggers were charged with “harming
religious sentiments” under the country’s ICT Act for openly atheist posts that criticized Islam. The
In 28 of the 60 countries
examined, at least one user was
arrested or imprisoned for
posting political, social, or
religious content online.
A woman in India
was arrested for
“liking” a friend’s
status on Facebook.
66
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
O
VERVIEW
:
D
ESPITE
P
USHBACK
,
I
NTERNET
F
REEDOM
D
ETERIORATES
12
charges carried a prison sentence of up to 10 years, though in August 2013 the law was amended to
increase the maximum penalty to 14 years.
Some regimes have also shown very little tolerance for humor that may cast them or the country’s
religious authorities in a negative light, leading to more arrests and prosecutions. For instance, in
June 2012, a popular Turkish composer and pianist was charged with offending Muslims with his
posts on Twitter, including one in which he joked about a call to prayer that lasted only 22 seconds,
suggesting that the religious authorities had been in a hurry to get back to their drinking and
mistresses. He was charged with inciting hatred and insulting “religious values,” and received a
suspended sentence of 10 months in prison. In another example, in India, a 25-year-old cartoonist
was arrested on a charge of sedition—which carries a life sentence—and for violating laws against
insulting national honor through his online anticorruption cartoons, one of which depicted the
national parliament as a toilet. He was released on bail after the sedition charge was dropped.
Growing activism stalls negative proposals and promotes positive
change
Although threats to internet freedom have continued to grow, the study’s findings also reveal a
significant uptick in citizen activism online. While it has not always produced legislative changes—
in fact, negative developments in the past year vastly outnumber positive developments—there is a
rising public consciousness about internet freedom and freedom of expression issues. Citizens’
groups are able to more rapidly disseminate information about negative proposals and put pressure
on the authorities. In addition, ICTs have started to play an important role in advocacy for positive
change on other policy topics, from corruption to women’s rights, enabling activists and citizens to
more effectively organize, lobby, and hold their governments accountable.
This emergent online activism has taken several forms. In 11 countries, negative laws were
deterred as a result of civic mobilization and pressure by activists, lawyers, the business sector,
reform-minded politicians, and the international community. In the Philippines, after the passage of
the restrictive Cybercrime Prevention Act, online protests and
campaigns ran for several months. Individuals blacked out their
profile pictures on social networks, and 15 petitions were filed
with the Supreme Court, which eventually put a restraining
order on the law, deeming it inapplicable in practice. In
Kyrgyzstan, the government proposed a law on protection of
children—modeled on the similar law in Russia—that activists
feared would be used as a tool for internet censorship, as it
allowed the government to close sites without a court decision.
The proposal sparked public outrage, spurring local advocacy
efforts that eventually compelled parliament to postpone the bill
until it could be amended.
In a select few countries, civic activists were able to form coalitions and proactively lobby
governments to pass laws that protect internet freedom or amend previously restrictive legislation.
In 11 countries, negative laws
were deterred as a result of
civic mobilization and
pressure by activists, lawyers,
the business sector, reform-
minded politicians, and the
international community.
51
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
O
VERVIEW
:
D
ESPITE
P
USHBACK
,
I
NTERNET
F
REEDOM
D
ETERIORATES
13
In Mexico, for example, following a public campaign by 17 civil society organizations that joined
forces in early 2013, freedom of access to the internet in now guaranteed in Article 6 of the
constitution. Although the Mexican government has not introduced any secondary legislation that
would specify how the new right will be protected in practice, the constitutional amendment is
seen as a significant victory. In the United Kingdom, the government passed a law to revise the
Defamation Act, discouraging the practice of “libel tourism” and limiting intermediary liability for
user-generated content of defamatory nature. Civil society has also been increasingly active on the
global stage, lobbying for greater transparency and inclusion in advance of the World Conference
on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai, and in some instances placing pressure
on their national delegations.
ICTs have also been an important tool for mobilization on issues other than internet freedom,
leading to important changes. In Morocco, online activism contributed to a national debate on
Article 475 of the penal code, which allows rapists to avoid prosecution if they agree to marry their
victims. Although women’s rights advocates have been lobbying for years to alter this law, the
necessary momentum was created only after a 16-year-old girl committed suicide, having been
forced to wed her alleged rapist. Women’s rights activists successfully used social media and online
news platforms to counter arguments made by state-controlled radio and television outlets, rallying
popular support for reforms. In January 2013, the government announced plans to revise the article
in question. In other countries—including many authoritarian states like China, Saudi Arabia, and
Bahrain—citizen journalists’ exposés of corruption, police abuse, pollution, and land grabs forced
the authorities to at least acknowledge the problem and in some cases punish the perpetrators.
In addition to activism by groups, citizens, and other stakeholders, the judiciary has played an
important role as protector of internet freedom, particularly in more democratic countries where
the courts operate with a greater degree of independence. Since May 2012, the courts in at least 9
countries have issued decisions that may have a positive impact on internet freedom. In South
Korea, the Constitutional Court overturned a notorious law that required all users to register with
their real names when commenting on large websites. In Italy, a court issued a ruling to clarify that
blogs cannot be considered illegal “clandestine press” under an outdated law stipulating that anyone
providing a news service must be a “chartered” journalist. In practice this rule had led some
bloggers and internet users to collaborate with registered journalists when publishing online in
order to protect themselves from legal action.
159
F
REEDOM ON THE
N
ET
2013
K
EY
I
NTERNET
C
ONTROLS BY
C
OUNTRY
14
K
EY
I
NTERNET
C
ONTROLS BY
C
OUNTRY
Country
(By FOTN 2013
ranking)
FOTN 2013 Status
(F=Free, PF=Partly Free,
NF=Not Free)
Social media and/or
communication apps
blocked
Political, social, and/or
religious content blocked
Localized or nationwide ICT
shutdown
Progovernment
commentators manipulate
online discussions
New law /directive
increasing censorship or
punishment passed
New law /directive incr.
surveillance or restricting
anonymity passed
Blogger/ICT user arrested
for political or social
writings
Blogger/ICT user physically
attacked or killed (incl. in
custody)
Technical attacks against
government critics and
human rights orgs
Iceland
F
Estonia
F
Germany
F
X
USA
F
Australia
F
X
France
F
Japan
F
X
Hungary
F
X
X
Italy
F
UK
F
Philippines
F
X
X
Georgia
F
South Africa
F
X
Argentina
F
X
X
Kenya
F
Ukraine
F
X
X
X
Armenia
F
X
Nigeria
PF
Brazil
PF
X
X
South Korea
PF
X
X
Angola
PF
X
X
Uganda
PF
X
Kyrgyzstan
PF
X
X
X
Ecuador
PF
X
X
X
X
X
Mexico
PF
X
X
X
X
Indonesia
PF
X
Tunisia
PF
X
X
Malawi
PF
X
X
Morocco
PF
X
X
X
X
Malaysia
PF
X
X
X
X
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
