Networking Session #93 Cyber laws and civic space: GN-GS advocacy strategies

Summary

This discussion focused on cyber laws and their impact on civic space, examining advocacy strategies across the Global North and South as part of the Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment project. Representatives from various regions shared their experiences with how cyber laws are being misused to restrict civil society operations and suppress dissent.

In the MENA region, panelists noted that while cyber crime laws are necessary due to legitimate security threats, they are frequently implemented without parliamentary oversight and used to criminalize online speech by journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens. Latin America was described as combining bad regulatory ideas with disproportionate security measures and insufficient knowledge among policymakers, resulting in anti-NGO laws and content regulation disguised as anti-disinformation measures.

African countries showed a pattern of 146 documented internet shutdowns between 2016 and 2023 across 37 nations, with governments using vaguely worded cyber laws to stifle opposition, particularly during elections. The role of international tech companies was criticized, with speakers noting their failure to protect users’ rights while prioritizing market access and profits.

Common patterns emerged across regions, including the use of overly broad language in legislation, lack of meaningful civil society consultation, powerful enforcement mechanisms, and absence of adequate privacy safeguards. Successful advocacy strategies discussed included building international coalitions, strategic litigation through regional courts like ECOWAS, engaging with international forums such as the UN Cybercrime Convention negotiations, and grassroots campaigns like the “Keep It On” initiative. The discussion emphasized the need for sustained collaboration between civil society organizations globally to address these systematic restrictions on digital rights and civic space.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Misuse of Cyber Laws to Suppress Civil Society**: Across regions (MENA, Latin America, Africa, Asia), cyber crime and cyber security laws are being systematically misused by governments to criminalize online speech, suppress journalists, activists, and dissidents, despite being originally intended to address legitimate cyber security threats.

– **Lack of Meaningful Civil Society Engagement in Law-Making**: Governments are either bypassing parliamentary processes entirely (with executive powers alone creating laws) or conducting purely symbolic consultations with civil society organizations before implementing restrictive legislation anyway.

– **Regional Patterns of Digital Rights Violations**: Common trends include vague and overly broad legal language, Internet shutdowns (146 documented in Africa between 2016-2023), surveillance expansion, and the use of laws targeting “disinformation” or “hate speech” as pretexts for censorship.

– **Limited Effectiveness of International Pressure**: Speakers noted that pressure from foreign governments and tech companies has proven largely ineffective, with tech companies prioritizing profits over human rights and governments often ignoring international criticism while maintaining oppressive domestic policies.

– **Coalition Building and Strategic Litigation as Key Advocacy Strategies**: Organizations are finding success through regional and international coalitions (like Al Sur in Latin America, Keep It On campaign in Africa), strategic litigation in courts, and grassroots advocacy campaigns, though effectiveness varies significantly by country context.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to share lived experiences among civil society organizations and activists regarding how cyber laws are restricting civic space globally, and to explore advocacy strategies for addressing these challenges through the Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment project.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, with speakers sharing concerning examples of rights violations while remaining constructive and solution-focused. The tone was serious given the gravity of the issues discussed, but remained optimistic about the potential for collective action and advocacy strategies to create positive change.

Speakers

– **Kenneth Harry Msiska**: Moderator representing the Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment project

– **Abed Kataya**: Representative from Cimex Lebanon, conducted case study for MENA region on cyber laws

– **Cristian Leon Coronado**: Representative from Internet Bolivia, also representing the Recipe Initiative

– **Patricia Ainembabazi**: Representative from CIPESA (Collaboration on ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa)

– **Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez**: Representative from Carisma Colombia

– **Daniela Alvarado Rincon**: Representative from DRI, part of the EU System for Enabling Environment for Civil Society (EUC)

– **Bimsara Malshan**: Representative from Sarvodaya Fusion, Sri Lanka (joined online)

– **Stephanie Borg Psaila**: From Diplo Foundation, lead partner for the CAID project

– **Audience**: Various audience members who asked questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Stefan**: Online moderator from Diplo (mentioned but did not speak in transcript)

– **Mia Marzotto**: From Oxfam (audience member who asked questions)

– **David**: Works with the European Union System for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (audience member who asked questions)

– **Bibi Abruzzini**: Asked question online (mentioned by moderator)

# Report: Cyber Laws and Their Impact on Civic Space – A Global Civil Society Perspective

## Introduction and Context

This discussion was moderated by Kenneth Harry Msiska representing the CAID project and brought together civil society representatives from across the globe to examine how cyber laws are being misused and their impact on civic space. The session was conducted in a hybrid format with Stefan serving as online moderator.

The panel featured regional representatives including Abedi Kataya from Cimex Lebanon (Middle East and North Africa), Christian Leon from Internet Bolivia (Latin America), Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez from Carisma Colombia, Patricia Ainembabazi from CIPESA (Africa), and Bimsara from Sarvodaya Fusion Sri Lanka (Asia), alongside Daniela Alvarado Rincon from the EUC project and Stephanie Borg Psaila from Diplo Foundation.

## Regional Perspectives

### Middle East and North Africa

Abedi Kataya explained that while cyber crime laws in the MENA region are often well-structured on paper and address legitimate security concerns including threats from groups like ISIS, their implementation consistently targets civil society rather than genuine cyber threats. He noted the complete absence of parliamentary oversight in many countries, with executive powers alone creating cyber laws without civil society engagement.

Even where public consultations occur, Kataya observed that governments routinely ignore civil society input. He emphasized that “grassroots change” is more important than “pressure from foreign governments” and advocated for building partnerships with policymakers rather than confrontational approaches.

### Latin America

Christian Leon characterized Latin America as “a playbook of what not to do” regarding cyber laws, describing the region as combining “bad regulatory ideas with bad intentions and disproportionate security actions.” He noted that governments across the political spectrum use cyber laws to implement oppressive measures, transcending traditional political divisions.

Christian highlighted the importance of international coalitions like Al Sur, which enables organizations to advocate effectively in international forums including UN Cybercrime Treaty negotiations. He also mentioned the Brain Trust mechanism for sharing expertise across the region.

Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez discussed the challenge of monitoring numerous legislative initiatives, noting that in Colombia alone, over 100 legislative initiatives per legislative period require monitoring. He observed a “flattening” of legal spaces where cyber laws are becoming integrated into broader legal frameworks covering areas like child protection, requiring civil society to expand expertise beyond traditional digital rights advocacy.

### Africa

Patricia Ainembabazi presented concrete data showing 146 documented internet shutdowns across 37 countries between 2016 and mid-2023. She highlighted how governments import surveillance technology from other countries without proper oversight and use vague language in cyber laws to flexibly target opposition voices during politically sensitive periods.

Patricia emphasized successful advocacy strategies including strategic litigation through regional courts, particularly the ECOWAS court system, and the “Keep It On” campaign which combines documentation, advocacy, and strategic litigation to address internet shutdowns.

### Asia and Global Perspectives

Bimsara discussed experiences in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, including social media breakdowns and internet restrictions, as well as ongoing capacity building initiatives in the region.

Daniela Alvarado Rincon, representing the EUC project covering 86 countries, provided examples from Pakistan where cyber crime legislation is being amended to criminalize “false information” about public authorities, leading to charges against journalists. She also mentioned cases from Myanmar’s new cyber security laws, Zambia’s cyber security and cyber crimes act, and Sierra Leone’s proposed cyber security and crime act. Daniela highlighted the development of an early warning mechanism to monitor legislative developments.

## Common Challenges Identified

### Deliberate Legal Ambiguity

Speakers consistently identified the use of vague and overly broad language in cyber laws across regions. Terms such as “false information,” “cyber terrorism,” and “threats to national security” are often left undefined, allowing flexible interpretation.

### Exclusion from Law-Making

The systematic exclusion of meaningful civil society participation in cyber law development emerged as a universal challenge, with governments employing various strategies from complete exclusion to token consultations.

### Technology Company Accountability

Strong criticism emerged regarding technology companies’ failure to protect users’ rights. Abedi stated bluntly that tech companies “really don’t care about human rights” and “don’t react” to outreach about user persecution. Patricia criticized “big tech companies and European technology providers” for failing to uphold moral obligations to citizens in restricted countries.

## Audience Questions and Discussion

The Q&A session raised several important points:

– Questions about balancing collaborative work with governments while simultaneously pursuing strategic litigation

– Discussion of the Recipe Initiative and its role in supporting civil society

– Exploration of how international actors and multinational corporations can contribute to advocacy efforts

– Consideration of capacity building needs across different regions

Stephanie Borg Psaila specifically asked about balancing cooperative engagement with confrontational approaches like strategic litigation, highlighting the practical challenges organizations face in their advocacy strategies.

## Successful Strategies Highlighted

Speakers identified several effective approaches:

– Strategic litigation through appropriate judicial mechanisms

– International coalition building for resource sharing and coordination

– Documentation and monitoring campaigns like “Keep It On”

– Capacity building and training programs

– Early warning mechanisms for legislative monitoring

## Closing and Next Steps

The discussion concluded with plans to continue conversations through online platforms and strengthen international coalitions. Kenneth mentioned that interested participants could register for ongoing collaboration, and the session demonstrated the value of cross-regional learning and experience sharing.

The conversation revealed both the global nature of challenges facing civil society in digital spaces and the importance of continued collaboration between organizations worldwide to develop effective advocacy strategies and share resources and expertise.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right, good morning everyone. On behalf of the Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment project, I would like to welcome you to this particular session on Cyber Laws and Civic Space, Global North and Global South Advocacy Strategies. Our session today, the 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, you know, restricting civic space in our countries or in our regions. And so to discuss this, in front of me I have our panelists, Daniela from DRI, DRI is also part of the Strengthening Enabling Environment Initiative which is co-funded by the EU. I have Christian Leon from Internet Bolivia, Patricia Ainembabazi from CPSA. I have Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez from Carisma Colombia and Abedi Kataya from Cimex Lebanon. I’ll also be assisted by my colleague Stefan from Diplo, she’s the online moderator. So Stefan, when there is something to discuss or we have anything burning from our online participants, please do let me know. Before I forget, we also have Bimshara from Savodaya Fusion who is joining us online. He couldn’t make it physically but he’s joined us online so at some point I also got to him to share his perspectives. So to kick-start our discussion this morning, I’ll start with you Abedi. You recently conducted a case study for the MENA region which was looking at cyber laws making in that region. Could you just share based on your experience some of the issues that came out of that particular case study?

Abed Kataya: Thank you Kenneth and good morning everyone. So in the MENA region actually we noticed that the cyber crimes laws are being issued. We have a big threat when it comes to cyber crimes, when it comes to cyber security in our region because when you have many countries that are rich in fuel and other countries that are in conflict with others, so we really need to be aware of the cyber crimes and cyber everything. In addition to that, we’re witnessing a lot of cyber crime attacks as well as scammer attacks on users in these regions. So this led to the need of cyber crimes laws because there is a huge need there. In the recent years, like many governments have been working on showing and also passing cyber crimes laws, but unfortunately most of these cyber crimes laws are being used to suppress civil society journalists and dissidents. We’ve studied like many countries in our region like Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. We found that some copies of the cyber crimes laws are very well structured and very well put, but when it comes to the implementation, we see that they are criminalizing online speech and when we are talking and when we talk about online speech, this means journalists, activists and even like regular people who are using online platforms to express themselves. In addition to that, we found that like in several countries there is no parliament, so the executive power is the only entity that are working on issuing these laws. So there is no engagement from civil society, no engagement for anyone and they just pass these laws and regulations. In other countries, actually they do hear, they do public consultation with the civil society, but then they do whatever they want. Okay, we heard you, we sat with you and then we will do whatever we want and this is something that we really need to fix. Also, like more examples on the abuse, we see that we really need to focus, like for example in countries like Lebanon, we don’t have cyber crimes laws, but the penal code is being used to criminalize cyber crimes in addition to criminalize online speech. So even if you don’t have a cyber crime law, online speech has been criminalized and also been used to suppress other opinions. I will be short. Yeah, so we really need from the governments and also the CSOs to come out with some recommendations and I will share them right now. Maybe the recommendations later. Yeah, later, okay. So this is like what’s happening in our region in terms of CSOs engagement and the Internet governance processes because we really believe that fighting cyber crimes is part of the Internet governance and like regulating and having a safe space online for people is something that we really need to regulate, but we don’t need to be oppressive.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Yeah, thank you. All right, thank you so much Abedi. Now we move to Latin America. We have two representatives on the panel, so Cristian Leone, Internet Bolivia, and then I’ll come to Juan Diego, so you share. I’ll give you five minutes, so you split the five minutes.

Cristian Leon Coronado: All right, okay, thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here. So Latin America is a region in which three things are catastrophically combined. First thing is bad ideas of regulations with very bad intentions. The second thing is disproportionate and mostly unconstitutional actions to protect security. And the third thing is lack of capacities and knowledge on public decision makers on how to regulate technologies. Regarding the first one, there are several cases of anti-NGO laws that have been recently been created in Paraguay, El Salvador, Peru, Nicaragua, Venezuela. There have been also attempts to try to regulate online content, often passes as legislation against disinformation or hate speech, but in the truth are laws that try to give sensor capacities to governments. And of course all the legislations that endorse the strengthening of security measures, including surveillance through cameras, facial recognition, and the creation of databases for the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime, among the other cases. Unfortunately, from the cyber laws perspective, Latin America is a playbook of what not to do, because these cyber laws are actually becoming instruments that allow governments of all political lines and perspectives to carry out measures that only erode our rights and freedoms. I don’t know if

Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez: Andeo wants to… Yeah, thank you. And maybe something to add is that more increasingly we have laws that are not just cyber laws, so we were used to have laws that are regarding only digital spaces and digital contexts, but increasingly we have discussions on many other issues that maybe we as civil society organizations working on the digital space, we are not used to work with, for example, some issues, at least for us in the Latin American context, it was issues of kids protection, for example. This has been increasingly a place from which obviously is the experience of all other parts of the world, but it’s a place where we have a lot of laws trying to reclaim parts of the digital space and to regulate the space, and we have a lot of regulation regarding these issues, and then as civil society organizations, we just don’t have to contend with the regulators and with the courts on these issues, but also with other civil society organizations that have been working traditionally on other spaces, and that’s, I think, one of the main changes in the landscape, so maybe talking about cyber laws or exclusively about cyber laws, it’s something we might have to stop doing in the future because it is going to be just laws, so the space is going to be flattened.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right, thank you so much. Coming to you, Patricia, I do understand CIPESA conducts regular studies on the state of Internet freedom in Africa. What key trends or insights have emerged from the studies that you’ve been conducting?

Patricia Ainembabazi: Thank you, Kenneth. I just feel the need to explain that CIPESA stands for the Collaboration on ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa, just for the case of those that did not know, and we do have this report that we do every year which we call the State of Internet Freedoms in Africa, or CIFA, and there are some sets of recurring trends or recurring things that we point out, one being an increase in surveillance and communication interception as well as expansion of Internet shutdowns in Africa. So to note, between 2016 and mid-2023, we had about 146 Internet shutdowns that were documented across 37 African countries, and we have seen governments use this thing about Internet shutdowns. We have partners that we work with across the continent, so to say sub-Saharan Africa, and we have noticed that indeed all these countries have cyber laws in place, however they are sort of done in a vague or ambiguous manner so that the governments can always use them to stifle dissent and repress people’s rights as and when they want, especially during elections as well as any little thing that happens in these 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. You would expect, let’s say, Google or Meta or as well as X, you know, to have a role to play for these citizens and say, you know, 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’re not, 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, it’s not yet being done properly, and we do hope as we go forward that African countries can have sets and also be able to define what they mean when they say this is what amounts to a violation of maybe what is misinformation, disinformation, and a violation of laws in the specific dockets that they do. I’m sure you’ll be asking me the next part to mention the next part of the question, so I will let that go. Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right, thank you so much, Patricia. Coming to you, Daniela, I do understand that your project, the Strengthening Enabling Environment, has been implementing an area warning mechanism which, among other things, identifies the in-country threats. I think some of the issues have been mentioned here, and these are issues that CSOs are facing. Could you please highlight some of the issues you have gathered so far, and also maybe share with the audience how you are implementing this area warning mechanism? Thank you.

Daniela Alvarado Rincon: Thank you, Kenneth, and thank you for the kind invitation to follow us and to the CADE project. I am part of the EU System for Enabling Environment for Civil Society, or EUC, which is a consortium of international organizations and network members working across 86 countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, the Americas, and the Caribbean. As you were saying, we do implement an early warning mechanism that tracks developments and emerging trends in the enabling environment for civil society. We monitor six principles, and one of those principles has to do with civil society’s access to digital technologies, and whether civil society actors can operate freely and safely online without censorship, surveillance, cyber attacks, etc. And indeed, in the past six months, which is since we started collecting this information, we have received many, consistently, and many reports on this issue, highlighting how these cyber crimes laws are being misused to restrict civil space and civil society in our network members. So I’m going to mention some examples on that. For example, in January of this year, we received a report from Pakistan. At the beginning of the year, the parliament amended its cyber crime legislation, which is known as the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, and it introduced a new criminal offense related to the distribution of false and defamatory information, particularly with regards to public authorities. And of course, this amendment also granted the government broad powers to block or remove content online. And a particular example of this misuse came in April, this was a report we also received from our network member, in which an investigative journalist, Ahmad Norani, was charged under this very law for three counts, including cyber terrorism, defamation of a state institution, due to his reporting on alleged military corruption. Similarly, in April, we received a report from Zambia, I think it has gained more attention. The parliament also passed two controversial bills, the cyber security and the cyber crimes bills, despite strong opposition from civil society organizations, who criticized the bills’ vague and overly broad language, also granting surveillance powers to the government. And these bills didn’t include really adequate oversight mechanisms to safeguard against privacy violations. And what is important is that these bills were passed almost with little public engagement or transparency, to the extent that it gained wider attention only after a foreign embassy issued a security alert about this issue. Meanwhile, in Myanmar, also a law was implemented, a new cyber security law was implemented, consolidating control over digital spaces and curtailing civil society digital security. And in Sierra Leone, the social media influencer, Hawa Hunt, was arrested, lived on a reality TV show, for criticizing the president, and also was charged under the Cyber Security and Crime Act from 2021. And the charges were later withdrawn, following an advocacy campaign by civil society groups, but this demonstrates how these cyber security laws can have a chilling effect on civil society freedom. So there are many examples, and quickly to finish, I think my colleagues here in the panel have mentioned the patterns that these cyber laws, and the misuse of these cyber laws have, a use of vague and overly broad language, the creation of powerful enforcement authorities, or like adding a lot of enforcement power to already existing authorities, a lack of meaningful consultation with civil society groups, or consultations that are purely symbolic, arbitrary applications once these laws are issued, and critically, the absence of strong safeguards regarding privacy violations or violations to fundamental rights. And I’ll pause here now, and we can continue discussing more advocacy strategies in the next session.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. Thank you so much. Going online now, Paul, if you can help us, Bhimshara from Sri Lanka, Bhimshara works for Sarvodaya-Fusion. Bhimshara, if you can share your perspective from the Asia region.

Bimsara Malshan: So thank you, Kenneth. Hopefully I’m audible for everyone, and so I’m grateful for this opportunity. And actually, so when it comes to the K-8 Project, Sabudaya Fusion is one of the organizations representing, actually, we are the only organization which represents the Southeast Asian region. So actually, under the K-8 Project, we have trained professionals and civil society staff in Sri Lanka and Maldives, and where the civil society representation in IG processes are quite low in our region. And so we successfully completed those programs, and so as a second part of this project, we are targeting a couple of initiatives, especially to enhance the engagement of persons with disabilities, engagement with IG processes, as well as there is quite a lack of engagement among the academias of our region. So we are targeting to enhance them by providing an opportunity with a research symposium. And our perspective is in our region also, we also seen a couple of internet breakdowns, and actually social media breakdowns in the past years. So hopefully, with the support of OROs and the Diplo Foundation, we are hoping to conduct a case study. And within this year, we were able to publish a comprehensive study on related to that. Thank you, Kenneth, for this opportunity, and actually for the stipend as well.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right, thank you so much, Bhimsala. We have five minutes to get quick reactions from the audience. We have two mics, one which is on your left, which is my right, and then the other one there. If there is anything, any burning comment, question to our speakers, I invite you to move to those mics. Anyone? Yeah.

Audience: Hello. Can you hear me? Does this work? Yeah. Thank you, everybody, for the presentation so far. My name is Mia Marzotto from Oxfam. A couple of you mentioned how international companies or multinational companies, have a role to play in some of these restriction on civic space and abuse of cyber laws, i m also wondering in your experiences the role of outside government or international institution, have you been engaging with those, do they help in your advocacy strategies on these issues or do the governments of your respective country take issue when there is international pressure from governments or international institutions. My name is David and I work with the European Union System for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society. Very quickly, the issues that were raised by the panel, especially the internet restrictions and other digital restrictions, including the laws and legislation. In the same way we pre-empt restrictions in the physical space, maybe protests and other government attacks, are there ways in which your organizations pre-empt these restrictions? And secondly, the colleague from CIPESA, really good to listen to the statistics about internet restrictions across the continent. When you document these restrictions, what happens after that? Do you provide any kind of support to civil society? I know there are organizations that keep it on coalition and others. Are you part of such coalitions that provide responses when there are shutdowns, giving the impact not just on civic space but on health, education and almost all aspects of life?

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you so much, David. Okay, I think I can go to our speakers. So I’ll start with you, Patricia, because you got, I think, two. I don’t know if you attempt the other one, but I think the other one is just asking everyone to say what are we doing about these things, which is, I think, where we’re going next. So you combine these two questions and then you also share with us what do you think are some of the strategies that we can take on board in order to address the issues that we have come up with.

Patricia Ainembabazi: All right. Thank you, Kenneth. To the first question about — we have success stories from the ECOWAS court where rulings were actually towards, you know, to the rights of the people in these countries. To the first question about — we have success stories from the ECOWAS court where rulings were actually towards, you know, to the rights of the people in these countries. We have countries like Nigeria, we have Togo and the rest, even Guinea, on Internet shutdowns around elections and other things that happen in these countries. So it’s — we do not only document, we also go ahead to advise on the next steps and also work with the different countries or different partners that we have in these countries to come up with solutions. We do trainings, we do capacity building in all forms, you know, and I think the other question would also be answered by the rest. Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. I’ll go to Daniela. Apart from sharing the strategies, I would also want you to weigh in on, I think, what David asked to say in terms of what are we doing about this. And for the EUC project, could you also share which countries is this targeting? How big is the EUC project? Over to you.

Daniela Alvarado Rincon: Thanks. Yes. So the EUC project has network members in 86 countries. As I said, in Africa, in the Middle East, in the Americas and the Caribbean, and Asia and the Pacific. And 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 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. And very recently, last week, we held a conversation with the network members on the use of cybersecurity laws in each of different countries. And we discussed the importance of building these international and global coalitions for a topic that, again, has consistent patterns across different countries. And I think that’s a very first step to start building these coalitions, to start having these discussions. The second step, I think, is try to use these coalitions and these platforms to influence the regulation on this topic at the international level. So very recently, we adopted the UN Cybercrime Convention, for example. And despite, again, many concerns from human rights actors and civil society actors, some of the things that were in the final draft still raise concerns about broad language, about clauses that may open the door for things that could be misused. So the second step, I will say, is, again, trying to influence as much as possible international instruments dealing with this topic, because those become, somehow, standards then for the governments. And finally, I think what Patricia was saying, I think, is super clear, and it was discussed in this meeting that we had last week with our network members, the importance of strategic litigation and engaging with the judiciary authorities in the different countries, because many of these laws are direct violations of the principles of legality, of non-discrimination, of legitimate purpose, necessity, proportionality. I think we discussed that yesterday as well. And I think the violations are very clear, and engaging with the judiciaries and engaging in strategic litigation is still a valid and effective form where possible to deal with this issue.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. Thank you so much, Daniela Christian, I know you’re wearing two hats. You’re also representing the Recipe Initiative, which is a sister initiative to the CAID project. Would you also weigh in in terms of what you’re doing as Internet Bolivia as well as the Recipe Initiative?

Cristian Leon Coronado: Yeah, sure. The same as Daniela, I think it’s violations. I have to mention two examples. One was within Al Sur, a Latin American coalition of 11 organizations working towards digital rights. We organized working groups to advocate in different international forums. One was in relation to the U.N.’s International Cybercrime Treaty. For this, we created this mechanism that was called Brain Trust, in which we organized together with CEOs from the global north in order to campaign together. And even though the treaty ended, as we know, at least I think this was a very good practice that we can replicate in other international forums. And this coalition also allowed us to, through policy calls, to share in a trustful way our own learnings in this forum. Another example is the Recipe project in which we are part. It’s a similar project as CAID. Organizations from the global south, we are working together with organizations from the global north, such as Oxfam, Diplo Foundation, in order to exchange and transfer our capacities and our resources in relation to common objectives. So I think coalitions, they really work. Of course, I’m not telling you anything new or anything really innovative, but are things that have proven to work, especially in a moment in which we know that global governance is in crisis. But at least civil society organizations are forging the networks and collaborations across the globe that we need.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. Thank you. Coming to you, Juan, could you please share what you’re doing? Carisma is based in Colombia. What are you doing about the issues that we just discussed here?

Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez: Well, no, I mean, Christian mentioned one of the big things we’re doing, which is participating on this coalition called El Sur. 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 what we have in Colombia. And it comes with what I said first, which is how the spectrum of legislation and other initiatives that we follow has been broadened. So it is an issue of how to stay ahead of the many initiatives of legislation that we have. And the collaboration with others. and many more. We have a lot of resources, and it is important to think about how your local cases, how your local experience can help other processes and other organizations that are on the same level or that are in a broader scope, regional or global scope, helps a lot. We have, for example, in the same cybercrime convention, that was also a good example because we have a lot of people from the south. We have a lot of people from the south, and we could have a person following immediately all of the discussions, and that is something other organizations like ours couldn’t do, so this way of them 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 we have found very practical that could help a lot of the participation of the community, and it’s something that we would like to continue to do. So, yeah, I think that’s it. I think that’s all the resources to attend.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. Thank you so much. Coming to you, Abedi, apart from sharing with us the recommendations that you wanted to share, I also want you to address, you mentioned the issue of executive dominance in terms of making the laws. What are you doing about it? And what are you doing about it in terms of the international community? I think it’s very important when it comes to foreign pressure and also the pressure from tech companies.

Abed Kataya: Actually, what we need is a grassroot change, not the pressure from foreign government, because we really believe that this pressure would be in the governments and even the local authorities would respond somehow positively to the foreign pressure, but then they would do whatever they want to do. So, we need to make sure that the governments do the pressure and whatever they fit them, not what they fit the local society. When it comes to tech companies, they really don’t care about human rights, to be honest, and we’ve seen a lot of cases in Egypt and Jordan where activists and influencers were being put in jail, and we reach out to these companies, and they don’t react. They don’t respond to the press. They don’t respond to the press. But they had several meetings with the authorities during the same time of these incidents, and they did not raise any issue regarding these influencers and these users who are generating money for them as platforms. What they care about is only to stay in these countries and to generate money. That’s it. I think we need to start to work on partnerships and somehow to challenge things and other times to coordinate with some people, policymakers, and not to be in confront with them all the time. In addition to that, we really need the governments to have open engagement channels. We ask them to have these channels. We ask them to have a face-to-face conversation with us, but we really need them to understand the importance of this. As from our discussions today, we mentioned to them sometimes not only human rights but also the economic benefits of being open, of being like advocates for data protection and privacy because nowadays, ecosystem, you really need to be data protection-oriented to have a successful business. So this is something that we really need to do. In addition to that, the government should uphold human rights and should put the human rights on top of everything they do as policies. When we say human rights, that means everything for the sake of people and the sake of regular users. So we really need to do that. Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you so much, Abedi. We quickly go online, so over to you, Steph.

Audience: We have a question from Bibi Abruzzini. It’s been partially answered by the speakers here, but I will share it. So from a communications and a citizen participation standpoint, what is the role of the Internet in the development of human rights? And how can it be used to help and inspire civil society organizations to act as a bridge with communities and shape policies? Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Wow. Who wants to take that one? The audience is also invited. Who wants to share any experiences?

Daniela Alvarado Rincon: I know that, for example, in Sierra Leone, there was a very successful case with the social media influencer that I mentioned at the beginning of a lot of advocacy efforts by civil society groups, by international actors, a lot of movement in social media that made, in the end, created a lot of pressure in the government to release this person, this woman, this person. And I think that was a successful case, no? Like a lot of creativity and engaging, again, national actors, but also international actors, creating coalitions and adding pressure to governments. So I think that that was a successful case.

Patricia Ainembabazi: All right. I can take me. In Africa, we do have the Keep It Tone campaign, and I think it’s a very successful campaign. To answer that, it has led to strategic litigation and we have seen the results to that clearly every organisation has had hashtag to that.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: How do you see it? Let’s take one start. I think it is universal and 나중에 and we are originally talking about based on algorithm and intention and driven by the idea of a global solution. Let’s say if we are talking about the global south, because I think I heard it first from Daniel and I am getting it again from Patricia. What do you think?

Daniela Alvarado Rincon: I think it is not easy. I think obviously this also depends on how strong the rule of law is in a particular country and how stable the judiciary system is, how stable the judiciary system is. How independent it is, so there are a lot of factors. I come from Colombia as well, Despite many problems and issues and Diego can help me there, I think it is not easy. but I think still there is, for example, we, have seen changes through strategic litigation and we have seen progress and benefits of engaging still with the judiciary system, but it does not have the understanding in the specific context, but I think, at least in some cases, it works.

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Quick one. Borg-Psyla from Diplo. Diplo is the lead partner for the CAID project. On one hand here, I heard, for instance, You said that CSOs should not take a confrontation stance with the governments because they need to be working together. On the other hand, the litigation aspect has come up very often. How do we balance this, right, between the aim of working together, but at the same time, we’re taking governments to court? So how does that play out, especially regionally?

Abed Kataya: I think that’s a very good question. Actually it depend on every countries context, i can not I’m sharing my experience here from the region, and not all the region, I mean from the country to another. I think the same applies to other regions and other countries as well, because it’s a trial and error thing, and you need to engage with the local governments first to What are the the dynamics that make this government act in favour of the human rights and in favour of civil society thing, and then you will see later how to move and what are the next steps. For example, if I’m talking about Lebanon, it’s something different from Jordan.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you. Like I said, we’ve run out of time. We circulated a sheet of paper. If we can put our names, we hope to take this discussion forward, so if you can register your interest, we’ll be very happy to have you join us online. Thank you, our audience, and thank you for the technicians for helping us with this session. Thank you all. Thank you.

Agreement points

Cyber laws are systematically misused across regions to suppress civil society and restrict civic space

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Cristian Leon Coronado
– Patricia Ainembabazi
– Daniela Alvarado Rincon

Arguments

MENA region cyber crime laws are well-structured but implemented to suppress civil society, journalists and dissidents

Latin America combines bad regulatory ideas with bad intentions and disproportionate security actions

African countries have cyber laws with vague language that governments use to stifle dissent, especially during elections

Pakistan amended cyber crime legislation to criminalize false information about public authorities, leading to journalist charges

Summary

All regional representatives agree that while cyber laws may appear legitimate on paper, they are consistently implemented to suppress journalists, activists, and civil society organizations across different regions, demonstrating a global pattern of misuse.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Governments deliberately use vague and ambiguous language in cyber laws to enable flexible suppression

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Patricia Ainembabazi
– Daniela Alvarado Rincon

Arguments

MENA region cyber crime laws are well-structured but implemented to suppress civil society, journalists and dissidents

African countries have cyber laws with vague language that governments use to stifle dissent, especially during elections

Zambia passed controversial cyber security bills with little public engagement despite civil society opposition

Summary

Speakers from MENA, Africa, and global perspectives agree that governments intentionally craft cyber laws with vague language to provide flexibility in targeting civil society when convenient, particularly during sensitive political periods.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Civil society engagement in cyber law-making is either absent or merely symbolic across regions

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Cristian Leon Coronado
– Daniela Alvarado Rincon

Arguments

Many MENA countries have no parliament involvement, with executive power solely issuing cyber laws without civil society engagement

Some countries conduct public consultations but ignore civil society input and proceed with their original plans

Cyber laws in Latin America include anti-NGO legislation and content regulation disguised as anti-disinformation measures

Zambia passed controversial cyber security bills with little public engagement despite civil society opposition

Summary

There is strong consensus that governments across regions either completely exclude civil society from cyber law-making processes or conduct token consultations while ignoring input, demonstrating a systematic exclusion of civil society voices.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

International coalitions and collaboration are essential for effective advocacy

Speakers

– Cristian Leon Coronado
– Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez
– Daniela Alvarado Rincon
– Kenneth Harry Msiska

Arguments

Latin American organizations formed coalitions like Al Sur to advocate in international forums including UN Cybercrime Treaty

Collaboration helps organizations monitor numerous legislative initiatives and share resources

Building international coalitions helps share experiences and influence regulation at international level

Regional representation and collaboration is essential for understanding global patterns of cyber law misuse

Summary

All speakers emphasize the critical importance of building coalitions and collaborative networks to share resources, experiences, and advocacy strategies, recognizing that individual organizations cannot effectively address the scale of cyber law challenges alone.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Strategic litigation can be effective but depends on local judicial context

Speakers

– Patricia Ainembabazi
– Daniela Alvarado Rincon

Arguments

Strategic litigation through regional courts like ECOWAS has achieved success in protecting rights

Strategic litigation success depends on rule of law strength and judiciary independence in each country

Summary

Both speakers agree that strategic litigation can be a successful advocacy tool, but its effectiveness is contingent on having strong rule of law and independent judiciary systems in the specific country context.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers share strong criticism of technology companies for prioritizing business interests over human rights protection, failing to respond to user persecution while maintaining profitable relationships with oppressive governments.

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Patricia Ainembabazi

Arguments

Tech companies prioritize staying in countries and generating revenue over protecting human rights of users

Big tech companies and European technology providers fail to uphold moral obligations to citizens in restricted countries

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Both Latin American representatives emphasize the practical benefits of regional collaboration, sharing specific examples of how coalitions like Al Sur enable resource sharing and more effective monitoring of legislative processes.

Speakers

– Cristian Leon Coronado
– Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez

Arguments

Latin American organizations formed coalitions like Al Sur to advocate in international forums including UN Cybercrime Treaty

Collaboration helps organizations monitor numerous legislative initiatives and share resources

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the complexity of balancing cooperative and confrontational approaches with governments, emphasizing the need to understand local contexts and what motivates governments to respect human rights rather than relying solely on external pressure or adversarial tactics.

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

Need for grassroots change rather than foreign pressure, requiring partnerships with policymakers instead of constant confrontation

Balance between cooperation and litigation requires understanding what makes governments act in favor of human rights

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Ineffectiveness of foreign pressure and international intervention

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Patricia Ainembabazi

Arguments

Need for grassroots change rather than foreign pressure, requiring partnerships with policymakers instead of constant confrontation

Big tech companies and European technology providers fail to uphold moral obligations to citizens in restricted countries

Explanation

It is somewhat unexpected that civil society representatives would express skepticism about international pressure and foreign intervention, as these are often seen as important advocacy tools. Both speakers suggest that local, grassroots approaches may be more effective than external pressure, which challenges conventional advocacy wisdom.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Economic arguments can support human rights advocacy

Speakers

– Abed Kataya

Arguments

Governments should establish open engagement channels and prioritize human rights in policy-making

Explanation

The suggestion that economic benefits of data protection and openness can be used to advocate for human rights represents an unexpected consensus on using business arguments to support rights-based advocacy, bridging typically separate domains of economic and human rights discourse.

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

There is remarkably strong consensus among speakers from different regions about the systematic misuse of cyber laws to suppress civil society, the exclusion of meaningful civil society participation in law-making, and the critical importance of international collaboration for effective advocacy.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications – the agreement across diverse regional contexts suggests these are not isolated problems but part of a global pattern of digital authoritarianism. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated international advocacy efforts and suggests that shared strategies and resources could be effective across different regional contexts. The agreement also validates the importance of projects like CAID in facilitating cross-regional learning and collaboration.

Different viewpoints

Approach to engaging with governments – cooperation vs confrontation

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

Need for grassroots change rather than foreign pressure, requiring partnerships with policymakers instead of constant confrontation

Balance between cooperation and litigation requires understanding what makes governments act in favor of human rights

Summary

Abed Kataya advocates for avoiding confrontation and building partnerships with policymakers, while Stephanie Borg Psaila questions how to balance this cooperative approach with the need for strategic litigation against governments

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Effectiveness of international pressure and foreign intervention

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Audience

Arguments

Need for grassroots change rather than foreign pressure, requiring partnerships with policymakers instead of constant confrontation

International companies and multinational corporations play a role in enabling restrictions on civic space

Summary

Abed Kataya argues that foreign pressure is ineffective and grassroots change is needed, while audience members suggest international actors and companies have important roles to play in advocacy strategies

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Unexpected differences

Role and effectiveness of tech companies in human rights protection

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Patricia Ainembabazi

Arguments

Tech companies prioritize staying in countries and generating revenue over protecting human rights of users

Big tech companies and European technology providers fail to uphold moral obligations to citizens in restricted countries

Explanation

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on advocacy strategies – specifically whether to prioritize cooperation or confrontation with governments, the role of international pressure, and the context-dependency of different approaches. There was also disagreement about the potential for engaging with tech companies.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement was moderate and constructive. Speakers generally agreed on the problems (cyber laws being misused to restrict civic space) but differed on solutions and strategies. These disagreements reflect different regional experiences and contexts rather than fundamental ideological divisions, which actually strengthens the overall discussion by providing multiple strategic approaches for different situations.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers share strong criticism of technology companies for prioritizing business interests over human rights protection, failing to respond to user persecution while maintaining profitable relationships with oppressive governments.

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Patricia Ainembabazi

Arguments

Tech companies prioritize staying in countries and generating revenue over protecting human rights of users

Big tech companies and European technology providers fail to uphold moral obligations to citizens in restricted countries

Topics

Human rights | Economic

Both Latin American representatives emphasize the practical benefits of regional collaboration, sharing specific examples of how coalitions like Al Sur enable resource sharing and more effective monitoring of legislative processes.

Speakers

– Cristian Leon Coronado
– Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez

Arguments

Latin American organizations formed coalitions like Al Sur to advocate in international forums including UN Cybercrime Treaty

Collaboration helps organizations monitor numerous legislative initiatives and share resources

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers recognize the complexity of balancing cooperative and confrontational approaches with governments, emphasizing the need to understand local contexts and what motivates governments to respect human rights rather than relying solely on external pressure or adversarial tactics.

Speakers

– Abed Kataya
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

Need for grassroots change rather than foreign pressure, requiring partnerships with policymakers instead of constant confrontation

Balance between cooperation and litigation requires understanding what makes governments act in favor of human rights

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Cyber laws across regions (MENA, Latin America, Africa, Asia) are systematically misused to suppress civil society, journalists, and dissidents despite legitimate cybersecurity needs

There is a consistent pattern of governments using vague and overly broad language in cyber laws, creating powerful enforcement authorities, and lacking meaningful civil society consultation

International coalitions and strategic litigation have proven effective advocacy strategies, with successful cases in ECOWAS court and campaigns like ‘Keep It On’ in Africa

Tech companies prioritize profits over human rights protection, failing to advocate for users facing government persecution

The scope of digital regulation is expanding beyond traditional cyber laws to include child protection and other areas, requiring broader civil society engagement

Context-dependent approaches are necessary, balancing cooperation with governments and confrontational strategies like litigation based on local political dynamics

Resolutions and action items

Participants agreed to continue discussions through an online platform, with a registration sheet circulated for interested parties

Organizations committed to building and strengthening international coalitions for sharing experiences and coordinating advocacy efforts

Strategic litigation was identified as a key tool to challenge unconstitutional cyber laws, particularly through regional courts

Capacity building and training programs were highlighted as ongoing initiatives, particularly in Sri Lanka and Maldives

Documentation and monitoring of internet restrictions and cyber law abuses will continue through organizations like CIPESA and the EU System for Enabling Environment

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance cooperation with governments versus confrontational approaches like strategic litigation

The challenge of monitoring and responding to the expanding scope of legislation beyond traditional cyber laws

How to effectively pressure tech companies to prioritize human rights over profits

The question of whether foreign government pressure is effective or counterproductive in different contexts

How to build sufficient capacity among civil society organizations to monitor the increasing number of legislative initiatives (over 100 per legislative period mentioned for Colombia)

The role of international instruments like the UN Cybercrime Convention and whether they provide adequate safeguards

Suggested compromises

Engaging governments through partnerships and dialogue rather than constant confrontation, while maintaining strategic litigation as an option

Emphasizing economic benefits of data protection and privacy to governments alongside human rights arguments

Building coalitions that include both Global North and Global South organizations to share resources and expertise

Establishing open engagement channels between governments and civil society for ongoing dialogue on cyber law development

Using trial-and-error approaches adapted to each country’s specific political context and rule of law situation

Unfortunately, from the cyber laws perspective, Latin America is a playbook of what not to do, because these cyber laws are actually becoming instruments that allow governments of all political lines and perspectives to carry out measures that only erode our rights and freedoms.

Speaker

Cristian Leon Coronado

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it reframes the entire discussion by positioning Latin America as a cautionary tale rather than just another region with problems. The phrase ‘playbook of what not to do’ suggests systematic patterns that other regions can learn from, and the emphasis on ‘all political lines’ highlights that this isn’t a partisan issue but a structural governance problem.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from merely cataloging problems to thinking about regional experiences as learning opportunities for global advocacy. It set up a framework for understanding cyber laws as tools of oppression across political spectrums, which influenced subsequent speakers to focus on systemic patterns rather than isolated incidents.

Maybe talking about cyber laws or exclusively about cyber laws, it’s something we might have to stop doing in the future because it is going to be just laws, so the space is going to be flattened.

Speaker

Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez

Reason

This observation is profoundly thought-provoking because it challenges the fundamental framing of the entire discussion. It suggests that the digital/physical divide in legal frameworks is dissolving, requiring civil society to completely rethink their advocacy strategies and expertise areas. This represents a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize digital rights work.

Impact

This comment introduced a meta-level analysis that forced participants to question their basic assumptions about digital rights advocacy. It suggested that traditional silos between digital and non-digital civil society work are becoming obsolete, which later influenced discussions about coalition-building and the need for broader expertise in advocacy efforts.

When it comes to tech companies, they really don’t care about human rights, to be honest, and we’ve seen a lot of cases in Egypt and Jordan where activists and influencers were being put in jail, and we reach out to these companies, and they don’t react… What they care about is only to stay in these countries and to generate money.

Speaker

Abed Kataya

Reason

This brutally honest assessment cuts through diplomatic language to expose the reality of corporate responsibility in human rights. It’s insightful because it directly challenges the assumption that tech companies can be reliable allies in human rights advocacy, forcing a more realistic assessment of power dynamics.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion away from strategies that rely on corporate goodwill toward more grassroots and government-focused approaches. It influenced the conversation about international pressure and coalition-building by highlighting the limitations of relying on private sector actors.

What we need is a grassroot change, not the pressure from foreign government, because we really believe that this pressure would be in the governments and even the local authorities would respond somehow positively to the foreign pressure, but then they would do whatever they want to do.

Speaker

Abed Kataya

Reason

This comment challenges conventional wisdom about international advocacy and foreign pressure as effective tools for change. It’s insightful because it suggests that external pressure may actually be counterproductive or superficial, advocating instead for indigenous, bottom-up approaches to reform.

Impact

This perspective introduced tension into the discussion about advocacy strategies, particularly challenging participants who work with international organizations or rely on foreign funding. It forced a deeper examination of the effectiveness and legitimacy of different advocacy approaches, influencing later discussions about local versus international coalition-building.

On one hand here, I heard, for instance, You said that CSOs should not take a confrontation stance with the governments because they need to be working together. On the other hand, the litigation aspect has come up very often. How do we balance this, right, between the aim of working together, but at the same time, we’re taking governments to court?

Speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Reason

This question brilliantly captures a fundamental tension in civil society advocacy work – the balance between collaboration and confrontation. It’s thought-provoking because it forces participants to grapple with the apparent contradiction between cooperative engagement and adversarial legal action.

Impact

This question crystallized an underlying tension that had been building throughout the discussion, forcing participants to articulate more nuanced positions about advocacy strategies. It led to more sophisticated thinking about context-dependent approaches and the need for strategic flexibility in different political environments.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging basic assumptions about digital rights advocacy, corporate responsibility, and international cooperation. Rather than simply sharing experiences, these interventions forced participants to think more critically about the effectiveness of current approaches and the need for new frameworks. The discussion evolved from a regional sharing session into a more sophisticated analysis of power dynamics, advocacy strategies, and the changing nature of digital governance. The comments created productive tensions that pushed the conversation beyond surface-level problem identification toward deeper strategic thinking about how civil society can effectively respond to the global trend of cyber law misuse.

How can civil society organizations balance working collaboratively with governments while also pursuing strategic litigation against them?

Speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Explanation

This addresses the apparent contradiction between Abedi’s suggestion that CSOs should not take confrontational stances with governments and the frequent mention of litigation as an advocacy strategy

What is the role of the Internet in the development of human rights and how can it be used to help civil society organizations act as a bridge with communities to shape policies?

Speaker

Bibi Abruzzini (online participant)

Explanation

This question was only partially answered and requires deeper exploration of the Internet’s potential as a tool for human rights advancement and policy influence

What specific support mechanisms exist for civil society organizations when internet shutdowns occur, beyond documentation?

Speaker

David (EU System for Enabling Environment)

Explanation

While Patricia mentioned some responses, the question about comprehensive support systems during shutdowns needs further elaboration given the widespread impact on health, education, and other sectors

How can civil society organizations effectively pre-empt digital restrictions in the same way they anticipate physical space restrictions?

Speaker

David (EU System for Enabling Environment)

Explanation

This question about proactive strategies for preventing digital restrictions was raised but not fully addressed by the panelists

What are the most effective ways to engage international governments and institutions in advocacy against cyber law abuses without triggering government backlash?

Speaker

Mia Marzotto (Oxfam)

Explanation

The question about balancing international pressure with local government relations was partially addressed but requires more detailed strategies

How can the ‘flattening’ of digital and physical legal spaces be addressed as cyber laws become integrated into broader legislation?

Speaker

Juan Diego Castaneda Gomez

Explanation

Juan Diego suggested that exclusively talking about cyber laws may become obsolete as digital regulations become integrated into broader legal frameworks, requiring new advocacy approaches

What comprehensive case study findings will emerge from the planned research on internet and social media breakdowns in the Southeast Asian region?

Speaker

Bimsara Malshan

Explanation

Bimsara mentioned plans to conduct a case study on internet breakdowns in their region, but the specific findings and methodology need further development

How can the economic benefits of data protection and privacy be better communicated to governments as an advocacy strategy?

Speaker

Abed Kataya

Explanation

Abedi mentioned this as a strategy but didn’t elaborate on specific approaches or evidence that could be used to make this economic case to governments