After observing more than 80 press freedom violations during El Salvador’s presidential election on 4 February, confirming a serious decline in the situation for media and journalists, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and seven other human rights organisations call on the country’s authorities to halt the decline and to establish safeguards for the right to information.

“The many obstacles to the work of journalists observed during the presidential election reflect a serious decline in press freedom in El Salvador. Above all, they reflect the restrictive, intimidating climate imposed under President Nayib Bukele since the start of his first term, which has included denying access to information about the functioning of the government and its decision-making, vilifying journalists, and waging smear campaigns. In this toxic environment, journalists and their sources are increasingly resorting to self-censorship. This cannot go on! Together with partner organisations, we call on the country’s authorities to end these disastrous practices and to provide safeguards for the right to information.”

Artur Romeu, Director of RSF’s Latin America bureau

Following an RSF-supported observation mission during the 4 February presidential election, RSF and seven partner organisations are issuing a joint statement calling on El Salvador’s national authorities, the judiciary and the parliament, to respect and protect press freedom and, in particular, to establish favourable and safe long-term conditions guaranteeing the ability of journalists to work freely. The coalition also urges the international community to adopt a critical and constructive public position on what is happening in El Salvador, and to do its duty to promote human rights.

The post Serious decline in press freedom in El Salvador: RSF and its partners call on national authorities to safeguard right to information appeared first on IFEX.

Leading Guatemalan journalist José Rubén Zamora is due to appear back in court on 5 February in an obstruction of justice case – the latest of three politically motivated cases against him. Zamora has been detained for more than 550 days in connection with a money-laundering case, despite the fact that this conviction was overturned in October. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) representatives will be present in the courtroom to monitor the hearing, as part of an advocacy mission to the country.

The legal battle continues for José Rubén Zamora, one of Guatemala’s biggest names in journalism, and founder of the newspaper elPeriódico. He is due to appear back in court on 5 February in an obstruction of justice case, in which he and his former lawyers are accused of conspiring to interfere with investigations into the prior money-laundering case against him. Zamora’s lawyers were convicted on these charges in January and April 2023. The hearing involving Zamora has already been postponed twice, while his expected retrial for money laundering has also been delayed.

This hearing marks Zamora’s first court appearance during the new administration of President Bernardo Arévalo, who took office on 14 January. Arévalo recently declared that his government “will not use tools to pursue legal action against the press,” while emphasising that “freedom of expression is a priority.” RSF’s Latin America Bureau Director Artur Romeu will be in Guatemala City to observe the hearing, and to meet with officials from the new government, lawyers, and journalists. RSF has also formally requested to visit Zamora in prison.

“The imprisonment of José Rubén Zamora – which is emblematic of the criminalisation of journalism enacted by the former government of Alejandro Giammattei – is becoming an unavoidable imperative for the new government of Bernardo Arévalo, who took office with a commitment to guarantee press freedom in the country. It is deplorable that one of the biggest names in Guatemalan journalism has been imprisoned for more than 550 days while he awaits retrial on spurious charges. Zamora must be immediately released and the Arévalo administration must ensure that all further proceedings against him are conducted in accordance with due process and the right to a fair trial.”

Artur Romeu, Director of RSF’s Latin America Office

At 67 years old, Zamora has been detained since 29 July 2022 on the basis of a preventive prison order relating to the money-laundering case against him. He was sentenced to six years in prison in June 2023. However, this conviction was overturned by the appellate court in October 2023 due to procedural irregularities raised by the prosecution. This case was also scheduled for retrial on February, but has since been postponed while the Supreme Court of Justice’s Criminal Chamber is considering a motion to disqualify three judges. The same Chamber is also considering the prosecution’s extraordinary appeal for substitutive measures, which is delaying a decision on Zamora’s request to be released to house arrest – meaning he currently remains detained as he awaits retrial in the money-laundering case. In addition to these two cases, the journalist is also facing a third case on allegations of forging signatures on immigration control documents.

President Arévalo’s expected review of the government’s position in Zamora’s upcoming retrial, as well as other ongoing cases against the press, will prove to be a crucial step towards reframing these cases and reversing the dangerous trends enacted by the previous administration.

Just two weeks into his new administration, Arévalo emphasised that Zamora’s case is “emblematic” of the political persecution journalists face in the country. Arévalo mentioned that while his government does not have the authority to release Zamora, he hoped that in the retrial, Zamora would be released to house arrest as legal proceedings continue. Arévalo’s comments followed a visit to Zamora in prison by Minister of Governance, Francisco Jimenez, the day after taking office.

Guatemala is ranked 127th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index.

The post Embattled Guatemalan publisher Zamora dragged back into court on obstruction of justice charges appeared first on IFEX.

The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) expressed concern about the violation of personal data belonging to more than 300 Mexican journalists who covered the morning press conferences of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and called for a timely investigation to determine responsibilities.

At the end of last week, a cybersecurity expert warned of the leakage on clandestine internet forums of the database from the Presidential Press Accreditation System, containing personal information of around 323 national and international journalists who have attended President López Obrador’s daily morning press conferences, known as the “manañeras.”

“This is an act that violates the privacy of the affected journalists and puts their integrity at great risk,” said Roberto Rock, president of the IAPA and director of the Mexican portal La Silla Rota. Rock added that “authorities must conduct a thorough investigation to determine how the leak occurred, who is responsible, and apply the subsequent sanctions, as well as ensure the security of those affected.”

The leaked data includes names, emails, phone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, passport numbers, identifications, Federal Taxpayer Registry, among other personal information of the journalists, as reported by the Mexican press.

The president of the IAPA’s Commission on Press Freedom and Information, Carlos Jornet, editor of the Argentine newspaper La Voz del Interior, warned that “the disclosure of journalists’ private information needs to be taken seriously and responsibly, but this is particularly delicate in Mexico, one of the most dangerous countries for the press in the hemisphere.”

The IAPA executives emphasized that the protection of personal data and people’s privacy are fundamental rights, and their illegal use and deliberate dissemination must be investigated, with those responsible being prosecuted.

Mexico ranks 15th in the Chapultepec Index, an annual barometer of the IAPA measuring the state of press freedom in 22 countries in the Americas. Factors that contribute to the deteriorating press freedom environment include murders of journalists, verbal and physical assaults, stigmatization from the executive branch, and violence in different regions, leading to internal displacement and exile of journalists.

The post IAPA alarmed by leak of journalists’ personal data in Mexico appeared first on IFEX.

The president of the organization, Roberto Rock, indicated that such a broad law could have negative implications on source confidentiality and the right to privacy.

The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) expressed today its concern about the implications for press freedom and confidential sources of information posed by a recently approved law in the Dominican Republic.

The regulation, enacted on January 15 by President Luis Abinader, bears the number 1-24, and regulates the National Intelligence System and the National Intelligence Directorate (DNI, in Spanish). The government claims that the law “represents an important step in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, cyber threats, and corruption,” providing the “necessary legal tool,” as stated by the Presidential spokesperson in a statement.

Local organizations representing the media and journalists, such as the College of Journalists and the Dominican Society of Newspapers, criticized the ambiguity of some articles in the law and warned about possible negative impacts on press freedom, the right to privacy, and professional secrecy.

For example, Article 11 of the new legislation states that “all State agencies, private institutions, or individuals, without prejudice to the legal formalities for the protection and guarantee of the right to privacy and personal honor, will be compelled to provide the National Intelligence Directorate (DNI) with all information it requires about which there is data or knowledge, related to the powers indicated in Article 9 of this law, for the fulfillment of its intelligence and counterintelligence functions, for the purpose of safeguarding national security.”

IAPA President Roberto Rock, director of La Silla Rota, Mexico, said, that “while we recognize the importance of national security laws to protect the interests and institutions of the State against the threat of terrorism, such a broad regulation that forces private institutions, such as the media, to provide all required information, can have negative implications for the confidentiality of journalistic sources and the right to privacy.”

Article 8 of the IAPA’s Declaration of Salta stipulates, “Laws must guarantee the right to protect the identity of confidential sources of journalists and must allow the use of encryption or ciphering tools. Laws must also respect the right of individuals to anonymity.”

Article 26 of the controversial law establishes criminal sanctions, such as imprisonment for two to three years and fines ranging from nine to fifteen minimum public sector wages, against those who “hide information” requested by the DNI.

Carlos Jornet, editor of La Voz del Interior, Argentina, and president of the Committee on Freedom of the Press and Information, added, “The broad and ambiguous language of this law, combined with its punitive nature, can encourage self-censorship among journalists and media, with the impact it would have on the right of all Dominicans to access information, a right enshrined in the Constitution.”

Jornet emphasized that journalistic professional secrecy is a central piece for those who inform society to carry out their work with freedom and is also a key instrument for citizens to access public interest data.

In an editorial published today, titled “Free Press Demands Greater Protection,” Listín Diario stated, “With the deep fears harbored by society about the reach of the dangerous Law 1-24 that clashes with our constitution, the only alternative is to reformulate it in Congress, dismantling the ambiguous articles that, by themselves, open valves to the ignorance or violation of citizen rights enshrined in the Constitution.”

The Dominican Republic had advanced in 2023 to the number one position among 22 countries according to the IAPA’s Chapultepec Index, a barometer that measures the situation of press freedom in the Americas.

The post IAPA expresses concern about Intelligence Law in The Dominican Republic appeared first on IFEX.

ARTICLE 19 stands in solidarity with our colleagues in Mexico in the face of false allegations propagated by Ulrich Richter Morales, a lawyer suing Google. In connection with the case, and in an article published in El Universal, Richter Morales accused ARTICLE 19 of lacking impartiality and of ‘serving as a vehicle for Google and Facebook’. ARTICLE 19 refutes this accusation as completely without basis in fact, and states unequivocally that these sources of funding have never influenced our positions with regard to Big Tech.  

In 2022, a court in Mexico City ordered Google to pay close to 250 million dollars in compensation to Richter Morales for failure to take down a blogpost from its Blogger platform. Richter Morales alleged the blogpost contained defamatory information about him. Google appealed and the case is now being heard at the Supreme Court.

ARTICLE 19 Mexico submitted an amicus brief in the case, in which they defended the core principle of the modern Internet – that platforms should be protected from liability for third parties’ content when they have not been involved in modifying the content in question.

On 28 January, Richter Morales published a piece in El Universal against ARTICLE 19, alleging conflict of interest and that the organisation is misleading the court by submitting a third party intervention in the case, given that ARTICLE 19 Mexico received a certain amount of funding from Google. On 29 January, it was reported that he filed a criminal lawsuit against the organisation.

In response, ARTICLE 19 highlights that our policy on intermediary liability had been adopted long before any funding was received from any of the technology companies. In fact, ARTICLE 19 has for years been consistent in advocacy of freedom of expression standards in the context of intermediary liability. In 2013 we published our Dilemma of Liability policy, which forms the basis of our longstanding strand of work. In it, we argued that holding platforms liable for content of others would have a profound chilling effect on the freedom of expression of internet users, but also that it makes the platforms complicit in a substantial invasion of their users’ privacy. We were also one of the civil society organisations behind the drafting of the Manila Principles of Intermediary Liability, first released in 2015. ARTICLE 19 has defended platforms’ immunity from liability in front of the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

With regards to funding, ARTICLE 19 has always been transparent about the sources of our income, all of which come from a variety of institutional and private donors. Our funding sources are declared in compliance reports and documentation, and have never been concealed from either the community we serve, or the donors who support our work around the world.

The attacks levelled against ARTICLE 19 Mexico are not based on any serious analysis of our positions on the issues related to Big Tech. Our organisation has also consistently criticised Big Tech companies, including Google, for their exploitative business models based on surveillance advertising.

In fact, ARTICLE 19 has spearheaded pioneering work using pro-competition tools to transform digital markets so that they can better serve people. The work is focused specifically on addressing and combating the growing power of tech giants such as Meta and Alphabet – the very monopolies Richter Morales falsely accuses us of being ‘a front’ for.

Accusations of funder bias have no evidence in reality. Our work has always been guided solely by our commitment to protecting and advancing freedom of expression. ARTICLE 19 Mexico has been one of the strongest campaigners for freedom for Julian Assange, despite the US government being one of our funders.

We consider this baseless attack on ARTICLE 19 Mexico to be a blatant attempt at intimidation, targeting a human rights organisation which tirelessly works to expose wrongdoing at the highest levels of power and consistently stands up for freedom of expression.

The post ARTICLE19 in Mexico: Our record on accountability for Big Tech companies speaks for itself appeared first on IFEX.

Following his inauguration as Guatemala’s president on 14 January, Bernardo Arévalo faces a range of press freedom challenges as a key test of his new government. With a reputation as a reformer, it remains to be seen how Arévalo will act to stop the criminalisation of journalism in Guatemala, including addressing the high-profile case of detained elPeriódico publisher Jose Rubén Zamora, who faces a retrial in February.

After more than four months of domestic tension and threats to undermine the results of the democratic election, Arévalo was finally sworn in as president of Guatemala on Sunday, 14 January. Amid a climate of instability, which continues in the face of lawsuits filed against his party by defeated political groups in collusion with the judiciary, Arévalo will face many challenges to rebuild a climate conducive to press freedom. Among the key tests of his new government will be how to end the persecution and criminalisation of journalists and media critical of the upper echelons of power.

“While newly elected president Bernardo Arévalo does not have direct powers over the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the justice system, he knows that his arrival in power means a lot for rebuilding a strong press freedom climate. It is imperative that the police apparatus and executive bodies cease the persecution of journalists and the Guatemalan authorities, without delay, release elPeriódico publisher Jose Rubén Zamora, who is scheduled to be retried on 5 February.”

Artur Romeu, RSF’s Latin America Bureau Director

Breaking the climate of fear for journalists

The result of a process of co-optation of the state by different political, military and economic groups – in some cases linked to criminal organisations – democratic institutions, and the rule of law have been dismantled in recent years in Guatemala. This has resulted, as the mission carried out by RSF and 10 partner organisations in Guatemala in 2023 showed, in an institutional arrangement that serves impunity and corruption.

Dozens of journalists who covered cases of corruption, attacks on the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples, and even those who reported on lawsuits against judges and other media professionals have been criminalised and prosecuted, as in the case of the founder and then editor of elPeriódico, Jose Rubén Zamora, unjustly accused of money laundering, and still detained. He was arrested on 29 July 2022, five days after elPeriódico published information about cases of corruption involving people close to President Alejandro Giammattei. Subjected to judicial harassment, in June 2023 he was sentenced to six years in prison on trumped-up charges.

Under Guatemalan Attorney General María Consuelo Porras Argueta, who will remain in office until 2026, judges, lawyers, prosecutors and journalists have lost their freedom or been forced to leave the country to avoid arrest. Hundreds of criminal investigations have been opened into allegations of “obstruction of justice” by these journalists.

Many of these journalists lack the financial resources to pay lawyers and have been forced into exile for safety, including Juan Luis Font, who was covering for different media outlets corruption allegations against a former communications minister, who accused him of blackmail and criminal association. The journalists from the digital media outlet Vox Populi Sonny Figueroa and Marvin del Cid left the country at the end of 2023 after being constantly attacked on social media and threatened with prosecution, after publishing a report on the illicit enrichment of one of former president Alejandro Giammattei’s friends.

Arévalo’s expected review of the government’s position in Zamora’s upcoming retrial on 5 February, as well as other ongoing cases against the press, will prove to be a crucial step towards reframing these cases and reversing the dangerous trends enacted by the previous administration. Guatemala is ranked 127th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index.

Sign RSF’s petition for the immediate release of Jose Rubén Zamora!

The post Guatemala: new president Bernardo Arévalo must act quickly to stop the criminalisation of journalism appeared first on IFEX.

On 12 January 2023, Juan Carlos García Rivera, accused of using Pegasus malware to spy on journalist Carmen Aristegui, was acquitted by a judge in Mexico City. The trial confirmed that Aristegui’s phone was tapped with illegal spyware, but the Prosecutor’s Office did not provide sufficient evidence that García Rivera had directly participated in the crime. ARTICLE 19 Mexico, R3D and Social Tic call for the investigations into the use of Pegasus to continue so that those responsible for illegal spying on journalists and human rights defenders are brought to justice. 

When issuing the sentence, Judge Luis Benítez Alcántara acknowledged that the journalist’s phone was indeed tapped with Pegasus between 2015 and 2016, as experts from Citizen Lab from University of Toronto demonstrated during the trial.

The judge also conceded that Aristegui was targeted because of her journalistic work investigating corruption at the highest level of power during the previous administration of President Peña Nieto. In addition, the judge pointed out that interception of private communications without a court order represents an offense against the journalist, as it serves to inhibit her work and put her integrity, as well as the safety of her relatives and sources at risk.

However, Benítez Alcántara considered that the Prosecutor’s Office did not sufficiently prove that García Rivera had directly participated in the illegal tapping of Aristegui’s private communications, and therefore ordered his immediate release.

The judge regretted that Carmen Aristegui’s access to justice could not be guaranteed due to the failure of the Attorney General’s Office to comply with the standards of proof and urged the agency to continue with the investigations until those responsible for the espionage are found.

It is also important to move forward with the investigations of the cases of other espionage victimes, which have been reported to the Attorney General’s Office more than six years ago.

The outcome of the trial confirms the urgent need for the Attorney General’s Office to increase the efforts to investigate all those responsible for illegal espionage, whether they are private actors and/or public officials of either the former Attorney General’s Office (PGR), the former Center for Intelligence and National Security (CISEN) or the Ministry of National Defense (SEDENA), whose use of the Pegasus system in the last six years have been fully documented.

Likewise, there is still a need to move forward with the investigations into the cases of espionage with Pegasus that have been denounced during the current administration, perpetrated by the Armed Forces against human rights defenders and journalists, as has been documented by the investigation Ejército Espía.

It is regrettable that, more than six years after the complaints were filed, impunity for illegal espionage against dozens of victims continues.

The work of defending human rights and journalistic activity is under threat, as long as those responsible for these acts are not brought to justice. Alongside the need for urgent investigations, it is also essential to carry out the necessary reforms to ensure that the acquisition and use of surveillance technologies are no longer abused. We call for a moratorium on surveillance technologies, until sufficient regulatory frameworks are put in place to ensure that the use of such technologies can be compatible with human rights.

The post Mexico: Investigations into the use of Pegasus spyware must continue appeared first on IFEX.

A vote for change, a vote for turbulence

In a quest for radical change, Argentina has voted itself into further uncertainty. Javier Milei’s election triumph came amidst hyperinflation and widespread disappointment, particularly among younger generations disillusioned by traditional political figures. However, those committed to protecting fundamental rights are bracing for a struggle. Milei’s promises and rhetoric do not suggest an easy period ahead.

His minimisation of human rights abuses during Argentina’s dictatorship and his intention to reverse the decriminalisation of abortion – a significant achievement for women’s rights and an inspiration for the rest of the region – signal challenging times. Notably, among the closing of other significant organisms, Milei said his administration would dismantle the Human Rights Secretariat, which would be an unprecedented move since the return of democracy to Argentina.

Technologies for repression – civil society and local government push back

Milei’s administration has wasted no time signalling a potential crackdown on civic space, using advanced technologies for protester identification. Argentina has been a pioneer in implementing biometric identification policies, which have increasingly incorporated sophisticated technological elements. Local media reports the existence of at least three automated facial recognition systems in the country, with applications ranging from stadiums to public transportation terminals. Argentine civil society has actively warned of these technologies’ risks, resulting in legal challenges and campaigns like Con mi cara no (“Not with my face”).

In his first presidential speech, Milei’s words, “El que corta, no cobra,” – a threat to cut any financial aid to those blocking streets during protests – conveyed a hardline approach to demonstrations. According to Security Minister Patricia Bullrich, in regards to the protests announced for December:

“We will identify people. We will have cameras, we will have drones, and we will have various ways of identifying them.”

The Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) denounced the anti-protest set of rules and actions to the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The denunciation was supported by 1,700 signatures from trade unions, human rights organisations, environmental groups, indigenous peoples groups and migrants, as well as transfeminist, religious, childhood, student, and political collectives.

Following a massive demonstration on 20 December 2023, the pre-transition government was asked to provide information collected by the cameras. It refused, explaining that the system is neither technically nor judicially equipped for use, and that such a request was a criminalisation of protest.

The struggle is far from over. CELS has reiterated its call to the IACHR after labour, social, and political organisations received, on 10 and 11 January, legal notices from the government demanding hefty sums of money for their involvement in public protests.

A worrying scenario ahead for freedom of the press and the feminist movement

One thing Milei can’t be accused of is inconsistency. His actions continue a pattern observed over past years. Since his time as an economic commentator, Milei’s contempt for journalism has been front and centre. His antagonistic attitude, characterised by verbal assaults and threats of legal action, has sparked global alarms. His plan to dismantle public media points to a disconcerting disregard for press freedom. Organisations like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) have taken note.

His tenure as an economic commentator on television and radio since 2018 was marked by a series of comments aimed at journalists, labelling them as “ignorant,” “imbeciles,” and “donkeys”. The situation escalated before his election as a deputy in 2021 and later, when he took legal action against five journalists while in office. Already known for his incendiary comments, he crossed a line by threatening journalists with physical violence, and even pushing them, during television appearances. As expected, new instances of his stigmatising discourse have been registered since he assumed the presidency – calling a journalist a “liar” and accusing her of organising a plot against him.

“The question is how to continue reporting while we tremble with fear.”

Milei’s followers, taking cues from his rhetoric, have increased the harassment of journalists, especially women. It has reached a point where some have had to resort to keeping a lower profile, or protect their safety by leaving the country. This was the case with journalist Luciana Peker, who left Argentina after receiving violent threats: “We are facing a witch-hunt from the ultra-right,” she told The Guardian.

Camila Parodi, a feminist journalist and cultural anthropologist, told Latin America Journalism that freedom of expression was especially problematic for journalists covering or working from social and geographic peripheries, and that those working for feminist, popular or independent outlets are being persecuted and attacked.

Their work in the period to come is expected to become even more difficult.

Claudia Piñeiro and Giselle Leclercq, who have covered the women’s movement and the libertarian movement, respectively, have seen online intense harassment and doxxing (the sharing of private or identifying information on the internet with malicious intent) .

According to Leclercq, Milei’s message has resounded among a portion of the population that is “very angry with the advance of gender rights, angry with feminism, and schoolboys bitter that their female classmates were suddenly empowered and stood up to them.” Given the backlash, Claudia Acuña, founder of Periodistas Argentinas, says “the question is how to continue reporting while we tremble with fear.”

Promises to erode women’s rights 

Three years after Argentina took the historic step of being among the first major Latin American countries to decriminalise abortion, women’s rights activists now brace themselves for renewed battles. The Argentine feminist movement is deeply concerned about Milei’s opposition to abortion, mandatory sexual education in schools, and free medical coverage for gender reassignment treatments, among other issues.

Further intensifying these concerns are Milei’s stark characterisation of abortion as “murder” and the promise he made during his campaign to call for a referendum to repeal the abortion law if he became president. He has also described pro-abortion rights advocates as “brainwashed by a murderous policy.”

Argentinians who propelled Milei to electoral success expect dramatic economic changes. If his government fails to deliver, they could find themselves confronting a familiar economic landscape. However, this time, it comes accompanied by an additional cost — the potential sacrifice of fundamental rights and the weakening of their democracy.

In this political climate, the role of civil society and local governments in Argentina is crucial. They have consistently worked to counter policies that threaten progress. The demonstrations that took place in December, as well as the initiatives of many groups against abusive uses of technology are a testament to their engagement and effectiveness. They have influenced positive policy changes in the past, and are ready to stand firm against attempts to reverse these advancements.

Region in brief

The dramatic escalation of violence in Ecuador peaked on 9 January with a criminal groups’ seizure of TC television station in Guayaquil. This attack, part of a series of assaults around the country, prompted the Ecuadorian state to declare a state of internal armed conflict. The channel was off-air for 24 hours following the attack, highlighting the precarious situation of press freedom in the region. Days later, in a local radio station, a journalist was forced to read a statement from a criminal group aimed at the populations of Tulcán and the Carchi province, both close to Colombia’s border.

Why are journalists killed in Mexico? IFEX member ARTICLE 19 Mexico and Central America has released Veracruz de los Silencios, a study examining the violence against journalists in Veracruz between 2010 and 2016, a period in which at least 17 journalists were killed and three went missing. The study highlights the roles of drug cartels and government officials, and also points to media companies as a detrimental force. It reveals a landscape of fear, ineffective investigations, and the increasing power of the perpetrators.

The post Looking ahead: Argentina at a crossroads, media and women’s rights at risk appeared first on IFEX.

These dragnet searches violate the privacy of millions of Americans

Keyword warrants that let police indiscriminately sift through search engine databases are unconstitutional dragnets that target free speech, lack particularity and probable cause, and violate the privacy of countless innocent people, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other organizations argued in a brief filed today to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

Everyone deserves to search online without police looking over their shoulder, yet millions of innocent Americans’ privacy rights are at risk in Commonwealth v. Kurtz – only the second case of its kind to reach a state’s highest court. The brief filed by EFF, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL) challenges the constitutionality of a keyword search warrant issued by the police to Google. The case involves a massive invasion of Google users’ privacy, and unless the lower court’s ruling is overturned, it could be applied to any user using any search engine. 

“Keyword search warrants are totally incompatible with constitutional protections for privacy and freedom of speech and expression,” said EFF Surveillance Litigation Director Andrew Crocker. “All keyword warrants – which target our speech when we seek information on a search engine – have the potential to implicate innocent people who just happen to be searching for something an officer believes is somehow linked to a crime. Dragnet warrants that target speech simply have no place in a democracy.” 

Users have come to rely on search engines to routinely seek answers to sensitive or unflattering questions that they might never feel comfortable asking a human confidant. Google keeps detailed information on every search query it receives, however, resulting in a vast record of users’ most private and personal thoughts, opinions, and associations that police seek to access by merely demanding the identities of all users who searched for specific keywords. 

Because this data is so broad and detailed, keyword search warrants are especially concerning: Unlike typical warrants for electronic information, these do not target specific people or accounts. Instead, they require a provider to search its entire reserve of user data to identify any and all users or devices who searched for words or phrases specified by police. As in this case, the police generally have no identified suspects when they seek such a warrant; instead, the sole basis is the officer’s hunch that the perpetrator might have searched for something related to the crime.  

This violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, EFF’s brief argued, both of which were inspired by 18th-century writs of assistance – general warrants that let police conduct exploratory rummaging through a person’s belongings. These keyword search warrants also are especially harmful because they target protected speech and the related right to receive information, the brief argued. 

“Keyword search warrants are digital dragnets giving the government permission to rummage through our most private information, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should find them unconstitutional,” said NACDL Fourth Amendment Center Litigation Director Michael Price. 

“Search engines are an indispensable tool for finding information on the Internet, and the ability to use them – and use them anonymously – is critical to a free society,” said Crocker. “If providers can be forced to disclose users’ search queries in response to a dragnet warrant, it will chill users from seeking out information about anything that police officers might conceivably choose as a searchable keyword.” 

For the brief: https://www.eff.org/document/commonwealth-v-kurtz-amicus-brief-pennsylvania-supreme-court-1-5-2024

For a similar case in Colorado: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/colorado-supreme-court-upholds-keyword-search-warrant 

The post EFF urges Pennsylvania Supreme Court to find keyword search warrant unconstitutional appeared first on IFEX.

After approval following initial debate a year ago, on 12 January 2024 the parliamentary review process of the “Law on Control, Regulation, Performance and Financing of Non-Governmental and Related Organisations” resumed with the opening of a public consultation process. Dates for the consultation process, however, have not been made known and available to the public.

Since its presentation before parliament, the debate on the bill has been stigmatising in nature, depicting civil society organisations that carry out social, humanitarian and human rights work as “enemies of the country”, accusing them of using “illicit funds” to “finance terrorism”.

The legislative initiative grants the Executive Branch faculties to supervise, inspect, control and penalise organisations and their affiliates via legislative and oversight powers. These powers subject non-governmental organisations to the discretionary interests of the ruling government, violating their independence and autonomy.

The initiative imposes obligations to provide “information regarding the constitution, statutes, activities and origin, administration and destination of an organisations’ resources,” with specific details required regarding sources of funding. These requirements would be introduced within a context in which this type of information has been used to pursue and criminalise sectors critical of the government.

Transparency is a fundamental pillar of civil society work and is carried out as a matter of best practices. The obligations contained within this legislative initiative, however, are being imposed within a framework that lacks clarity regarding the institutional guarantees required to effectively provide respect and protection for the right to freedom of association.

Venezuela is in the midst of a structural crisis that negatively impacts guarantees relating to social, economic, civil and political rights. The consequences of this crisis are having an impact across the region, with the displacement of millions of people to other Latin American countries. Thousands of people within the country receive necessary social and humanitarian assistance to address complex humanitarian needs. If this legislative initiative receives approval the work of organisations that provide this assistance will be severely curtailed. In addition, under this legislation, any initiative that operates in a manner that is autonomous and independent from government interests would automatically be suspected of carrying out criminal activities. This would include the work of social, religious, union, educational, community, environmental and neighbourhood organisations, collectives and movements, among others.

Venezuelan organisations are already subjected to a series of registration activities and must comply with their financial obligations. There is already a restrictive regulatory environment in place, under regulations such as the Law against Organised Crime and Terrorism Financing or Administrative Ruling No. 002-2021, among others. These regulations effectively impede organisations from registering or updating their documentation. Within this scenario, there have been arbitrary interventions in civil society associations, and activists and rights defenders have been criminally persecuted. This situation has progressively worsened in the lead up the electoral process scheduled for 2024.

We call on the international community to support actions that prevent this and other similar legislation from moving forward in the region. The goal of these types of legislation is to take away freedoms in our countries. Initiatives of this sort feed into stigmatising narratives and encourage more restrictive and anti-democratic actions. If this bill is approved, the work of non-governmental organisations in Venezuela will be even more limited and threatened, which could trigger an escalation in criminal persecution of activists and rights defenders.

Recovery of democracy requires the active defence of civil society. Individuals, organisations, collectives, initiatives and movements, with their varied and unique mandates, can quell restrictive and illegitimate practices that seek to diminish institutions in order to preserve and concentrate power in the hands of a few at the cost of respect for the rights of all.

The post Venezuela: Civic space at risk of disappearing appeared first on IFEX.