Great Britain

The British Communications Data Bill will have to be revised after Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced in December 2012 that he would block it. The version of the bill that was published in the spring of 2012 would give the police and intelligence services extensive access to phone records, emails and Internet browsing history on the grounds of the need to combat terrorism and other serious crimes.

United States

Opponents of the proposed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA) say it will allow privacy to be violated in order to protect cyber-security. Although it seemed to have broad support in the US Congress, it caused such an outcry that substantial revisions were made to increase protection for privacy, the White House threatened a veto and a sizeable number of representatives ended up voting against it. A new version of CISPA was resubmitted in January 2013 and could come before Congress as early as April 2013.

Netherlands

Claiming that anonymization tools such as Tor are hampering the work of tracking down cyber-criminals and pedophiles, the Dutch government has been pressuring legislators to pass a law that will reinforce police cyber-surveillance powers regardless of whether the target computer is located in the Netherlands or abroad. The proposed law would allow the police to remotely search computers, install spyware and delete illegal content without having to submit a legal assistance request to the country concerned if the target computer is located abroad. Read the Electronic Frontier Foundation analysis.

Philippines

The supreme court of the Philippines voted unanimously on 9 October 2012 to stay implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012 (Republic Act No, 10175) after receiving more than a dozen petitions asking it to rule on the law’s constitutionality. Reporters Without Borders calls for its repeal because its attempt to combat cyber-crime poses a major threat to freedom of information. Online defamation was added to the law’s list of “cyber-crimes” at the last minute, before adoption.

Malawi

The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) has criticized a government attempt to regulate and control online publications in the form of a so-called E-Bill that would force online publication editors to publish their names, addresses and phone numbers and would create a cyber-police with the job of monitoring the Internet for illegal activity.

Peru

A proposed cyber-crime law is likely to restrict online freedom. On the initiative of the NGO Access, university academics and civil society representatives have written an open letter to parliament criticizing the bill.

Iraq

In January 2012, the Iraqi parliament repealed a cyber-crime law that was criticized for its overly broad definition of the crimes it intended to punish (for example, “violating religious, moral and social principles”) and for draconian penalties that included life imprisonment for using a computer to besmirch the country’s reputation. Read the Access Now analysis.

Protecting minors, the perfect pretext

Russia

In the name of “protecting minors,” a federal government agency began on 1 November 2012 to compile a blacklist of “harmful” websites liable to be blocked without reference to a court and without any right of defence. The vague and broad definition of the targeted content (pornography, extremism, defending suicide, encouraging drug use and so on) and the supervisory body’s lack of independence open the way to overblocking. Age category labelling – “banned for minors under the age of” 6, 12, 16 or 18 – was also imposed on all news websites. A bill banning online censorship circumvention tools has also been submitted to a Duma committee.

Canada

Draft Federal Law C-30, also known as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, which the public safety ministry submitted to parliament on 14 February 2012, would place Internet users under close surveillance. It would allow the police to request phone records without first seeking a court warrant. Internet Service Providers and mobile phone operators could be forced to install surveillance devices and record subscribers’ communications. The police could also, without a court warrant, install a device that could capture the IP address of any device connected to the Internet.

Copyright v. online freedom of expression

United States

The proposed "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) and "Protect IP Act" (PIPA) elicited a great deal of domestic and international criticism of the danger of unprecedented Internet censorship. Their opponents said they would prejudice countless Internet users who had never violated intellectual property by forcing websites to block access to other sites accused of vaguely defined copyright violations. The bills were finally shelved, but for how long?

Panama

In September 2012, parliament passed Law 510, which restricts freedom of expression and access to online information and creates a General Directorate for Copyright with the task of tracking down violators and imposing heavy fines on them without reference to a court. NGOs and civil society representatives wrote an open letter to President Ricardo Martinelli urging him not to sign what they called the “worst copyright protection law in history.” Read comments by netizens on Global Voices.

Other disturbing legislation

In Malaysia, an amendment to the 1950 Evidence Act makes Internet service operators automatically liable for any posted content or content transiting through their services that is deemed to be defamatory. Owners and managers of Internet cafés and blog platforms are among those affected by this presumption of guilt. The Centre for Independent Journalism organized an online protest against the amendment.