US warns Americans over new Zambian cybersecurity law
The US embassy in Zambia has warned its citizens to be wary of a new "intrusive" cybersecurity law introduced in the southern African country.
The embassy issued an alert telling Americans "in or planning to visit Zambia of a new law that requires the interception and surveillance of all electronic communications in the country".
This includes calls, emails, texts and streamed content "in-country to assess if they include any transmission of 'critical information,' a term the law defines so broadly that it could apply to almost any activity", the embassy says.
Zambia's government said the law was needed to tackle online fraud and child pornography, as well as the spread of disinformation.
Following the alert from the US embassy, Zambia's foreign ministry released a statement saying that the new law was "not intended to invade any person's privacy" - whether Zambians or foreigners.
"The Law does not authorize mass or random surveillance. Any interception or data request requires a court-issued warrant," it said.
The statement added that the "classification of 'critical information'" referred to national security, "and any assessments or actions taken are carried out by authorized institutions, in line with due process".
There are fears that the law could be use against anyone who criticises the government, especially with elections due next year.
Some Zambians have expressed concern that a new cybersecurity unit is being set up in the president's office.
The new measure empowers a law enforcement officer with a warrant to enter any premises to search and seize a computer or computer system containing material that is either evidence necessary to prove an offence or acquired by a person as a result of an offence.
It also allows the government to extradite Zambians deemed to have committed any offence under the law, with a range of jail terms prescribed.
Offenders may be fined or jailed for between five and 15 years, depending on the crime they have committed.
Among other provisions, the legislation requires Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies to proactively intercept all electronic communications.
It was signed into law by President Hakainde Hichilema on 8 April with very little publicity and the first many Zambians knew about it was when the US embassy posted its alert on Facebook.
"As this new law introduces an intrusive surveillance ecosystem significantly different from privacy protection provisions that prevail in many countries, the embassy of the United States encourages Americans living in Zambia or considering visiting the country to carefully assess the implications of this law and adjust accordingly," the US statement said.
The alert came as a surprise to many as the US has widely been seen to enjoy a warm relationship with the Hichilema-led administration, although the ambassador has recently been critical of alleged corruption in the government.
Zambia had enjoyed a frosty relationship with the US after the former government expelled its pro-gay rights ambassador Daniel Foote in 2019 but relations had improved since Hichilema was elected in 2021.
Social commentator and civil rights activist Laura Miti accused the US embassy of "hypocrisy", while also labelling the new law "tyrannical".
"Until Edward Snowden revealed the matter, the US secretly surveilled its citizens for years. He remains in exile and one of the most wanted people by American law enforcement," she wrote on Facebook. "That raises an eyebrow about this from the American embassy. Hypocritical really."
However, she also condemned the new law.
"This... is a very tyrannical law which the government only needs because it feels insecure."
In 2021, while still in opposition, Hichilema opposed a similar law when the former government wanted to pass it, writing: "The Cyber Security and Crime Bill is not about preventing cyber-bullying. It is about clamping down on freedom of expression and spying on citizens."
Opposition lawmaker Miles Sampa has accused Hichilema of performing a U-turn now that he is president.
"My question is when did you change this stance to now sign a law that almost 100% prohibits us citizens from expressing ourselves on Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, etc., without being jailed for 25 years or life imprisonment," he wrote on Facebook.
"In the current state of the Cyber Laws that you have assented to, Mr President, you may as well also sign a martial law (State of Emergency) to discard democracy so we all stop talking and leave it to your good self to express alone."
Zambia president orders ministers to stop sleeping in cabinet
Bitcoin in the bush - the crypto mine in remote Zambia
Drunken Zambian policeman freed 13 suspects to celebrate New Year
'My son is a drug addict, please help' - the actor breaking a Zambian taboo
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Africa Daily
Focus on Africa
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'They Went Too Far': Elon Musk Just Walked Back Some Of His Explosive Criticism Of Trump
Elon Musk on Wednesday conceded that some of his recent, sharp criticism of Donald Trump 'went too far,' in an apparent effort to mend ties with the president after their nasty public feud. In a post on his social media platform X, formerly Twitter, Musk made his most overt offer yet to bury the hatchet. 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week,' Musk wrote. 'They went too far.' Musk didn't clarify which posts he was referring to. About a week after he left his post at the White House, Musk condemned Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' urging Americans to kill the legislation, describing it as a 'disgusting abomination.' In response, Trump threatened to revoke the government contracts Musk's companies have secured, prompting the billionaire to turn his attacks up a notch. 'Time to drop the really big bomb,' Musk wrote Thursday. '[Trump] is in the [Jeffrey] Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' The White House had promised to release the full documents related to the disgraced financier's case, but what was ultimately put out was largely already known. Musk also at one point seemed to call for the president's impeachment — another stunning development given his prominent role in Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. Musk appears to have since deleted both posts. Trump over the weekend told NBC's Kristen Welker he has no interest in repairing their relationship. But the president has since appeared more open to rapprochement. Asked if he plans to speak to Musk, Trump told reporters on Monday: 'I would imagine he wants to speak to me, I would think so.' 'If I were him I'd want to speak to me,' he added. Even before Wednesday's explicit acknowledgement of his regret for some of his criticism of Trump, Musk has signaled he was ready for a truce. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO seemed to applaud Trump's response to the protests in Los Angeles, amplifying social media posts by the president and his allies about the immigration protests. The billionaire donated nearly $300 million to Trump's 2024 White House bid and served as a top surrogate on the campaign trail. Elon Just Couldn't Stop Posting About Trump — And Experts Say It's Very Revealing Trump Reveals What's Next For That Tesla He Bought From Elon Musk Jon Stewart Busts Biggest Right-Wing Myth About 'F**king Pussies' Trump And Elon Musk
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: A decades-in-the-making immigration war
President Trump undoubtedly stands on strong political ground, backed by most Americans, in cases where he's deporting convicted criminals. Now comes a new test, literally 40 years in the making: How comfortable are Americans with deporting millions of immigrants who paid taxes, built families and committed no crimes after coming here illegally? Why it matters: That's the heart of the standoff in LA, as well as the broader Trump effort to expel potentially millions of immigrants who broke the law to get here and then played by U.S. rules. "I said it from Day 1: If you're in the country illegally, you're not off the table," Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, told the N.Y. Times. "So, we're opening that aperture up." The backstory: Congress, going back to 1986, has sought and failed to find a pathway to citizenship for those who fit the precise description above. Many current GOP senators were among those seeking said solution. But concerns about border security and rewarding illegal behavior killed every effort. Now, Trump, Republicans, some Democrats and much of the U.S. public are supportive of mass deportation instead. An estimated 14 million unauthorized immigrants live here — many of them working and paying taxes. They often fill jobs other Americans won't do — hotels, construction sites, landscaping and child care. Expelling them would sink some businesses, slow services in many communities, and hit close to home for lots of U.S. citizens. Will public enthusiasm wane when this reality becomes clear? Trump and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller are pushing to hit a target of 3,000 immigration arrests a day, as first reported by Axios' Brittany Gibson and Stef Kight. That's triple the number of daily arrests that agents were making in the early days of Trump's term, Axios found. The only way to pull that off is by casting wider nets beyond convicted criminals to larger worksites. So raids could rise sharply at factories, restaurants and Home Depots, where people living here illegally often gather to seek day labor on job sites. "Wait till you find out how many trillions we have to spend on illegal aliens," Miller wrote Tuesday in reply to a tweet by California Gov. Gavin Newsom about a Pentagon estimate that the National Guard deployment in LA will cost $134 million and last 60 days. The big picture: Accelerated deportations are a top personal priority for Trump, who relishes visibility for the raids. Amid the unrest in LA on Monday, Miller posted on X: "You can have all the other plans and budgets you want. If you don't fix migration, then nothing else can be fixed — or saved." White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told us: "If you are present in the United States illegally, you will be deported. This is the promise President Trump made to the American people and the Administration is committed to keeping it." A CBS News/YouGov poll taken last week showed 54% approval of the Trump administration's program to deport immigrants illegally in the U.S. White House communications director Steven Cheung tweeted that finding and added: "And the approval number will be even higher after the national guard was sent to LA to beat back the violence this weekend." And MAGA media is egging the president on. Charlie Kirk, one of the most influential pro-Trump podcasters, tweeted Tuesday: "President Trump is getting more popular. Deportations are popular. We need more. ... America is demanding mass deportations." Asked for comment for this column, the Department of Homeland Security pointed us to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's " CBP Home" app, which lets aliens notify the government of their intent to leave the country. "Tap 'Departing Traveler' to begin," the instructions say. "We are offering those in this country $1,000 and a free flight to leave the country and preserve the potential to return the right, legal way," DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin told us. Under current law, those taking that option will be barred from coming back for either three or 10 years, or permanently, depending on how long they've been in the U.S. illegally. How it works: It's important to understand how people pay taxes even though they're here illegally: In 1996, the U.S. government created an alternative to the Social Security number for undocumented immigrants — the individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN). This allows people to pay taxes while being here illegally and awaiting a path to citizenship. Those people have been paying taxes, believing it would enhance their chances of getting citizenship. A portion of those taxes helps fund Social Security. Under that law, if they eventually get citizenship, those taxes will count toward their retirement. The amounts are substantial. Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, according to a tally by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. More than a third of what they pay funds programs they can't even access. Now, those ITIN numbers could be used to track people down. Deportation fears triggered a decline in tax filings this year in some immigrant communities in the D.C. suburbs, the Washington Post found. That sets the stage for a humanitarian showdown unlike any witnessed in U.S. history: Trump is willing to use the U.S. military inside America to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during roundups. The bottom line: There's no clear mechanism to differentiate between someone who came here recently alone versus a father of three, whose wife and children are living here legally, and have been here paying taxes and committing no crimes for a decade. In the eyes of the current law, illegal is illegal. When TV explodes with images of burning cars and lawlessness, Trump wins. But what about families torn apart or longtime neighbors yanked from their homes and taken away in handcuffs? That's when America's rawest views of immigration will be revealed.
UPI
20 minutes ago
- UPI
Posse comitatus, or America beware
Protestors face off with Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies during a protest against ICE and immigration raids in Paramount, Calif., earlier this week. President Donald Trump's federalizing of the California National Guard and the ordering of a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings a term into focus: posse comitatus. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- For good or ill reasons, few Americans are aware of the Latin phrase posse comitatus and what it means. President Donald Trump's federalizing the California National Guard and ordering a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings the term into focus. It means organizing a group to confront lawlessness. In 1878, responding to the abuses of the Union Army in law enforcement after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was signed by President Rutherford Hayes. In part, that law read: "From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force need the expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." The law was amended in the Patriot Act to expand the use of the military but not regarding law-enforcement roles. That requires the president to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 that, in part, grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, rebellions or civil disorder within the United States. The last time the Insurrection Act was used to authorize the use of federal troops was in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush responded to the riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was delivered acquiting the four LA police officers of murder. The recent LA riots broke out over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arresting and detaining people accused of illegally entering the United States. A great majority of Americans -- 80-90% -- agree on deporting undocumented migrants with criminal records and who are dangers to the community. An equal number of Americans oppose deporting those people here illegally who are now part of the community and -- rather than being threats -- contribute to society. But the politics of immigration and the profound disagreements between the two political parties, not the riots, is the issue. In that regard, both Trump and Newsom are responding accordingly to their bases. However, make no mistake: The Trump-Newsom dispute, including a lawsuit filed against the government for federalizing the National Guard, is a symptom and sign of the dreadful state of American politics. Trump may have been very clever playing to his base that favors "peace through strength" abroad and at home. Both the Guard and Marines have been assigned to protect federal buildings, installations and employees not, repeat not, to conduct law-enforcement tasks. Yet, that has not been widely advertised to allow most Americans to believe that the military will have a wider use. And Trump has not authorized the Insurrection Act to that end. Newsom and Trump are using this crisis to make opposite points when the reality is different. Had this been a Republican-controlled state, whether Trump would have reacted or not is debatable. However, it is entirely reasonable that any president would be committed to protecting federal assets. Had Trump made this argument clear from the beginning, Newsom's response might have been different. But that would have defused the crisis, ironically, in neither of their interests. Tragically, politics demand exploiting these riots for clearly political and not security or public safety reasons. Trump was arguing that the law was on his side in deporting undesirable undocumented migrants. Newsom was asserting that the governor should be consulted first; that federal forces were not needed; and the president was using this to advance his agenda. As Inspector Renault in the movie Casablanca famously remarked, "Gambling at Rick's. I'm shocked!" In these circumstances when rationality and common sense are missing in action, immigration poses an impossible dilemma: what to do with millions who have integrated into U.S. society yet have broken the law in entering the United States illegally? A tragedy can be seen as a clash to two justified views. These people broke the law. That cannot be ignored. Yet the vast majority of these individuals are now part of the U.S. polity. The future is self-evident. This dilemma will only worsen as will virtually all political issues on which the nation is divided. In these incendiary conditions, if the Insurrection Act were wrongly invoked, the effect will likely provoke the rebellion it is meant to prevent. So beware America. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
