The internet has become an undeniable cornerstone of modern life. Yet, with increasing frequency, governments worldwide are resorting to a blunt instrument: internet shutdowns. We discuss this development and why we must be vigilant in ensuring that our digital and human rights are not unduly eroded.
With the growing popularity of social media over the past decade, there has also been increased instances of suppression and oppression by countries worldwide. Though there might not be much coverage of occurrences of suppression in the Caribbean region, in a recent report published by Access Now on internet shutdowns in 2023, Suriname was included on the list.
Access Now is a non-profit organisation focused on digital civil rights. In May 2024, it published “Shrinking Democracy, Growing Violence”, to document incidents of internet shutdowns that occurred in 2023, in an ongoing collaboration with the #KeepItOn coalition.
In 2023, 263 documented internet shutdowns were recorded, a 3.5-fold increase since the release of the first report in 2016, with the number of shutdowns increasing year-on-year. According to Access Now, internet shutdown is defined as “an intentional disruption of internet or electronic communications, rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, for a specific population or within a location, often to exert control over the flow of information.” In the methodology that Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition apply, a shutdown instance is any disruption event lasting longer than one hour, or a series of disruption events that can be attributed to the same or similar circumstances. As a result, the authors of the report have expressed concern that increasingly, authorities worldwide have been using internet shutdowns “as a blatant tool for enabling and exacerbating violence, war crimes, and other atrocities… to shield their actions from accountability.”
Internet shutdowns and our digital and human rights
These internet blackouts, whether partial or complete, disrupt not just our digital lives, but also our fundamental human rights. They violate the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They silence dissent, impede the organisation of peaceful protests, and make it difficult for journalists to report on critical events. This lack of information creates a breeding ground for misinformation and fuels a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Often, the justifications offered for shutdowns lack transparency. Governments may cite security concerns or attempts to curb violence, but these reasons are frequently used to suppress dissent rather than address genuine threats. Furthermore, shutdowns are rarely targeted. They disrupt the entire online ecosystem, affecting those not involved in the events the government seeks to control.
It is also important to highlight that national security and public safety are frequently used to justify an internet ban. Typically, when national security grounds are invoked the Minister for (National) Security and/or the Head of Government can act with limited scrutiny or oversight, as many of the standard processes that typically would be followed are bypassed. However, in many instances, shutdowns done in the name of national security are often a means to oppress, silence or control others.
In the case of Suriname, there had been civil unrest and mass protests in the capital, Paramaribo, which it is understood were due to people’s dissatisfaction with the economy and the state of the country. In February 2023, there were calls for the president and vice president to resign and the authorities responded by imposing a 12-hour curfew and disrupting access to social media platforms across the country. Having instituted a curfew, which would have gotten people off the streets and could be considered a response to security concerns, why was it also necessary to disrupt access to social media, if not to control communication and suppress the flow of information both within the country and to the world outside?
Precedent and the slow degradation of our rights
Although it may have been necessary at the time, it could be argued that the restrictions and controls during the COVID-19 pandemic gave many governments an opportunity to flex muscles that they otherwise would not have exercised. We may no longer be living in the exigent circumstances of the pandemic, but over the past few years, we have seen many of our societies become more politicised with governments grappling to manage a broad range of social and economic ills.
In Jamaica, for example, where crime has been a perennial issue, violence in certain hotspots across the country has increased in recent years. To seemingly counteract this, the current Government has been regularly invoking its powers to designate certain areas Zones of Special Operation, which means “…law enforcement units are placed under the command of a military officer. Police have special powers to cordon off or impose curfews within the zone, conduct warrantless searches and seizures, and make arrests” (Source: Crisis24). However, although crime and violence may decrease in the areas where ZOSOs are declared, once the ZOSO ends, crime and violence tend to ramp back up, suggesting that while a ZOSO declaration may facilitate some degree of control, it does not solve nor improve the fundamental problems in the affected communities.
Also, although seemingly unconnected, again in Jamaica, this week, the Government announced a 12-month ban, with immediate effect, on ride-hailing transport services. The premise, the safety and security of citizens, as it was being alleged that some of the providers of those services did not have the fit and proper checks and were operating in breach of existing laws. Additionally, some recent heinous crimes were being attributed to drivers providing transportation services via ride-sharing platforms. The Minister with responsibility for telecommunications thus wrote to the major telecommunications service providers directing them to restrict access in Jamaica to all ride-hailing applications via their network (Source: Twitter).
In days since the Minister posted a copy of the letter he sent to Flow Jamaica on Twitter, it appears that many of the local ride-hailing services have been in contact with the requisite authorities to avert the ban, so it may seem that the announcement by the Government might have been a ploy to get parties to the table. However, the move is still disconcerting as it may still be setting a precedent and opening the door for the erosion of citizens’ rights in Jamaica under the guise of security, which unfortunately, can be very loosely defined, as other cases worldwide have shown.
Hence, moving forward, we all need to be reminded that internet access is not a privilege, it is a right. In a world that increasingly operates online, which facilitates more efficient and effective communication and engagement, the internet can also be used to implement mass control measures. We, both citizens and policymakers, need to be even more vigilant in protecting our internet access rights and consequently our human rights to ensure we, and future generations, have a more just and equitable future.
Image credit: Gerd Altmann (Pixabay)
