In row with Zambia, NGO abruptly cancels world human rights conference, points to Chinese interference

A gateway near Lusaka's Kenneth Kaunda International Airport
marks Zambia independence from Britain in 1964.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Blaming interference by the Chinese and Zambian governments, global digital rights organization Access Now canceled the 2026 meeting of RightsCon, one of the largest human rights conferences in the world, on April 29, just days before thousands of delegates were to converge on host city Lusaka, Zambia.

I was already in southern Africa for RightsCon when the announcement came. I thought it prudent not to write about the cancellation until I left Zambia. I am home in the United States now.

Those of us in Lusaka naturally were in contact with one another. We agreed that our exchanges of information would be subject to the Chatham House Rule, and furthermore, that we would be non-specific about the nature—time, place, medium, scope—of our communications. Accordingly, there is information in this account that is not attributed but comes from reliable sources.

RightsCon returns to Africa 

RightsCon has been a gathering place for international leaders, thinkers, and organizations to discuss digital rights policy, including internet censorship, electronic surveillance, and technology ethics, almost every year since the first conference convened in Silicon Valley in 2011. Also founded in California, in 2009, global nonprofit Access Now takes the lead in organizing RightsCon, with tech companies and allied civil society organizations around the world contributing expertise and resources.

I was in Tunis, Tunisia, for the first RightsCon meeting in Africa, in 2019; I wrote about it here at The Savory Tort. The 2026 meeting in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, was to mark the first meeting of RightsCon in sub-Saharan Africa. Access Now anticipated 2,600 in-person participants in Lusaka, besides 1,100 more online, representing 150 countries and 750 organizations in more than 500 sessions.

Generally, large, world conferences of any kind are exceedingly difficult to locate in sub-Saharan Africa, outside of South Africa, if only because of infrastructure limitations—airline routes, meeting space, accommodations, food preparation, security. The challenge is often cited as a chicken-or-egg factor in stalled African development, as the lucrative likes of business and medical conferences pass on the region even when they have development on the agenda.

Add to the mix the human rights focus of RightsCon, and its 2026 location amid the fragile democracies, such as Zambia's, in central Africa, and the conference was set to be an especial boon to the region. RightsCon Zambia was conceived to be a game changer, to show what could be done.

The RightsCon ethos condemns rights-oppressive digital manipulation such as internet shutdowns, which are an authoritarian go-to in regimes across sub-Saharan African (e.g., The Guardian). RightsCon also prizes equity in online participation, thus embracing expression by and about women and minority groups, including the LGBTQ community. That's sensitive subject matter in a region in which child marriage, female genital mutilation, and criminalization of same-sex relations are live, hot-button issues.

Access Now was keenly aware of all of these challenges and worked hard to coordinate RightsCon in constant collaboration with Zambian officials, since a first meeting in 2024. More than a few rights activists were critical of Access Now, preferring to eschew sub-Saharan Africa on the theory that the economic advantages and favorable press of a global human rights conference should be withheld from the region.

I rather agree with Access Now that the social and economic opportunity of an event such as RightsCon should be positioned to counterbalance anti-democratic incentives. After all, civil society organizations that advocate for human rights and the protection of women and minority persons continue working in these countries, placing themselves at grave risk, regardless of whether activists from abroad turn up in solidarity. So better to turn up.

RightsCon 2026 goes south

Access Now described what happened in late April in a detailed May 1 statement. According to the statement: "On April 27, one day after a government press release endorsed RightsCon, we received a phone call from MoTS [Zambian Ministry of Technology and Science] about an urgent issue and were told that diplomats from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were putting pressure on the Government of Zambia because Taiwanese civil society participants were planning to join us in person."

RightsCon 2025 was held in Taipei, Taiwan. I was there and wrote about the conference here at The Savory Tort last year. The programs I highlighted at that RightsCon covered topics such as Chinese surveillance technology, opportunistic Chinese technology investment in Africa, and the vulnerability to malicious actors of undersea information infrastructure in the Pacific.

I was surprised then that such conversations could happen with impunity in Taiwan, just offshore from watchful mainland China. Now, it seems, they could not, not without consequences.

It wasn't Access Now that first called off RightsCon Zambia. After the MoTS phone call, Access Now sought to open dialog with Zambian officials and Taiwanese delegates. Then, on April 28, Access Now was blindsided by a government announcement that RightsCon was "postponed"—a logistical impossibility. Access Now also "received reports of immigration officers telling participants as they arrived that RightsCon had been cancelled."

In Zambian news outlets, Technology and Science Minister Felix Mutati said that "additional time is required to ensure all preparatory arrangements fully align with national procedures, diplomatic protocols, and the broader objective of promoting a balanced and consensus-driven platform."

The "postponement" was restated in an April 29 press statement by the Zambian Ministry of Information and Media. Information and Media Secretary Thabo Kawana wrote: "The postponement was necessitated by the need for comprehensive disclosure of critical information relating to thematic issues proposed for discussion during the Summit. Such disclosure is essential to ensure full alignment with Zambia's national values, policy priorities, and broader public interest considerations."

Access Now learned through informal channels, it wrote in its statement, that "for RightsCon to continue, we would have to moderate specific topics and exclude communities at risk, including our Taiwanese participants, from in-person and online participation."

To do so would have been antithetical to Access Now and RightsCon's very mission. So Access Now itself then canceled RightsCon and urged delegates to abort travel to Zambia.

China pulls strings

When I first read the information ministry release and its reference to "Zambia's national values," I did not yet know about the role of China behind the scenes. I rather suspected that Zambia was turned off by the friendliness of the RightsCon agenda to expressive freedom for women and the LGBTQ community. No doubt my perspective is colored by my own past research on civil rights in East Africa (presented at a Law and Society conference at the University of Cape Town in 2016). 

I wasn't entirely wrong, though. Zambian discontent with other aspects of RightsCon programming meant that officials did not have to have their arms twisted too hard to nix the conference.

Nearly a quarter of girls in Zambia marry before they turn 18, though, it must be acknowledged, that percentage has fallen more than 15 points in recent years thanks to government efforts. Gay sex is illegal in Zambia and punishable by imprisonment. The LGBTQ community is persecuted by blackmail and criminal prosecution (more at Amnesty International). Needless to say, these matters are not mentioned on Zambia's tourism website.

Another source of contention, which I had not recognized, is labor rights, especially in extraction. Weak regulation and abundant unlicensed operations leave quarry and mine workers, sometimes including child laborers, plagued with accidents, yielding some hundred injuries and fatalities annually, besides social and environmental damage. Every year brings a new horror story—a landslide at an open-pit copper mine in 2023 (AP), a quarry collapse in 2024 (Africa News), a pit collapse in 2025 (IJHub).

Chinese interests moreover are implicated in mining hazards. In 2025, a dam collapse at a Chinese-state-owned mine in the Zambia Copperbelt wrought environmental catastrophe. Fifty million liters of toxic waste poured into rivers that supply more than half of Zambians with water. Mass die-offs of fish and birds were immediate, and Kitwe, a city of 800,000, had to shut off its water supply.

Lawsuits have been brought against mine owner Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, and the long-term environmental impact in the Kafue River Basin is still being assessed. The Kafue River flows south from the Copperbelt through ecologically critical and touristically important Kafue National Park. Sino-Metals promised to compensate victims, but is implicated in covering up the scope of the disaster.

A campaign-season banner in Lusaka touts incumbent achievements.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Access Now in its explanation of the RightsCon cancellation fairly chose to emphasize Chinese interference as dispositive, and to gloss over other issues. Rights advocates were concerned, especially after the information minister's reference to "values," that authorities would aim to distract from their subservience to China by scapegoating the LGBTQ community. Such a move is known in the government playbook, as when previous crackdowns on political dissent were willfully mischaracterized as protecting traditional Zambian society from western liberal deviance.

Election season is under way in Zambia with the presidency and legislature in play. Voters go to the polls in August. The cancellation of a conference as large as RightsCon is wreaking adverse economic impact in Lusaka and across the country, in tourism and support-service sectors, not to mention leaving Zambia with an embarrassing black eye among nations. The incumbent president could lose his narrow lead in the polls were the public to come to understand as well that China, author of the Kafue disaster, was pulling Zambia's puppet strings.

Whither America?

When I learned of the RightsCon cancellation, I was not in Zambia, but in neighboring Malawi. Oddly enough, I went to Malawi before RightsCon to have a look at the substantial impact of Chinese infrastructure investment in that country.

I have written here at The Savory Tort before about the dangers to global security of strategic Chinese investment in the developing world, for example, two years before RightsCon Taiwan, in places such as Maldives. I hope to write about what I saw in Malawi later, my experience there being overshadowed now by the RightsCon story. 

Meanwhile, the coincidences piled up when, on April 30, a different story from Zambia broke in international news. Unexpectedly that day, outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Zambia Michael C. Gonzales delivered a farewell speech that sparked a conflagration of domestic debate and intensified discord with Washington. The Lusaka Times described what happened:

What was expected to be a routine diplomatic send-off quickly became a national political flashpoint after Gonzales questioned the credibility of anti-corruption efforts, raised concerns about institutional accountability and warned about governance weaknesses that continue to undermine investor confidence. His remarks landed at a time when political temperatures were already rising and economic frustrations remained deeply embedded among voters confronting high living costs and employment pressures. 

Gonzales was a Biden appointee, but he signed on to the new agenda when Trump went back to Washington. After the radical rollback of U.S. foreign development aid, in statements in 2025 and earlier this year, Gonzales expressed regretful support for the suspension of aid to Zambia for purported reason of the country's inability to corral corruption.

As The New York Times described the situation late last week, Gonzales's remarks came at a critical juncture in negotiation between the United States and Zambia over what "America First" economic relationship will replace the dismantled USAID model. Like China, the United States is eyeing Zambian mineral reserves and, observers allege, seeks to strike a deal on favorable terms of access in exchange for at least a billion dollars in health aid. 

Gonzales denied that mineral access is a bargaining chip in U.S.-Zambia aid negotiations. But a draft State Department memo leaked to The New York Times suggested otherwise. The Times reported plainly in March, "The State Department is considering withholding lifesaving assistance to people with H.I.V. in Zambia as a negotiating tactic to force the government of the southern African country to sign a deal giving the United States more access to its critical minerals."

The U.S. has renegotiated health aid with 20 other African countries, the Times reported, usually upon receiving the nation's commitment to shoulder more of the burden itself on healthcare. Ghana and Zimbabwe walked away from renegotiation. Nations have balked at U.S. demands that they share healthcare data and biological samples, sometimes for longer than the aid term, and without converse guarantees of access to research findings. These issues are at play in U.S.-Zambia negotiations.

Yet the renegotiation with Zambia seems specially to incorporate mineral access, too, according to Times reporting on the leaked draft memo: "[T]he United States is trying to use the deal it is negotiating with Zambia to address a longtime source of frustration: what is sees as China's unfettered access to the country's mineral wealth. Zambia is one of the world's major copper producers, and also has huge reserves of minerals like lithium and cobalt, all of which are key in the green energy transition."

According to Times reporting, some 1.3 million Zambians rely on daily U.S.-funded antiretroviral therapies, besides the country's dependence on U.S. aid to hold tuberculosis and malaria at bay. The United States is threatening cuts on a "massive scale," according to the leaked memo. A Zambian official condemned the equation of mineral access with lifesaving aid, the Times reported—though I saw no public recognition of Zambia's parallel arrangements with China.

On the street in Lusaka, I heard mixed feelings about the U.S.-Zambia row. I expected to hear disappointment and frustration at the termination of USAID and the threatened loss of health aid. But the outrage I heard was directed at Zambians' own government.

Many people I talked to framed their assessments with the experience of family members who depend on aid to live with HIV. Even what would seem a modest cost to a U.S. taxpayer for prescription drugs, mere dollars a day, would put treatment beyond reach for many in Zambia, where median income is about $4 per day.

Though U.S. threats to stop HIV assistance pointed to a deadline in May, Zambians told me that the drugs already are becoming scarce. It's possible that healthcare providers and corrupt officials are hoarding supply.

And therein lies the source of Zambians' frustration. People I talked to agreed with Gonzales and echoed U.S. allegations that aid is improperly diverted by corruption. Characteristically, one man expressed his support for President Trump, saying he liked that Trump "is his own man." Zambians seemed willing to go along with at least economic aid cuts if it would mean an end to corruption and more assistance hitting the ground in the long run.

In retrospect, it makes sense that anti-establishment Trump rhetoric would resonate with African constituents accustomed to self-reliance amid weak public institutions and politicians who promise much and deliver little. Still, I'm not sure an all-access pass for American corporations to Zambian natural resources is going to leave Zambians any better off than they are under the Chinese yoke. 

Zambians I spoke to had little more regard for China. They regarded Chinese investment as having proved self-serving of both Chinese laborers and investors, and having added little to Zambians' economic prosperity. That's pretty much the story on Chinese investment as I've found it elsewhere on the continent. I wonder whether Zambians will be surprised to find that that's now the American strategy, too.

A baobab tree says good night at South Luangwa National Park.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Sub-Saharan Africa navigates new world

Persons working on rights issues in and about Africa agreed that the cancellation of RightsCon under these circumstances is a devastating blow to democracy in Africa and the developing world. Conference organizers boldly endeavored to show that it could be done, that sub-Saharan Africa has the maturity and sophistication to take its seat at the table and to join the global dialog on human rights in the technological age. Now the takeaway is confirmation for the naysayers: reinforcement of the dangerous trope that Africa is a backwater, inexplicably mired in underdevelopment. It will be a generation, one activist lamented, "before anyone tries this again."

I worry even more about the confirmation of the Chinese foreign policy model. The cancellation of RightsCon at the behest of Chinese political demands, while Zambian natural resources are plundered and human capital exploited—soon by America also?—seems to confirm our global retreat from "the end of history" in western liberalism, and, in its place, a terrifying, seemingly inevitable human tendency to cling to the primacy of might.

Digital rights defenders gather in Taipei to tackle mass surveillance, online propaganda, authoritarianism

Culled from my notes, here are some of the most interesting things I heard last week in Taipei at RightsCon, the world's leading summit on digital rights for technology, commercial, civil society, and government sectors.

A dragon towers over the 2025 Taiwan Lantern Festival in Taoyuan.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Chinese Surveillance Technology

China is methodical in suppressing conversation around the world about the repression of the Uyghur people, according to representatives of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC). Within days of her speaking at the Hudson Institute, WUC Chair Rushan Abbas said, her sister and aunt in China disappeared. Chinese officials sometimes approach venues hosting conferences that will discuss the Uyghurs and offer them double the price to cancel the conference contract, according to Haiyuer Kuerban, director of the WUC Berlin office. Now governments in England and Germany are keen to buy from Chinese firms such as Huawei the very tech that Chinese authorities use to surveil Uyghur activists and their families, Kuerban said, a perverse reward for the facilitation of human rights abuse.

Linjiang night market bustles in Taipei.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

If you use a China-based media service such as WeChat even outside China, you might be helping the Chinese surveillance apparatus. Open Technology Fund Fellow Pellaeon Lin explained that censors scan files shared online and "fingerprint" them to tailor the blocking of sensitive content from recipients in China. Scanning and fingerprinting happens on Chinese tech even when users share content wholly outside China. Chinese users, meanwhile, can't penetrate "the great firewall" as easily as in the past, Lin explained. Authorities can see when a VPN is used, if not the content, and that's reason enough to bring someone in for questioning. Tor is better than a VPN because it wraps and disguises internet traffic within innocent transmissions. But Lin warns, it's a game of cat and mouse; the censors are always refining their methods.

Undersea Infrastructure

Remember that all of these panels took place in Taiwan, so criticism of China carried a grave sort of resonance. While discussion of digital rights naturally suggests the metaphysics of cyberspace, the infrastructure of the infosphere exists very much in the real world. One fascinating panel of experts fretted over the vulnerability of the world's undersea cables. Recent outages, such as the cut cable in the Gulf of Finland at Christmas, concerningly exhibit indicia of human agency. Professor Yachi Chiang, of the National Taiwan Ocean University, said, to my surprise, that Taiwan is located at right about the world's highest-density crossroads of undersea traffic. She's right; you can see it at the Submarine Cable Map by TeleGeography:

Submarine Cable Map CC BY-SA 4.0

The security challenges of this network are massive. About 20% of damage results from natural forces, such as deterioration and shark bites, Chiang said; sharks like to bite cables. About 70% of damage is caused by people. A lot of that is inadvertent, anchoring by fishing vessels. But there's no easy way to determine whether there was a malicious act, much less a nation behind it. In the Christmas incident, Finnish officials have alleged a deliberate anchor drag by a Cook Islands-flagged vessel doing Russia's bidding, NPR reported in December.

Taiwan had five incidents already in 2025, Chiang said, with four domestic lines and one international line disrupted. In one incident, the Taiwan Coast Guard took a vessel into custody and detained the crew. That incident was suspicious, because the boat had irregular routing for fishing and inexplicably bore a changeable nameboard. But the capture was exceptional, only possible because the ship was in Taiwanese waters, Chiang explained. On the high seas, ships bear flags of convenience, and any claim against the vessel must be taken up with the flag nation. Those claims in distant and ill developed bureaucracies go nowhere. So some better coordinated legal response is needed to protect the undersea information infrastructure, Chiang concluded.

Authoritarianism in Africa

While the United States retreats to some amalgam of isolationism and opportunism, China is dominating the developing world technologically. China built more than 70% of the 4G network in Africa, Amnesty International's Sikula Oniala said, and now is working on 5G. Chinese-made TVs are flooding the market, Oniala said, but to work, they must be connected to the internet via their Chinese software, raising specters of surveillance and control.

Starlink deployment over
Rhode Island, February 2025.

RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Authoritarian impulses in Africa are ever more complemented by Chinese technology and strategies. Governments control the gateways for internet access; last year, protests were met with internet shutdowns in Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Mauritius and Equatorial Guinea, VOA reported. Amid the civil war in Sudan, both sides have used internet shutdowns strategically, cutting off information about unfriendly protests, permitting access when it undermines the enemy, and charging usurious rates for access to vital information, according to Hussam Mahjoub, co-founder of Sudan Bukra, an independent television channel.

While Starlink seems to promise liberation from government gateways, authorities in countries such as Sudan refuse to license the service and are pressuring the company to limit roaming access for accounts opened abroad, such as in neighboring Kenya, Mahjoub said. Worse, Tor Project Executive Director Isabela Fernandes warned, beware the gift bearer. The Bolsonaro regime in Brazil used Starlink data to track down and kill indigenous activists, she said.

Correspondingly, public access to information (ATI, freedom of information, or FOI) law is on the wane. In Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, mass surveillance is chilling human rights activism. And governments—even Kenya, the ATI law of which, on paper at least, I praised—are following Chinese examples in ATI law, Oniala said, reducing transparency purportedly in the name of national security.

Data Protection in Africa

Even with the best of intentions, African governments hardly can be expected to stand up to tech giants such as Meta, with turnovers that dwarf nations' GDPs, Open Technology Fund Fellow Tomiwa Ilori said. Speaking to African countries' efforts to establish meaningful enforcement of data protection laws, Ilori analogized: "You only get to kill snakes because they don't move together." In other words, African countries must coordinate their efforts. Franco Giandana Gigena, an Argentine lawyer and policy analyst for Access Now, described a similar dynamic in Latin American countries' inability to resist incentives from the U.S. government and American corporations to look the other way on data protection enforcement.

In the vein of collective action, the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection came into force in 2023, upon accession by Mauritania. However, the convention, adopted in 2014, already is dated. Ilori suggested it would benefit from optional protocols on extraterritorial application and stronger enforcement, and overall, African people need more education about their rights.

At that, there might be cultural impediments to EU-style data protection. Thobekile Matimbe, a senior project manager for the Nigeria-based Paradigm Initiative, said that the convention perspective on privacy, while inspired by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is more communitarian than individualist. Curiously, the African perspective, which prizes the integrity of the family, for example, over self-determination or the right to dissent, marks the same ground from which the human right of data protection emerged in the European tradition. The problem, Matimbe explained, is that authoritarians invoke the communitarian perspective to subordinate personal freedoms to the purported imperative of national security. That rationalization has seen surveillance deployed in Malawi, for one example, targeting human rights advocates, critics of government, and journalists, Matimbe said.

Disinformation Regulation

The classical dichotomy between true and false no longer works to balance free expression and disinformation regulation, according to Lutz Güllner, head of the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan. As Ukrainian journalist and Public Interest Journalism Lab CEO Nataliya Gumenyuk put it, debunking just isn't working anymore.

The problem, Güllner said, is that disinformation can have truth at its core, but the dis arises in the spin. That's why, he said, the EU's new Digital Services Act (DSA) aims not at content, but at manner of presentation: imposing on Big Tech a responsibility to police platforms for manipulative amplification of speech or suppression of others' speech (for example, planting an item of disinformation in a flood of mundane but accurate news). That isn't to say that the DSA strikes the right balance. Dionysia Peppa, a Greek lawyer and senior policy analyst for Beirut-based SMEX, said that the DSA rule on takedown of illegal content does not define "illegal," devolving authority to member states. In a time of right-leaning elections in Europe, states might disagree sharply over politically charged questions, such as when policy criticism of Israel becomes illegal hate speech.

In a similar vein, Liliana Vitu, chair of the Audiovisual Council of Moldova, talked about the challenges of combatting Russian propaganda in mass media. Banning "primitive propaganda" in "news" and talk shows was easy, she said. The devil lay in entertainment. For example, Russia-originating programs might consistently portray European characters as gay, effeminate, or weak, playing to stereotypes, she explained, while Russian characters appear masculine and strong.

Ukrainian journalists Nataliya Gumenyuk and Angelina Kariakina
talk about The Reckoning Project, which trains conflict journalists
in the preservation of evidence to prosecute war crimes.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

As mere debunking doesn't work, Gumenyuk described research from The Reckoning Project seeking to figure out how journalists should combat disinformation. Viewers suffer from "compassion fatigue" at all the suffering in the world, she said. So when confronted with fact-based news accounts, such as the appearance of a drowned Syrian boy on a Bodrum beach, or the torture and murder of civilians in Bucha, Ukraine, viewers resisted and complained that journalists are out to manipulate them emotionally. The same viewers, though, proved receptive to people's firsthand accounts in documentaries. Gumenyuk described her astonishment at one study subject's testimony that he trusted the documentary more than the news because journalists were not telling the story. He seemed utterly unaware that the documentary form is a product of journalism and no more or less capable of conveying viewpoint than a news story.

The Reckoning Project, which Gumenyuk co-founded, occupies a compelling position at the junction of journalism and law. Gumenyuk said she tired of seeing reports collected by journalists excluded from war-crime investigations and prosecutions because the journalists did not understand rules of evidence. The Reckoning Project brings together journalists and lawyers to accomplish their complementary missions in seeking truth and justice. Gumenyuk gave as an example the questions a journalist might ask of a witness of atrocities, such as those committed by Russian forces against civilians in Bucha. Ordinarily, a journalist might ask, "How did the Russian soldiers kill this man?" But a leading question yields exclusion of the response as evidence in a legal proceeding. So journalists are trained to ask instead, "Tell me what happened that day."

Apropos of lawyering skills and picking up on the point that tech and its ill-intentioned users evolve faster than law and regulators, Armenian attorney and former head of the Armenian Data Protection Authority Gevorg Hayrapetyan played my tune when he told an audience:

One of the most important disciplines in law is philosophy of law, what law is and what it ought to be. One of the most important steps in developing human rights is recognizing the right.

Data protection, after all, was not a thing until someone thought of it. Maybe that's why it's not a thing in the United States. If we strip black-letter law of theory and policy and dumb down the American law school curriculum to comprise a glorified bar course and skills-training program, then we're headed in the right direction. Right? Asking for a friend.

Time to Save the World

Even were we all so inclined, is there time yet to save the world? Probably not. Law and regulation can't keep up, Güllner said, so the answer has to come from education, to develop people's sensory reflexes to detect disinformation. That will take a generation. "Ask my Ukrainian colleagues," he said. "We don't have that long."

Vitu described complex Moldovan legislation with multi-factor tests to determine whether disinformation conveys falsity and threatens national security. But that took years to develop with civil society stakeholders at the table to protect free expression; propaganda meanwhile grew yet more sophisticated. "Moscow never sleeps," she lamented. 

And Raša Nedeljkov, with the Serbian Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability, summed up the anxiety wracking the world:

A beacon of light for us was U.S. democracy. Now look what is happening.

Maybe that's the silver lining, journalist Tess Bacalla of the Asia Democracy Network suggested: The rest of the world, especially the European Union, will have to step up.

Cameroon human rights record prompting Washington to end trade preference includes internet shutdowns

The announcement that the United States will end trade preferences for Cameroon in response to the country's human rights record marks some good news out of Washington and exemplifies the kind of "quid pro quo" that foreign policy is supposed to leverage.

In a freedom-of-expression angle to the story, documentary filmmakers screened Blacked Out: The Cameroon Internet Shutdown at RightsCon 2019 in Tunis over the summer.  The presentation fit perfectly into one of the key conference themes, "#KeepItOn."  I was privileged to be there and to meet one of the filmmakers, who talked about the extraordinary risk of documenting the minority anglophone community in Cameroon today.  More at Quartz Africa and at the Blacked Out YouTube channel.  The film can be viewed on YouTube in its 43-minute cut or its 65-minute uncut version, below.

Of interest to legal comparatists, there's an interesting underlying story in Cameroon's civil law tradition arising from a merger of French and British political possessions.  That's not the subject of the movie, but you can imagine the tension of legal tradition running in tandem with tensions of culture, language, and history, and all of that overlaid on and obscuring, in classic imperialist fashion, pre- and still-existing tribal cultures and customary legal traditions.

EU frets over Privacy Shield adequacy, and NGO insists, emperor still naked

The Commission of the European Union is reviewing the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield framework for conformity with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and NGO AccessNow is again demanding an inadequacy finding.

A lot is at stake.  For the uninitiated, European regulators have a dramatically different take on the protection of personal information than the free-wheeling free marketeers of the United States.  I've written some about the problem here and elsewhere (e.g., here and here), arguing that the American people are not so far from European privacy norms, but it's our law that lags behind the democratic will.  For my money, the definitive macro analysis of why American and European approaches to privacy have differed is James Q. Whitman's.  Anyway, the GDPR does not allow the export from Europe of information to countries that do not comport with its privacy protections, and that creates a monumental problem for the trans-Atlantic flow of not only information, but commerce.

The problem is not new and existed under the GDPR's predecessor law, the 1995 Data Protection Directive (DPD).  A number of mechanisms were devised to work around the problem, and they were approved by European regulators under the umbrella of "the Safe Harbor agreement."  But it's widely understood, at least on the European side, that Safe Harbor was something of a sham: No one with a straight face could argue that U.S. law was comparable to the DPD.  Safe Harbor in practice comprised mostly industry standards, voluntarily adopted and barely enforced by U.S. regulators.  There's also an important piece of this problem in the vein of national security, government spying, and personal information; I'm not even getting into that.

Privacy Shield is stronger than Safe Harbor, but the GDPR is a lot stronger than the DPD.  There have been remarkable advancements in privacy law in some states, notably California, in the EU direction.  And quite a number of court challenges have followed, winding their way through the process, some derived from objections in the commercial sphere, some the civil rights sphere: you've probably heard of "the right to be forgotten."  But our patchwork state laboratories hardly sum reassurance to Europe.  So in the absence of a comprehensive peace offering at the federal level, the debate over the EU's adequacy determination regarding Privacy Shield pretty much boils down to whether or not we're going to admit that the emperor is naked.

AccessNow, a global NGO and sponsor of RightsCon, has consistently called for honesty about the emperor's sorry state.  A recent memo calls on the Commission to rule Privacy Shield inadequate, and AccessNow has invited republication of a new infographic in support of its position.  I hereby oblige. It's past time we get serious about protecting personal information in the United States and stop commercial exploitation of human identity upon industry's abusive invocations of civil rights such as the freedom of speech and freedom to contract.

[UPDATE, 23 Oct. 2019, at 13:53 U.S. EDT: Privacy Shield still good, per EC report issued today.]