Government to tap cyberspace

Media organisations and internet service providers (ISPs) in Zimbabwe are up in arms about the government's planned introduction of a bill to regulate cyber-communication in the "interests of national security". "It [the bill] was born out of a realisation that the internet has been used to destroy the image of Zimbabwe, and that this was made possible by the lack of regulation in cyber-communication," Deputy Information Minister Bright Matonga, told IRIN. The Interception of Communications Bill (ICB) seeks to empower the minister of information to "issue an interception warrant to authorised persons where there are reasonable grounds for him to believe that a serious offence is committed or that there is a threat to safety or national security". Apart from infuriating civil society organisations, who fear the bill paves the way for government snooping of private email communications, the bill has angered ISPs too. If the bill is passed into law, ISPs will have to pay the costs of surveillance. Section 3 of the proposed act states: "A telecommunication service provider is required to install hardware and software to enable the interception of communication." ISPs contend they cannot afford the required surveillance equipment for state security agencies to monitor communications. Matonga dismissed the ISPs complaints, warning: "Businesses that do not want to accept their role in implementing this bill may as well pull out because this is how they will operate once that bill becomes law." As the government prepares to push the bill through parliament on Friday, media houses, ISPs and civil society organisations said they were prepared to take the government to court if it was passed. "All stakeholders agree that we should begin now to fight the law being proposed: first by engaging ZANU-PF [the ruling party] leading legislators before it is signed into law. It is also imperative to petition President Robert Mugabe. If it is passed, the last resort would be to fight it in court," an ISP representative who preferred not to be identified said. According to lawyer Chris Mhike, the proposed bill was unconstitutional and infringed on basic freedoms, including the right to receive and impart ideas free from interference as guaranteed by Section 20 of the constitution.