El Salvador’s new cybersecurity laws threaten to muzzle the press and erase inconvenient truths about government officials.
Are they building a framework for other countries?
At a Glance
- El Salvador’s new cybersecurity laws raise concerns over media freedom and privacy rights
- A State Cybersecurity Agency will be created to enforce data protection regulations
- The “right to be forgotten” provision could be used to remove critical information about officials
- Media outlets and search engines face fines for non-compliance
- Human rights organizations warn of risks to freedom of expression and public access to information
El Salvador’s Digital Crackdown: New Laws Threaten Press Freedom
El Salvador’s government has enacted new cybersecurity and data protection laws that are raising red flags among media watchdogs and human rights organizations. On November 12, the Legislative Assembly approved a set of 32 articles that could potentially give authorities unprecedented control over digital information and media content. These laws, ostensibly aimed at modernizing the country’s digital infrastructure, are being viewed as a potential tool for government overreach and censorship.
At the heart of these new regulations is the establishment of a State Cybersecurity Agency. This body, led by a presidential appointee, will be responsible for overseeing cybersecurity policies and enforcing data protection regulations. Critics argue that this centralization of power could lead to abuse, especially given the current administration’s track record of pressuring media outlets.
El Salvador’s new cybersecurity laws could spell trouble for press freedom and privacy. https://t.co/Qc0EsVvQcZ
— reason (@reason) December 16, 2024
The “Right to be Forgotten”: A Double-Edged Sword
One of the most controversial aspects of the new laws is the introduction of the “right to be forgotten” provision. This allows individuals to request the removal of online information they deem inadequate or outdated. While this concept exists in other jurisdictions, its implementation in El Salvador’s current political climate has raised concerns about potential misuse.
“These new laws could be used to delete online publications that are critical of the government under the guise of data protection. This is a recipe for censorship and opacity,” Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, said.
While exceptions exist for preserving information related to free expression and the press, these protections hinge on the data being deemed “precise.” This subjective standard could potentially be exploited to pressure media outlets into removing unfavorable content about government officials or their allies.
Fines and Penalties: A Threat to Independent Media
The new laws come with teeth. Media outlets and search engines that fail to comply with the regulations could face hefty fines. This financial pressure, combined with the already precarious state of press freedom in El Salvador, could force many outlets to self-censor or remove content rather than risk penalties.
“This requirement could allow the government to pressure media outlets to delete information of public interest about officials or their allies by claiming the information is inaccurate or incomplete,” Human Rights Watch argued.
Human Rights Watch and the Organization of American States have both voiced strong criticism of these laws. They warn that the regulations pose significant risks to freedom of expression and public access to information, potentially creating a chilling effect on journalism and public discourse.
A Pattern of Press Intimidation
The introduction of these cybersecurity laws doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Under President Nayib Bukele’s administration, journalists have reportedly faced increasing harassment, intimidation, and surveillance. These new regulations could provide additional tools for the government to exert pressure on media outlets and individual reporters.
While supporters of the laws argue that they are necessary for modernizing El Salvador’s digital infrastructure and protecting citizens’ data, critics see them as part of a broader strategy to control public discourse and silence dissent. The vague language and broad powers granted by these regulations leave ample room for interpretation and potential abuse.
What do our readers think?
