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
Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
U.S. has "no interest" in putting troops on the ground in Iran, Vance says
Vice President Vance said Sunday that the United States doesn't plan to send ground troops into Iran and there is "no interest" in engaging in a "protracted conflict" with the nation. The big picture: Vance and other Trump administration officials appeared on Sunday shows to praise President Trump 's decision to carry out a series of airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites, while reassuring Americans that the mission — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — isn't the launching point for a wider conflict. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Vance called the mission a "precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest" — preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — and that he had "no fear" of a drawn-out conflict. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment on CBS' "Face the Nation," saying that there are no plans from the U.S. to engage in further attacks on Iran unless they "mess around" and attack Americans or U.S. military sites. What they're saying: Rubio said Sunday that the U.S. carried out the attack after efforts to negotiate with Iran stalled, but that Trump administration officials are "prepared to talk to them tomorrow." Both men also dismissed the notion that the U.S. is at war with Iran, with Vance stating that the war is with Iran's nuclear program. "We destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially," Vance told NBC News' Kristen Welker. Zoom out: Vance and Rubio were unable to confirm the extent of the damage done to the nuclear sites, but Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told CNN that the strike was a "betrayal of diplomacy." "No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel," he said. Bagahei refused to say how Iran might respond to the U.S. strike, but said the nation is entitled to "exercise its right of self-defense."
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
Homeland Security warns of possible terrorist attacks in US following strike on Iran
The Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorism alert on Sunday — warning of possible Iranian attacks against the US following the American airstrikes against Tehran's nuclear program. DHS warned officials to be on the lookout for Iranian-led attacks over the next three months by terror cells inspired to retaliate following Saturday night's strike. 'The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland,' DHS said in a statement. Advertisement Iranians at a rally in Tehran after the US airstrikes on three of the countries nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS Along with the possibility of extremist attacks on US soil, officials warned that the chances of both cyberattacks and antisemitic acts are likely to increase. The advisory comes after the NYPD put out its own alert last night, with Gov. Hochul upping security at the MTA and Port Authority.
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble
The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. Advertisement For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Advertisement Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' Advertisement In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Advertisement Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. Advertisement That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
