How Governments Weaponize ‘Safety’ Laws to Silence Activists and Journalists

The Electronic Frontier Foundation just dropped something important at the UN: a detailed breakdown of how democracies and autocracies alike are weaponizing cybercrime and online safety laws to persecute the people who actually challenge power.

Let’s be direct. When a government says it’s protecting you from “misinformation” or “cybercriminals,” what it often means is: we’re building legal infrastructure to jail dissidents without due process. And the scary part? It’s working. One country passes a law, neighbors copy it, and suddenly you’ve got a global surveillance apparatus dressed up in the language of harm prevention.

The Bait and Switch: Legitimate Law, Illegitimate Use#

Cybercrime laws sound reasonable. Doxing is bad. Botnets are bad. Ransomware gangs deserve consequences. The problem isn’t the concept—it’s the execution and scope creep.

Governments have figured out that you don’t need to explicitly ban journalism or activism. You just need a law broad enough to criminalize “unauthorized access to computer systems,” “spreading false information,” or “disrupting critical infrastructure.” Then you redefine those terms until they cover literally any speech you want suppressed.

A human rights defender investigating police corruption? That’s “unauthorized access” when she retrieves public records. A journalist publishing leaked documents about government contracts? That’s potentially “disrupting critical infrastructure” or “national security threat.” A whistleblower exposing labor violations? “Theft of trade secrets.”

The law’s text stays vague. Enforcement becomes a political tool.

The UK Online Safety Act Blueprint#

Britain’s Online Safety Act is the export model here. On its face: platforms must remove illegal content and protect children. Reasonable, right?

Under the hood: platforms now have affirmative duties to assess and mitigate “legal but harmful” content. That phrase should terrify you. It’s lawful speech that the government subjectively deems harmful. Who decides what’s harmful? Regulators. How? Opaque guidance documents that shift with political winds.

And here’s the kicker—other countries are already copying it. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has similar powers. The EU’s Digital Services Act borrows the framework. Within years, you have coordinated global infrastructure for suppressing inconvenient speech under the cover of child protection and safety.

That’s not coincidence. That’s deliberate policy design.

The Global Pattern: One Law, Mass Export#

EFF’s UN submission maps how this actually works in practice:

The initial push: A country claims a crisis—misinformation spreading, cybercriminals operating, foreign interference. The narrative is always urgent, always existential.

The broad legislation: Laws pass with vague definitions and sweeping surveillance powers. Judicial oversight is minimal or nonexistent. Speed matters more than precision.

The precedent: Once normalized in one jurisdiction, neighboring countries adopt similar frameworks. “Best practices” conferences legitimize the spread. Tech companies lobby for consistency (it’s cheaper to comply with one global standard than adapt to each jurisdiction).

The real enforcement: Laws designed for major cybercriminals end up used against:

• Journalists investigating corruption
• Activists organizing strikes or protests
• Human rights defenders documenting abuses
• Ordinary people sharing criticism of government

The targets have something in common: they threaten existing power structures.

Meanwhile, actual cybercriminals? Many operate across borders, often protected by friendly governments. The laws aren’t really about them.

Where Due Process Goes to Die#

Traditional justice systems have guardrails. You need evidence, a trial, the right to defend yourself. Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Under online safety and cybercrime regimes, those protections erode:

Administrative removal: Platforms take down content without court involvement. Appeal processes are opaque or nonexistent. You find out your post is gone months later, if at all.

Expedited prosecution: Cases move fast, often without adequate legal representation. Defendants in resource-poor countries can’t mount real defenses.

Vague elements: “Spreading false information,” “harmful content,” “incitement”—these aren’t clearly defined. A court case becomes a subjective judgment call.

Chilling effect: Even when prosecution fails, the threat itself silences speech. Most people will self-censor rather than risk arrest, even if conviction is unlikely.

Secret evidence: National security justifications allow governments to withhold information from courts and defendants. You can’t defend against accusations you aren’t allowed to see.

This is the opposite of the rule of law. It’s rule by law—law as a weapon.

What This Means for Your Privacy and Freedom#

If you’re thinking, “I don’t break laws, so I’m fine”—reconsider what “breaking laws” means in this context.

You’re at risk if you:

• Use a VPN (increasingly criminalized under cybercrime laws in multiple countries)
• Share articles or research that contradicts government narratives
• Use encrypted messaging (framed as potential crime facilitation)
• Download files from services your government doesn’t approve of
• Join online communities discussing activism, politics, or sensitive topics
• Simply live in a country where vague laws give authorities broad discretion

The infrastructure being built now isn’t just targeting dissidents today. It’s normalizing surveillance and content control as acceptable governance.

When the next political transition happens, those same laws and systems remain in place—ready to be deployed against the newly inconvenient.

Practical Takeaways: What You Can Actually Do#

Understand the laws where you are: Know what you’re legally risking. Different jurisdictions have wildly different online speech laws. VPN use, encryption, certain downloads—these carry different legal weights depending on location.

Use strong encryption for sensitive communication: Email, messaging, file storage. Assume worst-case surveillance scenarios. Tools like Signal, Wire, and ProtonMail aren’t paranoia; they’re basic operational security.

Verify information sources independently: If governments are framing legitimate speech as “misinformation,” you need reliable ways to fact-check. Don’t rely on a single news source or algorithm.

Support organizations fighting for digital rights: EFF, Access Now, Amnesty International’s Digital team, and others do legal work and advocacy on these issues. They need funding and attention.

Use a reputable VPN service: In jurisdictions where surveillance is expanding, VPN use itself is becoming risky. But in many places, it’s still legal and essential for privacy. Choose providers with no-log policies and jurisdictions outside Five Eyes countries.

Document everything: If you’re a journalist, activist, or human rights defender, keep records of your legitimate work. Backup communications. Document what you publish and when. This creates evidence against arbitrary prosecution.

Understand your platform’s terms: Tech companies are often caught between government pressure and user rights. Know what data they collect, what they share with governments, and what your options are.

The Bottom Line: Safety as Cover for Control#

Governments didn’t invent this playbook yesterday. But the digital era has turbo-charged it.

When a government announces new laws “for your safety” or “to fight crime,” the honest question is: safety for whom, and crime by what definition?

The EFF’s UN submission is important because it names the pattern. One law passes. Others copy it. Scope creeps. Enforcement targets the wrong people. Rights disappear under bureaucratic language.

The solution isn’t perfect laws—it’s structural accountability, judicial oversight, and refusing to normalize surveillance as the price of living online.

Until then, assume the tools being built for “safety” will be used for control. Because history—and the EFF’s report—suggests they almost always are.

Stay encrypted. Stay informed. Stay skeptical of “protective” laws.