PoO hasn’t delved too deeply into the methodology, but we note the disturbing trends recorded in the Global Expression Report 2025. Fewer countries are advancing in tolerating freedom of expression.
More than 5.6 billion people have experienced a decline in their freedom of expression over the past 10 years. Scores have sunk in 77 countries, and only 35 countries are now ranked as ‘Open.’
Only 4% of us – fewer than 300 million people – across just 15 countries have experienced improvements in freedom of expression over the last decade.
In that decade, for every one person who has experienced an improvement in their freedom of expression, 19 people have experienced deterioration.
The report is the work of an international organisation called Article 19, which champions freedom of expression locally and globally “to ensure all people realise the power of their voices”.
Each year, Article 19 assigns every country a score from 0 to 100, based on 25 indicators including media freedom, internet censorship, academic independence, freedom of assembly, and the public’s ability to access information and criticise those in power.
Countries are then placed into five categories: Open (80–100), Less Restricted (60–79), Restricted (40–59), Highly Restricted (20–39), and In Crisis (0–19).
The UK has slipped below the cut-off for “Open” status and into the next category down, for the first time since the index began
Denmark is in first place on the 2025 report’s rankings with a 94 score.
New Zealand is in 16th place with a score of 86.
Our attention was drawn to the report by an article in the British magazine, Critic, which laments that country’s score: it is in 36th place with a score of 79.
The Critic article notes that “Britain is now a world leader in censorship”.
For the first time since records began, the United Kingdom is no longer classified as an “Open” country in a leading global ranking of freedom of expression. In its latest Global Expression Report, the free speech advocacy organisation Article 19 downgraded the UK after its rating for core expressive freedoms fell below the threshold that separates the world’s most liberal societies from the rest.
Between 2000 and 2013, the UK’s rating held steady at 88. Over the past decade, however, the downward trend has become clear.
Critic says:
By 2014 it had slipped to 87, and from 2019 onwards the decline accelerated, falling from 85 that year to 79 in the latest report. This most recent, single-point drop places the UK among a second tier of countries that includes Colombia, Nigeria, Romania, and South Africa. For a country often described as the birthplace of Parliamentary democracy, this statistical downgrade carries undeniable symbolic weight.
Commenting on this year’s data, David Diaz-Jogeix, Article 19’s Senior Director of Programmes, told Radio France Internationale that while the most severe repression is still found in authoritarian states such as China, Iran, and Russia, a growing number of democratic governments are now adopting repressive policies of their own.
“Ironically, you see a very clear pattern of deterioration of the freedom of expression in western countries,” he said, pointing to the UK as one example of this broader trend.
Critic comments:
The irony here may, in fact, be deeper than Article 19 acknowledges. The risk is no longer merely that democracies have begun to imitate authoritarian regimes, but that in some cases they are actively pioneering the mechanisms those regimes will soon adopt. Indeed, when it comes to online surveillance, the UK now appears intent on providing the world’s strongmen with a spot of Orwellian inspiration.
That’s a reference to the British Home Secretary earlier this year issuing a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) to Apple, compelling the company to reengineer its systems to enable future government access to encrypted user data.
The British Government is effectively requiring Apple to break the end-to-end encryption that protects messages, photos, documents and personal data – encryption so robust that even Apple cannot access it.
Rather than request access when necessary and legally warranted, Critic warns, the TCN seeks to establish permanent infrastructure for surveillance. That apparatus will exist, whether or not it is ever used.
Big Brother – in other words – is giving himself a stronger lens for watching us.
New Zealanders have cause to keep an eye on what Big Brother is doing.
NZ Lawyer sounded a caution a year ago, saying use of encrypted messaging platforms such as Telegram, Whatsapp, WeChat, Signal, or Messenger is becoming more common practice for business matters. But:
Users need to be mindful of the developing compliance requirements overseas and consider what is best practice, as it is only a matter of time before New Zealand adopts similar requirements. In short, overseas companies face penalties under criminal law if they do not have sufficiently enforced policies requiring employees to keep accessible business records when using personal devices and encrypted messaging platforms.
New Zealand regularly follows the rest of the world when it comes to compliance obligations. Anti-money laundering (AML) and due diligence obligations are commonplace in New Zealand now, but they were only established here 10 years ago. However, in overseas jurisdictions like the European Union, AML procedures were being refined several years before this. Similarly, we expect overseas compliance regimes controlling how business employees use encrypted messaging applications to be imported into New Zealand in the near future, so it pays to be prepared and understand the landscape before this happens.
More recently, The Conversation reported on happenings in the USA which have led to a surge in interest in encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp. These apps prevent anyone, including the government and the app companies themselves, from reading messages they intercept.
The spotlight on encrypted apps is also a reminder of the complex debate pitting government interests against individual liberties. Governments desire to monitor everyday communications for law enforcement, national security and sometimes darker purposes. On the other hand, citizens and businesses claim the right to enjoy private digital discussions in today’s online world.
The writer, computer science professor Richard Forno, said the positions governments take often are framed as a “war on encryption” by technology policy experts and civil liberties advocates.
As a cybersecurity researcher, he said, he has followed the debate for nearly 30 years and remains convinced that this is not a fight that governments can easily win.
Let’s see.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
In that decade, for every one person who has experienced an improvement in their freedom of expression, 19 people have experienced deterioration.
The report is the work of an international organisation called Article 19, which champions freedom of expression locally and globally “to ensure all people realise the power of their voices”.
Each year, Article 19 assigns every country a score from 0 to 100, based on 25 indicators including media freedom, internet censorship, academic independence, freedom of assembly, and the public’s ability to access information and criticise those in power.
Countries are then placed into five categories: Open (80–100), Less Restricted (60–79), Restricted (40–59), Highly Restricted (20–39), and In Crisis (0–19).
The UK has slipped below the cut-off for “Open” status and into the next category down, for the first time since the index began
Denmark is in first place on the 2025 report’s rankings with a 94 score.
New Zealand is in 16th place with a score of 86.
Our attention was drawn to the report by an article in the British magazine, Critic, which laments that country’s score: it is in 36th place with a score of 79.
The Critic article notes that “Britain is now a world leader in censorship”.
For the first time since records began, the United Kingdom is no longer classified as an “Open” country in a leading global ranking of freedom of expression. In its latest Global Expression Report, the free speech advocacy organisation Article 19 downgraded the UK after its rating for core expressive freedoms fell below the threshold that separates the world’s most liberal societies from the rest.
Between 2000 and 2013, the UK’s rating held steady at 88. Over the past decade, however, the downward trend has become clear.
Critic says:
By 2014 it had slipped to 87, and from 2019 onwards the decline accelerated, falling from 85 that year to 79 in the latest report. This most recent, single-point drop places the UK among a second tier of countries that includes Colombia, Nigeria, Romania, and South Africa. For a country often described as the birthplace of Parliamentary democracy, this statistical downgrade carries undeniable symbolic weight.
Commenting on this year’s data, David Diaz-Jogeix, Article 19’s Senior Director of Programmes, told Radio France Internationale that while the most severe repression is still found in authoritarian states such as China, Iran, and Russia, a growing number of democratic governments are now adopting repressive policies of their own.
“Ironically, you see a very clear pattern of deterioration of the freedom of expression in western countries,” he said, pointing to the UK as one example of this broader trend.
Critic comments:
The irony here may, in fact, be deeper than Article 19 acknowledges. The risk is no longer merely that democracies have begun to imitate authoritarian regimes, but that in some cases they are actively pioneering the mechanisms those regimes will soon adopt. Indeed, when it comes to online surveillance, the UK now appears intent on providing the world’s strongmen with a spot of Orwellian inspiration.
That’s a reference to the British Home Secretary earlier this year issuing a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) to Apple, compelling the company to reengineer its systems to enable future government access to encrypted user data.
The British Government is effectively requiring Apple to break the end-to-end encryption that protects messages, photos, documents and personal data – encryption so robust that even Apple cannot access it.
Rather than request access when necessary and legally warranted, Critic warns, the TCN seeks to establish permanent infrastructure for surveillance. That apparatus will exist, whether or not it is ever used.
Big Brother – in other words – is giving himself a stronger lens for watching us.
New Zealanders have cause to keep an eye on what Big Brother is doing.
NZ Lawyer sounded a caution a year ago, saying use of encrypted messaging platforms such as Telegram, Whatsapp, WeChat, Signal, or Messenger is becoming more common practice for business matters. But:
Users need to be mindful of the developing compliance requirements overseas and consider what is best practice, as it is only a matter of time before New Zealand adopts similar requirements. In short, overseas companies face penalties under criminal law if they do not have sufficiently enforced policies requiring employees to keep accessible business records when using personal devices and encrypted messaging platforms.
New Zealand regularly follows the rest of the world when it comes to compliance obligations. Anti-money laundering (AML) and due diligence obligations are commonplace in New Zealand now, but they were only established here 10 years ago. However, in overseas jurisdictions like the European Union, AML procedures were being refined several years before this. Similarly, we expect overseas compliance regimes controlling how business employees use encrypted messaging applications to be imported into New Zealand in the near future, so it pays to be prepared and understand the landscape before this happens.
More recently, The Conversation reported on happenings in the USA which have led to a surge in interest in encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp. These apps prevent anyone, including the government and the app companies themselves, from reading messages they intercept.
The spotlight on encrypted apps is also a reminder of the complex debate pitting government interests against individual liberties. Governments desire to monitor everyday communications for law enforcement, national security and sometimes darker purposes. On the other hand, citizens and businesses claim the right to enjoy private digital discussions in today’s online world.
The writer, computer science professor Richard Forno, said the positions governments take often are framed as a “war on encryption” by technology policy experts and civil liberties advocates.
As a cybersecurity researcher, he said, he has followed the debate for nearly 30 years and remains convinced that this is not a fight that governments can easily win.
Let’s see.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment