26.12.2025 11:58:00
Дата публикации
The Advisory Council under Bangladesh’s interim government has approved amendments to the draft telecommunications regulation prohibiting the executive branch from shutting down the internet. This marks a significant step toward protecting citizens’ digital rights.
Under the draft, lawful interception of information will only be permitted for national security, law enforcement, saving lives, judicial or investigative purposes, or cross‑border matters — and strictly following procedures. Such interception requires approval from a quasi‑judicial council and must be carried out using the CIS access control system. Complaints about unlawful interception can be submitted to the council.
Notably, the ban on shutdowns was part of the original draft but later faced attempts to be removed. Thanks to public protests in the capital, the provision was preserved.
This move responds to the events of July 2024, when Bangladesh experienced a five‑day internet blackout during student protests against quotas. Social networks and messengers were blocked, and media outlets lost the ability to update content.
The shutdown coincided with a curfew and deployment of the army in the capital, resulting in casualties, arrests, and chaos worsened by disinformation. Forbes estimated the economic damage at $157 million.
International organizations — Amnesty, Access Now, Human Rights Watch, among others — condemned the blackout, stressing that it violated freedom of speech and access to information guaranteed by Bangladesh’s Constitution.
Human rights defenders argue that shutdowns are ineffective in preventing violence and instead hinder society’s ability to counter disinformation. People still find alternative communication channels but lose access to trusted sources.
In Kazakhstan, the Eurasian Digital Foundation continues its campaign against internet shutdowns (shutdown.kz). In autumn 2025, the team filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court of Kazakhstan challenging Article 41‑1 of the Law “On Communications,” which allows internet disconnection without judicial oversight. The appeal emphasizes that such measures violate the right to information and freedom of expression, contradicting proportionality principles and international obligations.
Under the draft, lawful interception of information will only be permitted for national security, law enforcement, saving lives, judicial or investigative purposes, or cross‑border matters — and strictly following procedures. Such interception requires approval from a quasi‑judicial council and must be carried out using the CIS access control system. Complaints about unlawful interception can be submitted to the council.
Notably, the ban on shutdowns was part of the original draft but later faced attempts to be removed. Thanks to public protests in the capital, the provision was preserved.
This move responds to the events of July 2024, when Bangladesh experienced a five‑day internet blackout during student protests against quotas. Social networks and messengers were blocked, and media outlets lost the ability to update content.
The shutdown coincided with a curfew and deployment of the army in the capital, resulting in casualties, arrests, and chaos worsened by disinformation. Forbes estimated the economic damage at $157 million.
International organizations — Amnesty, Access Now, Human Rights Watch, among others — condemned the blackout, stressing that it violated freedom of speech and access to information guaranteed by Bangladesh’s Constitution.
Human rights defenders argue that shutdowns are ineffective in preventing violence and instead hinder society’s ability to counter disinformation. People still find alternative communication channels but lose access to trusted sources.
In Kazakhstan, the Eurasian Digital Foundation continues its campaign against internet shutdowns (shutdown.kz). In autumn 2025, the team filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court of Kazakhstan challenging Article 41‑1 of the Law “On Communications,” which allows internet disconnection without judicial oversight. The appeal emphasizes that such measures violate the right to information and freedom of expression, contradicting proportionality principles and international obligations.
