SECTOR 1 One of the panellists refuted the notion that internet cafés have specific equipment for monitoring the content accessed by internet users. “I am not convinced of ‘sniffing’ at internet cafés. It is more likely that there is someone physically walking around monitoring users. I do believe that if you have made yourself a target by standing out, they will monitor you.” There may be efforts by the state to filter email but they are unlikely to be very successful since Zimbabwe does not have the capacity to intercept every person’s email traffic either in terms of technical means or of human resources. What the state might do instead is intercept the mail of a specific person. Often emails end up sitting on the server of a service provider and are thus easily accessible by the state. All service providers are forced by law to install “hardware and software facilities and devices to enable interception of communications at all “ If you have made yourself a times or when so required” target by standing out, they will and must ensure that their monitor you” “services are capable of rendering real time and full time monitoring facilities for the interception of communications” (Section 9 of the Act). As web-based communications are not stored with Internet Service Providers these messages are not “sniffable” and do not leave footprints. Because of the unclear situation, panellists assessed it differently – some were more optimistic that monitoring does not take place due to technical inefficiencies on the part of the state, others were more suspicious. Scores: Individual scores: 1 Country does not meet indicator 2 Country meets only a few aspects of indicator. 3 Country meets some aspects of indicator 4 Country meets most aspects of indicator 5 Country meets all aspects of the indicator Average score: 24 2.9 (2008: n/a ; 2006: n/a) AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER ZIMBABWE 2010