WorldRisk

Which passport do you hold?

Risk to a traveller depends on their nationality. A country that sanctions your destination, or is sanctioned by it, changes how you are treated on arrival. Choosing here adjusts every score on the site.

We hold travel advice written for four nationalities so far. Selecting anything else shows the neutral baseline, and every page says so where it applies rather than presenting it as an assessment made for you.

Kept in your browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere, and you can change it at any time from the header.

All countries

Lebanon

59High59 of 100, High band, 50 to 74good confidence(7/7 dimensions)
What this score means
Extreme75 to 100
Severe and systematic. Device search, interception and detention over online activity are documented rather than theoretical. Reconsider what you carry and what you say.
High50 to 74
Substantial and consistently evidenced measures. Device inspection, monitored networks or restricted services should be expected rather than treated as unlikely.
Caution25 to 49
Some risk, and manageable with precautions. Measures are evidenced but are narrow, inconsistently applied, or the picture is mixed.
Low0 to 24
Ordinary precautions. No systematic device search, network restriction or prosecution of visitors for online speech is evidenced.

Government travel advice is written for one citizenry, so the same country carries a different assessment depending on your passport. Change it in the header.

Showing the baseline, which weights every issuer equally. No government in our corpus publishes travel advice written for you, so this is not addressed to you specifically.

Dimensions

Each dimension is scored independently, because the traveller who cares about legal exposure for what they have posted is often not the one carrying client data. Higher means more risk.

Border device risk

How likely is my device to be searched, imaged, or seized at the border, and can I be compelled to unlock it?

79Extreme79 of 100, Extreme band, 75 to 100

good confidence6 independent sources

Why this score (6 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Network threat

How hostile is the network environment to a foreign visitor, from state actors and criminals alike?

68High68 of 100, High band, 50 to 74

good confidence3 independent sourcesEvidence is ageing: contributing sources are weighted at 43% of full strength.

Why this score (6 sources)

  • ITU Global Cybersecurity Index 2024, Technical pillar: 1.39 of 20.

    International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Index · observed 2024-12-31

  • Freedom House scored Lebanon 10 of 25 on obstacles to access in Freedom on the Net, a category covering state control over internet infrastructure and gateways, regulatory and ownership control over service providers, and the independence of the regulator.

    Freedom House, Freedom on the Net, obstacles to access · observed 2025-01-01

  • Fourth, we’ve previously documented at SMEX evidence of electronic interference, including GPS spoofing and jamming across the Eastern Mediterranean.

    SMEX, via a site scoped search · observed 2026-03-23 · extracted by language model

  • The statistics show that between 2020 and 2023, 80% of the targets of digital violence were women, compared to 20% for men.

    SMEX, via a site scoped search · observed 2024-03-04 · extracted by language model

  • Activists face different forms of gendered cyberviolence , including hate speech, doxing, and threats to themselves and their families, driven by entrenched patriarchal norms and societal misogyny, exacerbated by the lack of comprehensive cybercrime legislation.

    SMEX, via a site scoped search · observed 2025-04-25 · extracted by language model

  • The Lebanese state employs very modest digital technologies, meaning that its cyber-security systems are lax.

    SMEX, via a site scoped search · observed 2025-01-20 · extracted by language model

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

2 excluded sources
  • SMEX, via a site scoped search, observed 2024-01-23: aged out after 3 years.
  • SMEX, via a site scoped search, observed 2024-10-03: aged out after 2 years.

Speech and legal exposure

What legal risk attaches to what I have said online, or say while I am there?

67High67 of 100, High band, 50 to 74

good confidence7 independent sources

Why this score (11 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

2 excluded sources
  • Global Voices (Advox), via a site scoped search, observed 2023-09-11: aged out after 3 years.
  • SMEX, via a site scoped search, observed 2023-08-30: aged out after 3 years.

Data jurisdiction

What happens to corporate or client data I carry into the jurisdiction?

60High60 of 100, High band, 50 to 74

moderate confidence2 independent sourcesEvidence is ageing: contributing sources are weighted at 58% of full strength.

Why this score (2 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Surveillance and interception

How comprehensively are communications intercepted, retained, and monitored, and is commercial spyware in use?

57High57 of 100, High band, 50 to 74

good confidence4 independent sourcesEvidence is ageing: contributing sources are weighted at 63% of full strength.

Why this score (7 sources)

  • Freedom House 2026 scored LBN 2 of 4 on freedom to express personal views on sensitive topics without fear of surveillance or retribution.

    Freedom House, Freedom in the World · observed 2026-01-01

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored LBN 2.09 of 4 on how comprehensively the government monitors social media and private online communication, where higher is freer.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored LBN 1.64 of 4 on how far privacy protection law shields communications from government access, where higher is freer. This measures what privacy law permits rather than what monitoring is practised, so it is read here as a constraint on interception rather than a measurement of it.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 scored LBN 0.41 of 1 on whether freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy is effectively guaranteed, a measure built from expert assessments of warrantless interception of communications.

    World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 4.6 · observed 2025-01-01

  • Additionally, poor data protection and privacy frameworks leave activists exposed to hacking and surveillance.

    SMEX, via a site scoped search · observed 2025-04-25 · extracted by language model

  • According to the Digital Safety Helpdesk at SMEX, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have different tools and methods that enable them to determine an individual’s location, be it through phone number, network interception, frequency analysis and metadata, airplanes without a pilot, or through their collaboration with technology companies .

    SMEX, via a site scoped search · observed 2024-10-03 · extracted by language model

  • In July, Fanar Municipality published a video on TikTok showcasing its use of new drone technology to monitor the town, raising questions about whether this step aligns with the right to privacy.

    SMEX, via a site scoped search · observed 2025-10-08 · extracted by language model

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Connectivity continuity

How likely am I to lose access to the internet, or to the specific tools I depend on?

46Caution46 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

good confidence8 independent sources

Why this score (20 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Encryption and VPN legality

Are VPNs and strong encryption lawful, and can I be required to install an application or hand over keys?

33Caution33 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

moderate confidence3 independent sources

Why this score (3 sources)

  • Some restrictions. In Lebanon, the Prime Minister is able to grant the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Defence authorisation to intercept communications for the purposes of "combating terrorism, crimes against state security, and organised crime". The public and private sectors to assist in the implementation of any order, which could include decrypting encrypted communications.

    Global Partners Digital, World Map of Encryption Laws and Policies · observed 2019-06-01

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored LBN 2.17 of 4 on whether the government regulates the internet in a way consistent with international human rights standards, where higher is freer. This does not establish whether encryption or VPN use is lawful. It measures internet regulation in general, and is used as indirect evidence because the only survey that reads encryption law directly was published in 2019.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • OONI confirmed blocking on 1 of 3,089 measurements of anonymity and censorship circumvention tools in LBN over the 90 days to 2026-10-16, a confirmed blocking rate of 0.03 percent, with 24 further results inconclusive.

    Open Observatory of Network Interference, OONI measurement data · observed 2026-10-16

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Trend

02550751002026-08-162026-10-16

The overall score is up 9.3 points over 61 days, from 50 to 59.3. Most movement is the event overlay decaying rather than anything happening: a news signal loses half its weight every three weeks, so a score drifts back toward its structural baseline on its own. A step that holds is the one worth reading.

Check this yourself

These are not inputs to the score for Lebanon. They are where to look if you want to test what is above against something we did not use.

Sources

This assessment draws on 14 sources: Auswärtiges Amt, Reise- und Sicherheitshinweise; CIVICUS Monitor country updates; Freedom House, Freedom in the World; Freedom House, Freedom on the Net, obstacles to access; Georgia Tech Internet Intelligence Lab, Internet Outage Detection and Analysis; Global Affairs Canada, Travel advice and advisories; Global Partners Digital, World Map of Encryption Laws and Policies; International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Index; Open Observatory of Network Interference, OONI measurement data; SMEX, via a site scoped search; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Foreign travel advice; US Department of State, Travel Advisories; V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project; World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 4.6. Every contributing claim is quoted with its origin and date above. Model version 0.12.0, computed 2026-10-16.

If something here is wrong, say so. Corrections are handled in public, and we correct because the evidence is wrong, not because someone objects.