Credit: IJRC
RightsCon, an annual conference on technology and human rights, took place in San Francisco this year with three days of panel discussions. The conference brings together human rights defenders, lawyers, engineers, government officials, corporate representatives, and technologists to discuss technology’s benefits as a tool for protecting human rights and its pitfalls as a catalyst for rights abuses.
The conference was held from March 30 to April 1, 2016 and included over 250 sessions and more than 1,000 participants. The conference featured speakers such as the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye; the Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information at UNESCO, Frank William La Rue; the OSCE Special Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović; the President and Chief Legal Officer of Microsoft, Brad Smith; transparency activist Edward Snowden; Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Cindy Cohn; and, Ron Wyden, the United States Senator for the state of Oregon. The panel discussions addressed topics including freedom of expression, violent extremism, government surveillance of communities of color, online harassment, digital tools for human rights defenders, and the right to privacy. The following brief descriptions represent a portion of the discussions that took place at RightsCon this year.
A Human Rights Approach to Cybersecurity
On the first day of the conference, panelists David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Uri Rosenthal, now chairman of the Policy Advisory Council on Science and Technology; and Carolina Rossini, Vice President for International Policy and Strategy at Public Knowledge discussed the prospects of analyzing cybersecurity in a more user-centered framework. They also suggested that multi-stakeholder approaches that give adequate power to users could be a potential solution. In order to encourage user-engagement with the formation of cybersecurity policies, the panelists emphasized the importance of translating technological and human rights terms into language the average person understands and to eliminate the misconception that encryption means you have something to hide. Notably, the panel stated that security should not be seen as something against which to balance rights; it is a right unto itself.
Jurisdiction and Extra-territoriality in a Connected World
A panel, which included experts from Human Rights Watch and the University of Ottawa, focused on how to respect and promote rights and preserve the global nature of the internet while recognizing possible conflict with national laws. The panelists highlighted the issue of global content deletion orders that arise when courts order intermediaries to delete content posted by a user. The orders are often based on legal theories that conflict with other States’ free expression laws. Cynthia Wong from Human Rights Watch laid out a series of human rights issues posed by global content deletion orders, such as the start of a global race to the bottom where all governments request takedowns of online material they see as contradicting their national law; the creation of a entirely censored online body of information; the criminalization of resources (for example, a HRW report on laws criminalizing homosexuality could be taken down for promoting homesexuality in the eyes of some States); and worsening repression of freedom of expression online. Additionally, the panel mentioned that judicial decisions in ongoing cases, such as Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc., could have serious consequences for global takedown orders. In particular, such holdings in cases dealing with global takedown orders would provide precedent and persuasive authority for future court decisions.
Michael Geist from the University of Ottawa raised the need for collaboration among companies and the development of harmonized criteria and procedures for both requesters and requestees of global takedown demands, and the panelists further asserted a need for new rules that adequately address and respond to the complexities of an increasingly global digital world.
Shining a Light on Trade Agreements and Closed-Door Digital Policymaking
Representatives from a number of technology rights groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Citizen, discussed the lack of transparency in modern trade policy negotiations, focusing on the ongoing development of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Maira Sutton from EFF highlighted the lack of inclusion and openness in policy making processes, noting that public interest groups were invited to engage in the TPP negotiations as part of Trade Advisory Committees only if they signed non-disclosure agreements and committed to not releasing any information or materials to the public. As many digital rights groups refused to engage in the TPP process to protest the secretive nature of the negotiations, digital rights activists were only able to learn about IT provisions in the TPP when parts of the document were leaked. Burcu Kilic from Public Citizen stated that open, transparent, and multi-stakeholder processes are necessary to ensure the interests of everyone are represented in trade agreements and to prevent unelected trade negotiators from determining policies with huge implications for a vast array of human rights.
When asked what people concerned about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other policies being negotiated in largely non-transparent processes can do, Sutton encouraged people to place attention and pressure on trade officials to ensure they don’t treat rights as barriers to trade and to ensure that digital policies are developed in compliance with human rights obligations. She also encouraged activists to contact their Congress members and encourage them to vote down the TPP, stating that the failure of the TPP could influence other ongoing and future trade agreements.
Beyond CSR: Promoting Strong Human Rights Performance in the Private Sector
In a panel discussing the human rights framework and liability in the private sector, panelists from the Centre for Internet and Society, Centre for Law and Democracy, and Open Net Korea and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression discussed the right to be forgotten, takedown requests, the standards that should be established with regard to taking down information, and liability of private companies. The panelists remarked that there need to be specific standards and legislation that incorporate human rights principles, such as standards established by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, on takedown requests, and content should be removed only pursuant to a court order. Additionally, the panelists noted that there is support for the disclosure of “right to be forgotten” requests because the impact of such measures cannot be assessed without transparency. Furthermore, David Kaye said that restrictions to the right to freedom of expression should be considered in the particular context in which they arise and not as a balancing of rights.
Surveillance, Race, and Movement Building
In a session on surveillance and race, the panelists discussed the lack of diversity in policy reform on surveillance issues despite the fact that communities of color disproportionately bear the burdens of monitoring, policing, and surveillance. The panel featured Shahid Buttar of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Brandi Collins of Color of Change; Executive Director of The Center for Media Justice, Malkia Cyril; and Hamid Khan, Campaign Coordinator of the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition. When questioned about the effects of surveillance and similar “national security” tactics on communities of color, Cyril pointed out that national security is an inherently raced concept since its root was defining who belongs and who does not. Poor people of color in the United States, in particular, may be at greater risk of surveillance because of their higher rate of use of new technologies, cell phones, and public transportation, according to Cyril.
Panelists described the history of government monitoring of activists in the United States, and the use of “predictive policing” initiatives that include the collection of data on individuals before they are suspected of any criminal wrongdoing. In this regard, they highlighted the lack of oversight of police surveillance. They challenged the operational definition of “suspicious activity” used to validate surveillance as too ambiguous to protect vulnerable populations from arbitrary surveillance. Collins also challenged the distinction between mass and targeted surveillance because in practice it perpetuates the myth that “your actions lead to surveillance, when really your identity does.” The panel concluded that what may be characterized as a privacy infringement in privileged communities is more intrusive and consequential for communities of color, resulting in a loss of autonomy among vulnerable groups.
Responsible Market Exit: Challenges and Lessons for Corporate Withdrawals
An untenable human rights situation, a panel on responsible market exit remarked, can be a reason to exit a market when other efforts fail to curb a pattern of abuse. However, a human rights impact assessment on exiting a market is still essential to determine the potential negative effects on the local community who are relying on the services or product of the company. The panelists, representing Business for Social Responsibility and Access Now, among others, noted that companies often have to pressure the local government to enforce local laws and safety nets for employees who will be left behind. In this regard, the development of the rule of law in the host country is beneficial to companies present in that jurisdiction, and companies are discovering that they need personnel specifically dedicated to working with government entities. Companies can also increase leverage with the government, the panelists noted, by working with peer companies.
Opening the Black Box: Understanding How Companies Enforce Their Rules
A group of experts, who represent organizations including the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, ARTICLE 19, New America Foundation, Access Now, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, discussed the consequences of takedown requests and removal of information pursuant to terms of service of certain platforms or legal requirements. The panelists emphasized that standards for impact assessments and transparency reporting on the number of takedown requests received, which requests were complied with, and reasons for the requests are key to ensure that takedown measures are not infringing on users’ rights and to compare different platforms’ practices. Representatives of different platforms who were in the room participated in the discussion with the panelists, commenting that clear guidance on the right way to report data would be helpful to them.
Panelists also commented that if a platform has a policy of taking down hate speech, users should be able to agree to a clear, explicit policy and have an example of what constitutes hate speech. Examples, policies, and the practice of removing hate speech, the panelists commented, could have the positive effect of demonstrating to users, who otherwise might not know, what hate speech looks like.
Internet Freedom and UN Human Rights Mechanisms
Frank William La Rue, the assistant director-general for communication and information at UNESCO; David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression; and Dunja Mijatović, the special representative on freedom of media for the Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) spoke on a panel together about the freedom of expression on the internet and the role of international monitoring mechanisms. Providing an overview of the tools available to him as Special Rapporteur, Kaye explained that he receives allegations of abuses, undertakes country visits, and issues thematic reports. He highlighted the importance of country visits because they both signify solidarity with those suffering human rights abuses and convey that the Special Rapporteur is watching the government. He also emphasized that communications sent directly to his team about human rights abuses are useful in shaping his reports and other activities; such correspondence is best sent by email and should include background information, describe any previous contact with other Special Rapporteurs, and indicate whether the individual wants his or her identity withheld.
The panelists also spoke about indicators of increased suppression of the right to freedom of expression and other rights. Mijatović’s team has an early warning procedure in which her team will visit an area, conduct interviews, and issue an early warning, indicating that there are signs of possible conflict. Kaye and La Rue both indicated that internet shutdowns have generally been recognized as an early sign of repression. The panelists emphasized the high level of coordination and collaboration among the regional and international experts responsible for monitoring freedom of expression, as well as their reliance on civil society for information and support.
Ensuring Users’ Rights are Part of Internet Governance Debates
Panelists from Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, ICANN, Global Partners Digital, and Internet Society discussed including users’ rights in the context of internet governance debates and highlighted the confusion in the human rights community about technology and in the technologists’ community about human rights. This confusion, the panelists commented, would be reduced if the two communities worked together and if technologists were on staff at human rights bodies. Members of the audience reacted to these remarks, commenting that there has been a shift away from larger human rights organizations leading the commentary on the intersection between technology and human rights towards organizations with a specific focus within that intersection. The latter organizations now inform human rights bodies on developments.
Protecting and Promoting the Rights of LGBT Persons to Freedom of Expression and Access to Information: The Role of the UN Special Rapporteur
David Kaye, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, moderated a panel on LGBT persons’ safety and freedom of expression online. An activist on the panel noted that because certain governments will censor LGBT search results and monitor individuals’ activity online, civil society organizations have found it easier to build their own platforms for the LGBT community to use so that fear of surveillance does not keep people from communicating and connecting within the community. The panelists noted that because other members of society, including family members, friends, and coworkers, may also be targeting LGBT community members, access to a trusted platform is essential for the LGBT community online. In building their own platforms, activists need funding and often request that from companies and individuals in Silicon Valley, but they are often met with skepticism about their ability to build their own platforms. The panelists stated that activists in such situations need more acknowledgment from developers in Silicon Valley.
Fireside Chat: Ron Diebert, Edward Snowden, Amie Stepanovich
In this session, Amie Stepanovich of Access Now led a discussion between Edward Snowden, member of the Board of Directors at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Ron Deibert, Director of the Citizen Lab, on global surveillance trends and analyzed the role of technology in fueling a fundamental imbalance of power between State actors and institutions and the public. The two expressed worry over huge vulnerabilities in the global technology infrastructure and a growing trend of governments and institutions collecting comprehensive activity records of individuals to gain knowledge and leverage over the general public. Snowden also noted that many governments regard cyber security from a national security perspective, opening the door to an array of rights violations by both State and Corporate actors and facilitating a system where governments work to secure online networks while simultaneously developing how to exploit them.
Diebert and Snowden also examined the opportunities and obligations of the technology community to enhance monitoring of government infringement of digital rights. Diebert emphasized the potential for academics to create a counter culture and act as watchdogs and adversaries to government and corporate surveillance efforts. Snowden noted the special responsibility of those who work in the technology field to explain global surveillance programs and ideas in order to create an informed public. Further, Snowden and Diebert asserted that there is a need for enhanced whistleblower protections as well as updated, comprehensive protocols and standards regarding user rights and global surveillance technologies.
Migrants, Surveillance, and Human Rights
The panel brought together Deniz D. Aydin, a graduate student at Oxford University and Global Policy Fellow at Access Now; Dragana Kaurin of Localization Lab; and Prof. Mike Posner of New York University. The session primarily focused on State responses to the refugee crisis in Europe, particularly the use of surveillance of migrants and refugees. Posner focused on the balance between States’ right to pursue national security measures and their obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. The panelists compared the response of certain European countries, such as Germany and Sweden who have accepted large numbers of refugees, to the American response. The U.S. has taken only 1500 Syrian refugees and, Posner alleged, it is ill-equipped to fulfill its promise of accepting 10,000 this year. While Kaurin agreed with Posner’s assertion that American politics treat it as a non-American problem, she pushed back on his idealization of the German model, which has greatly restricted the rights of refugees entering the country.
The audience raised several questions and comments about the tracking of migrants and biometric data collected by States. Pam Dixon, the Executive Director of World Policy Forum, in particular underscored that the use of biometric data is not a theoretical debate and is in practice in many States and by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). She further pressed that despite the prevalence of biometric data collection, States lack laws to protect the collected information through encryption and to regulate the use of the data and data shedding. The lack of legal protections and regulations in this regard will eventually result in disparate treatment of citizens and lawful residents, Dixon warned.
The Art of Admission: How Mobile Apps are Documenting Court-Admissible Evidence of Human Rights Violations
The International Bar Association, Physicians for Human Rights, and Benetech participated in a panel discussion on the use of technology to document evidence of human rights abuses for use in court. The panelists focused on various new apps that can be used by human rights organizations as well as individuals to record violations as they occur. For instance, the International Bar Association has recently launched its eyeWitness to Atrocities application, which allows the user to securely document and report human rights atrocities that may be used as evidence for criminal prosecutions. The app includes different features to ensure authenticity, protect confidentiality, and establish a chain of custody in an effort to safeguard valuable evidence as well as the users of the app.
Communication, Coordination and Liberation – Technology, Safety & Movement Building in the Global LGBTI Community
Several human rights defenders from different countries and regions in the world discussed the positive and negative effects technology can have on communication and safety for the LGBTI community. Several panelists pointed out the positive ways in which using technology has helped the LGBTI community’s visibility. An activist from South Africa commented that civil society organizations teach members of the LGBTI community to use media to amplify their voices and combat discrimination through communicating their stories. In Honduras, activists have used databases to document deaths of LGBTI individuals and discern patterns in how and why deaths occurred within certain groups.
The panelists also discussed ways in which technology has been turned against the LGBTI community, facilitating discrimination and violence. An activist from Sudan spoke about how names and numbers of those who identify as part of the LGBTI community have been published online and cases in which public information, such as a video of a gay wedding in one case, have led to arrests and detention. Another panelist spoke on how individuals have infiltrated the LGBTI community in Pakistan to then identify and murder members of the community, resulting in a shrinking of safe space both online and offline and increasing fear and distrust within the community.
Snooper’s Second Chance: The UK Surveillance Bill
A group of panelists, including Mark Stephens from the Global Network Initiative, discussed the UK’s new proposed Investigatory Powers Bill. The main criticisms of the bill include that there is no probable cause required to collect and request data, judicial approval is absent from the requirements under the bill, and the bill allows for blanket data collection without an articulated interest in a specific case. Additionally, the bill may require any communication service provider to hack into the accounts of customers or other individuals and attach a gag order to the request. Communication service provider, the panelists remarked, may be applied broadly to a variety of entities that provide any kind of access to communication technology, including, for example, libraries. One panelist remarked that the bill attempts to put the powers the government was already exercising and that came to light with the Snowden revelations into statutory language.
Additional Information
The full RightsCon 2016 program and list of speakers, as well as videos of the sessions, have all been made available online by Access Now. See the IJRC News Room for past coverage of the 2014 RightsCon.