Internet Rights as the New Frontier, Around for at least the Last Ten Years

Dec 112010

Digital rights, civil and human rights, and the Internet have been a topic of debate and discussion for at least the last ten years now.  The resurgent conversation around what a ‘bill of rights’ for communications on the Internet should look like, is, of course, surging again this week as Wikileaks and ‘cyberwar’ has been in the news.  Some influential commentators likeJeff Jarvis are picking up the theme again, though seemed to have missed the conversation entirely that started as early as 2001 in the run up to the WISIS Tunis meeting.

So, for the a-historic A-Bloggers joining the conversation, it might be useful to give a run-down of the conversation about Internet rights and digital rights to date, understand better how what more suitably today should be called “Network Rights” evolved over the last ten years within a human rights and civil liberties context, and where the conversation and, more importantly, enforcement of such rights needs to go next.

So, for a little context and background, let’s rewind to 2001 in the preparations for the WSIS Tunis meeting.  A number of then-influential organizations, like the Association for Progressive Communications, an umbrella group of ISPs, began deliberating a “charter of digital rights.” As Paul Mobbsfor at the time wrote,

Many governments have been promoting rights for electronic commerce and strengthening intellectual property rights, but few have done parallel work to represent the interests of the general public. Despite many European Union directives on e-commerce and the new digital media, there has been no specific move to protect rights to access and use information and communications technologies (ICTs).

The Association for Progressive Communications has, however, been developing a Charter for Internet Rightsas part of its current work on Internet rights. The charter was developed by APC members and partners at the APC Europe Internet Rights Workshop, held in Prague, from 18 to 21 February 2001. It draws on, and is associated with the People’s Communications Charter and the statement of A Global Movement for People’s Voices in Media and Communication in the 21st Century.

The themes and principles outlined in the Charter centre on the rights of people and organisations to use the Internet freely, particularly in their work for social, economic and environmental justice. While the Charter makes specific reference to the Internet, the principles embodied in it are relevant to all other information and communication technologies. The Charter currently set goals in terms of seven key themes:

  1. The Right to Communicate - The right to communicate is a fundamental human right, and therefore affordable information and communication technologies (ICTs) must be available to all; governments should consider this fundamental right as part of social legislative proposals;
  2. Freedom of expression and information exchange - This is based on Article 19 of the UN Convention on Human Rights, and aims to ensure that the Internet can be used to organise public protest, that there is no censorship or restriction on use of the Internet, and that there are also effective means to challenge the publication of content that is harmful to women, children, other vulnerable groups, or that may incite violence and hatred;
  3. Diversity of content, ownership and control, and the protection of user rights - this seeks to tackle the increasing concentration of media ownership, to ensure the diversity of content, the preservation of languages and culture, access to the new digital media by the public, and the evaluation of social impacts as part of evaluating new media technologies;
  4. The licensing and control of Intellectual property - this goal seeks to implement a review of the use of intellectual property rights to control monopoly markets, the use of proprietary systems as part of Internet and other technical standards, and of the need to develop open source software to ensure that the public has cost-effective access to new communications technologies;
  5. Privacy - this goal relates to data protection, surveillance and data encryption. It seeks to ensure that the Internet is not used as a means of mass surveillance, by the state or private organisations, and to ensure that the public have access to encryption systems to actively protect their privacy where they desire to do so;
  6. Global, regional and national governance of the Internet - this relates to the setting of technical standards and controls over the Internet and electronic media, and seeks to ensure that the development of standards is transparent, open and accountable to all;
  7. Rights awareness and realisation of rights - this involves the promotion of Internet rights, in order that people can understand and positively act to enforce their rights to communication, and to ensure that systems are developed by the state to handle complaints about the violation of communications rights.

In December 2003 the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was convened under the auspice of the United Nations (UN). As the Wikipedia entry notes:  “After lengthy negotiations between governments, businesses and civil society representatives the WSIS Declaration of Principles was adopted[7] reaffirming human rights:

“We reaffirm the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as enshrined in the Vienna Declaration. We also reaffirm that democracy, sustainable development, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as good governance at all levels are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. We further resolve to strengthen the rule of law in international as in national affairs[7]“

The WSIS Declaration also makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression in the “Information Society” in stating:

“We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.”[7]

However, as critics noted, the Declaration did not spell out any procedures to enforce or consider in practice what the inclusion of human rights in networked communications would mean.

In 2006, APC, an organization that has been on the forefront of this conversation, published the the APC Internet Rights Charter. It is well worth excepting and still stands as the critical document in this debate:

APC believes that the ability to share information and communicate freely using the internet is vital to the realisation of human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) and the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1980).

The internet can only be a tool to empower the peoples of the world if the following rights are recognised, protected and respected.

It is a seminal document and needs to be resurrected in this discussion as it reflects years of deep deliberation and debate amongst people who work and live in far more repressive environments and stands as one of the most comprehensive and thoughtful document on this topic.

Since then,  in 2008, the Global Network Initiative (GNI) was founded upon its “Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy”. The Initiative was launched in the 60th Anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is based on internationally recognized laws and standards for human rights on freedom of expression and privacy set out in the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Members include representatives from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, among other, as well as numerous human rights and media and press freedom organizations.

Where Do We Go From Here?

As noted, there is clearly a body of work preceding the conversation this week that needs to be highlighted and reaffirmed as we move into 2011 and new realities in regard to Network Rights.  What is clear is that there has not been a lack of deliberation on the topic of what Network Rights mean in this time of digital communications.  What is unclear is how we move beyond deliberation and towards enforcement and global norms that are ironclad and can be adhered to (as  well as advocated for). We need to start thinking along the same lines  by which the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been included into national and international law and jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, today,  we are still a a long way from realizing a full expression of rights online in much of the world.

Wikileaks and Internet Freedom: America's capacity to lead?

Dec 102010

As the wikileaks drama unfolds, some have already declared that the United States has lost the moral authority to advance an Internet Freedom agenda. Certainly, recent moves by some elected officials and have been troubling. These events will make State’s messaging on its Internet Freedom agenda more challenging. And it should be. It’s a tough topic and treating it like there are easy answers does it disservice. The US is slogging through these difficulty issues. And for the , America may yet come out in a better position to promote Internet Freedom.

In late-2000, as Republicans and Democrats wrangled over who had won Florida, I started work at National Democratic Institute, one of America’s leading organizations in (among other things) promoting fair elections abroad. A popular sentiment at the time, some asked: “How could the US possibly have the moral authority to tell other people how to run their elections?”

First, it is important to note that neither the people who work at NDI nor those at State and USAID (and other agencies that fund work on elections) ever believed that America had everything figured out when it comes to elections. The was never to “export” an American model of elections. Rather these programs advanced the value of free elections by working with citizens in new democracies to determine the best way to realize those values within their own society. They do this largely through sharing the comparative experiences and skills of a diverse number of countries. The humble and international nature in which international elections work is conducted insulated implementers from this sort of criticism.

Second, as ugly as it was, the 2000 election showed respect for the political process. Nobody died in the days that followed those elections. There were never tanks in the streets. The legal system mediated the dispute, and right or wrong all sides accepted their authority and governance continued. It was messy, as democracy often is, and it exposed the public to an ugly side to elections deep in need of reform. A vibrant public discourse resulted in a number of election reforms and real leadership in research and development of election technology. For the experience America emerged in a better position to provide credible expertise to other countries on how to administering good elections.

The wikileaks experience is yet to unfold, but could still follow a similar path. Ugly aspect of the susceptibility of private actors to government pressure have emerged, but overwhelmingly the experience has been one of government restraint and respect for legal process. To date (and as far as we are aware), the US government hasn’t taken any extra-legal measures against wikilieaks or its supporters. For all of the posturing and punditry, those who would see wikileaks stopped have yet to make a compelling legal case that would override America’s robust free speech protections. Wikileaks is exposing the challenges in establishing and balancing freedoms online and is generating public debate. Ultimately, the State Department may emerge with a ground-truthed approach to Internet Freedom that has the credibility of personal experience.

WordPress hosting by HostGator.com