Those of us old enough to remember will recall a time when the Olympics were readily accessible on free-to-air television. The delight of watching one’s country’s Olympians dominate the long-distance races, overlap competitors more than once and sweep the podium, was palpable.

Following the games at no extra cost on live television is a thing of past for many, thanks to that complication called broadcasting rights and the in-country monopoly of rights’ holders.

The financial policy the International Olympic Committee (IOC) adopted four decades ago to increase revenue and diversify resources through sale of broadcasting rights has been so hugely successful that watching the games has become the purview of the privileged few.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the sale of broadcasting and media rights is the biggest source of revenue for sports organisations. For the IOC, sales of broadcasting rights accounted for 61% of its USD 7.6 billion revenue during the period 2017–2020/21.  

WIPO cites three justifications for broadcasters’ rights: “safeguard costly investments in televising sporting events, recognize and reward the entrepreneurial efforts of broadcasting organizations, and recognize and reward their contribution to diffusion of information and culture.”

That Olympics broadcasting is restricted to select media organisations in each country that in turn exercise control over what content to air and how, is at odds with the IOC’s commitment as stated in Clause 48 of the Olympic Charter to take “all necessary steps in order to ensure the fullest coverage by the different media and the widest possible audience in the world for the Olympic Games.”

Further, the Charter stipulates that “[o]nly those persons accredited as media may act as journalists, reporters or in any other media capacity.” Video clips posted on YouTube by the Olympians themselves or enthusiastic others are deleted as swiftly as they are published.

The IOC’s financial health is important. The current revenue-generation model, however, has created tiers of audiences across and within nations. It has built and continued to reinforce inequalities in access to content particularly in countries where broadcasting rights are unaffordable or infrastructure is inadequate. It has stifled interest in what was once an exciting and unifying once-every-four-years phenomenon. The model is arguably out of touch with the contemporary digital media reality where content creation is as easy as click-and-post.

It is time for the IOC to return to the drawing board, to bring its approach to broadcasting rights in line with its mandate and the Olympic spirit.

Photo: UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport on Flickr, CC BY 2.0, filter added.

But it was only during the Arab Spring that many came to realize that television wasn’t the only way of keeping people informed. Social media had become a prominent force in not only raising world-wide awareness in seconds but also bringing people together to protest almost anything.

Protests used to recruit members by circulating advertisements, such as pamphlets and radio announcements. After months of planning, the March on Washington became the pinnacle of rallies in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, when hundreds of thousands joined to protest for full employment and racial equality in the United States. Almost a decade of advocacy and resistance went by before the U.S. government decided to enact the anti-segregation legislation.

In today’s world, it takes a matter of seconds to raise awareness of issues around the world. From South Sudan to Serbia, 2019 has seen the majority of protest recruiting, organization and advocacy go digital. Expanding consciousness, both regionally and internationally, creates increased pressure for governments to concede to the demands of the masses.

In some countries, social media are the only way to make voices heard. In reference to the Serbian protests, actor Branislav Trifunović states that, “Social networks have remained the only possible way for the people to be told, truthfully, about what is happening. Broadcasters are, in one way or another, owned by the ruling party.”

However, governments are catching on. During the 2011 Egyptian uprisings, the government ordered an internet blackout to halt protestors from disseminating information and setting up demonstrations. In 2019 alone, Indonesia, Kashmir, Sri Lanka and South Sudan, among others, saw a complete internet blackout during their protests in order to prevent dissent and backlash.

As a result, people are turning to more encrypted mediums of communication. In April 2019, the government of Hong Kong proposed a bill allowing fugitives to be extradited to mainland China, causing millions to protest. After the bill was withdrawn, protesters shifted their focus to advocating for full democracy, civil liberties, and complete autonomy from China. According to the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong protestors have been forced to utilize encrypted messaging apps and peer-to-peer communication to ensure anonymity and avoid government detection and persecution.

Nevertheless, people shouldn’t have to find loopholes on the internet to ensure their voice and message are heard. The right to seek and disseminate information is a basic human right and should not be infringed by the government – especially to suppress individual opinions and democracy as a whole.

How governments across the world choose to deal with this will determine their genuine commitment to citizens’ fundamental human rights.

Photo above: John Ye/Shutterstock 

An Associated Press piece in The Guardian newspaper (“YouTube fined $170m for collecting children’s personal data”, 4 September 2019) notes a serious violation of children’s right to privacy:

“Google’s video site YouTube has been fined $170m to settle allegations it collected children’s personal data without their parents’ consent. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Google $136m and the company will pay an additional $34m to New York state to resolve similar allegations. The fine is the largest the agency has yet levied against Google, although it is tiny compared with the $5bn fine the FTC imposed against Facebook this year for privacy violations.”

With all the furore around personal privacy and the sale of data to third parties, Google should have known better. FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra noted that this is the third time since 2011 that the agency had sanctioned Google for privacy violations. He went on to say, “This latest violation is extremely serious.”

According to UNICEF, “The rights of children… include a variety of communication rights: the right to be heard and to be taken seriously; to free speech and to information; to maintain privacy; to develop cultural identity; and to be proud of one’s heritage and beliefs… Communication efforts need to respect children’s privacy and dignity and foster their self-esteem and confidence.”

In the digital era, children’s communication rights are particularly difficult to protect. Access to digital platforms is not without its safeguards, but there are always loopholes as well as devious people seeking to take advantage of unsuspecting children. In addition, iPhones are ubiquitous and are increasingly a vital part of education systems and practices.

Children need protection when personal data is being collected and processed because they may be less aware of the risks involved. Companies making use of children’s personal data need to set in place procedures that safeguard children from the outset, and design systems and processes with this in mind.

Children have the same rights as adults over their personal data. These include the right to access their personal data; to request rectification; to object to processing; and to have their personal data erased. Even if children do not know or understand their rights, others do.

Google has signally failed in its duty and clearly deserves the penalty imposed by the Federal Trade Commission – even though the fine was not heavy enough.

The military, law-enforcement agencies, and commercial corporations are exploiting facial recognition and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to collect personal data. Yet, the legal frameworks controlling how that data can be used have not kept pace with the technology.

In May 2019, San Francisco became the first US city to ban the use of facial recognition by its authorities. However, the city ordinance did not prevent private companies from using facial ID in ways that people find objectionable.

In July 2019, the first independent evaluation of the use of facial recognition by London’s Metropolitan police warned it is “highly possible” the system would be ruled unlawful if challenged in court.

As face recognition becomes more and more common, there are also growing concerns about the gender and racial bias embedded in many systems. Writing in “FaceApp Makes Today’s Privacy Laws Look Antiquated” (The Atlantic, 20 July 2019) Tiffany C. Li, a Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, puts the onus on tech companies themselves:

“Developers need to go further and build actual privacy protections into their apps. These can include notifications on how data (or photos) are being used, clear internal policies on data retention and deletion, and easy workflows for users to request data correction and deletion. Additionally, app providers and platforms such as Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook should build in more safeguards for third-party apps.”

All well and good, but misuse, misappropriation, and mistaken identity require legislation and regulation that includes better privacy laws that address the potential for harms inherent in these technologies. In Li’s opinion:

“To deal with privacy risks in the larger data ecosystem, we need to regulate how data brokers can use the personal information they obtain. We need safeguards against the practical harms that invasions of privacy can cause; that could mean, for example, limiting the use of facial-recognition algorithms for predictive policing. We also need laws that give individuals power over data they have not voluntarily submitted.”

In short, global corporations play by their own rules and require oversight. The problem is how to guarantee compliance.

He calls for a commitment to the three ethical principles that underlie human solidarity: truth telling, human dignity, and non-violence, which “highlight the distinctive character of any society and are the basis for distinguishing the human community and virtual networks from each other.”

Those who wish to read in depth should obtain Christians’ latest book: Media Ethics and Global Justice in the Digital Age (Cambridge University Press, 2019).

In short, as with every new technological innovation, there are pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, benefits and risks.

People’s increased interconnectedness offers opportunities to share information, experience, and knowledge, but it also creates new risks and ethical dilemmas. Advancements in digital technologies have led to many positive effects, but at the same time a kind of digital vulnerability has emerged which has been exploited by governments, corporate interests, xenophobic populist politicians and even by internet service providers.

Abuses include disrupting or shutting down systems, the misuse of information for surveillance, invasion of privacy, censoring speech, deleting or blocking data, and the forced distribution of politically motivated messages via network operators.

And, according to a recent study commissioned by the European Parliament, women are especially affected:

“Cyber violence and hate speech online against women occurs on a variety of platforms: social media, web content and discussion sites, search engines, messaging services, blogs, dating websites and apps, comment sections of media and newspapers, forums, chat rooms of online video games, etc. Research shows that women are specifically targeted by cyber violence and that age and gender are significant factors in the prevalence of cyber violence… Cyber violence infringes women’s fundamental rights and freedoms, their dignity and equality and impacts their lives at all levels.”

So, the question is who is going to speak out and act to protect our collective digital rights and freedoms and to decrease our collective vulnerability to misinformation, manipulation, and cyber violence? Without safeguards, the digital age risks becoming an ally of those who seek to disparage and demean human dignity and global justice.

As Elie Wiesel said in his Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”