The report notes that, “2019 was characterised by waves of public uprisings of remarkable magnitude in each of the world regions, demanding changes to how people were governed. The role human rights defenders (HRDs) played in these protests ranged from organising and mobilising to monitoring and documenting human rights violations, and to assisting those who were injured or arrested.”

In 2019, the number of human rights defenders killed working to protect the environment, free speech, LGBTQ rights and indigenous lands numbered 304. The report names them. Two thirds of the killings took place in Latin America, where impunity from prosecution has long been the norm.

In 2019 in Colombia, targeted violence against community leaders opposing environmentally destructive mega-projects led to 103 murders. The Philippines was the second deadliest country with 43 killings, followed by Honduras, Brazil, and Mexico.

The report details some of the digital security risks facing human rights defenders (HRDs), who faced defamation, trolling and harassment campaigns, and unauthorised access to social media accounts, information from which was then used to jeopardize the reputations and safety of defenders.

Authorities also led coordinated campaigns of complaint to social media companies which targeted HRDs’ accounts in order to get them suspended or shut down, and thereby limit their reach and possibly lose their follower bases.

In addition, “Internet shutdown, restricting access or blocking certain communication tools such as social media and instant messaging during protests, social upheavals or crises were commonplace in 2019. This impacted the work and security of HRDs in numerous ways; most obviously, with a communications blackout it was far more difficult for HRDs to report on human rights violations, communicate securely, organise and mobilise themselves.”

The report cites evidence that governments are colluding with private companies that manufacture spyware in order to target human rights activists, noting that “it is jarring that so little is being done to prevent the export of this surveillance and spying technology to repressive regimes.”

Digital technology has its upside and its downside. Human rights defenders are made vulnerable by its use, yet depend on it to record and publicise violations. It’s a double-edged sword.

Photo: frontlinedefenders.org

Internet freedom includes digital rights, freedom of information, the right to Internet access, freedom from censorship, and net neutrality.

In Russia, a new law enabling the government to disconnect users from the Internet went into effect at the end of October 2019. Press freedom advocacy group Reporters without Borders (RSF) – which ranks Russia 149th out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom – says the law allows authorities to block content without telling the public what has been blocked and why.

Under the new law, the Russian authorities can isolate the country from parts of the global Internet. The aim, according to the government, is to keep the Russian network functioning smoothly in the event of a crisis or an undefined “security threat”.

The law also creates an independent Russian Domain Name System (DNS). When it comes into effect in January 2021, Russian users will not be able to determine what website they are sent to when they enter an address. The system can direct them to a fake web site or to none at all.

The move to increase government control over the Internet is reminiscent of old-style Soviet censorship and is part of a long-term national policy trend. Since 2016, a law has required social networks to store data about Russian users on servers within the country. It was presented as an anti-terrorism measure, but many criticized it as an attempt to control online platforms that can be used to organize anti-government demonstrations. And in 2017, officials put forward a proposal to route 95% of Internet traffic locally by 2020.

The state already has a monopoly over federal broadcasting channels, which interferes with people’s right to freedom of information. While there are independent media, they are small and publish only on the Internet. The new law can be used to silence them.

For a while, Internet blogs became the samizdat (self-publishing intended to avoid censorship) of the digital era. In his autobiography To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter, the Russian-born British human rights activist Vladimir Bokovsky, who died 27 October 2019, wrote, “Samizdat: I write it myself, edit it myself, censor it myself, publish it myself, distribute it myself, and spend jail time for it myself.”

Russians today undoubtedly face similar penalties under a law obviously aimed at curbing freedom of expression and opinion.

Photo above: Rally demanding internet freedom. Photo: Alexey Mironov/Shutterstock

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 

Access to communication and information tools and platforms, including digital platforms, is essential to enable us all to exercise our human rights. In today’s world, fully exercising basic rights such as the right to freedom of expression, access to information, freedom of assembly, or to private communication without real access to digital, internet-based communication is inconceivable. Furthermore, our ability to exercise these basic communication rights is critical to enable us to exercise other human rights, such as the right to access to justice or to education, because it enables us to understand our rights and responsibilities and denounce abuse, therefore making access to digital communication platforms critical.

Nevertheless, access to digital communication varies widely across developed and developing countries. While developed countries like Canada are in the midst of a transition between 4G to 5G networks that promises to open up a broad range of new possibilities—such as the Internet of Things (IoT)—as a result of 5G’s ability to handle massive amounts of data[1], some 3.4 billion people, mainly in developing countries, are still offline[2].

This disparity presents a dilemma for people (policy-makers, activists, researchers) and organizations (private sector, governments, international organizations) working for the democratization of communication and information everywhere: how do help unleash the full potential of open and accessible communication and information brought about by 5G wireless while also working towards affordable and accessible digital communication for all?

Driven by the principle of solidarity and by the promise of economic and human development made possible as a result of greater connectivity, those who stand to gain the most in terms of the profits made possible by the 5G revolution should take a leadership role in helping to bring affordable and robust internet access to all, especially the most marginalize people in developing countries. Embracing and reinvigorating Universal Service and Access Funds is one way to do more in that direction.

The 5G dividend
The digital transformation of the past 20 years has had a major economic impact. For the media and advertising industry, for example, the rise of digital internet-based services translated to major disruption, as revenue shifted from media companies to Internet companies such as Google and Facebook; today these two companies have a market share of 63% of the total global advertising market, roughly USD $61.6 billion per year[3].

A similar situation may take place as 5G wireless connectivity becomes the norm in developed economies over the next few years, mainly as a result of the likely rise of new businesses and increased productivity.

We’re looking at a world where not just all people are connected but all things are, too: cars will be connected to roads, patients and their medical devices to their doctors and smart cities will offer all new connected services to residents and workers. And 5G will be the key to unlocking the nascent demand for IoT… the number of 5G connections around the world will have hit 1.3 billion by 2025, amounting to around 40 percent, or 2.7 billion, of the world’s people.[4].

This shift will have major economic consequences. For example, the share of European GDP linked to mobile technologies is set to rise from 3.3% in 2017 to 4.1 in 2022, at a time when 5G connectivity is expected to booming in Europe[5]. The global economic impact of 5G is expected to reach USD 12 trillion by 2035[6].

Reinvigorating Universal Service and Access Funds
Many people around the world live in remote, rural, or impoverished communities that lack robust Internet infrastructure and services. This is the result of, among other things, the fact that for large telecommunication companies, providing services in these communities may not make economic sense.

In order to address this situation, many countries around the world have set up Universal Service and Access Funds (USAF) to help bring telecommunication services to these types of communities. USAFs are funds made up of contributions made by telecommunication companies and administered by the state. USAFs are meant to help address access gaps by setting up telecom services that will eventually become commercially viable.

However, not all countries have USAFs, and in the cases where USAFs exist, they are often underutilized. For example, only 23 of 54 countries in Africa have active USAFs[7]. Crucially, USAFs have great potential to support community-managed networks to meet the connectivity needs of rural or remote communities, but so far they have mostly failed to deliver[8].

In this context, USAFs should receive greater attention in the context of internet governance as they represent a concrete mechanism to help address access gaps. Private, public, and civil society actors should work together to encourage more sustainable contributions to national USAFs, to promote the establishment of a global mechanism for telecoms and companies benefitting from 5G from developed countries to contribute towards a global-level USAF, and to promote greater transparency in the management of USAFs.

The inherent challenges of this approach are many, from political will to infrastructure gaps to technical issues. However, by balancing a sense of solidarity, pragmatism, and the promise of economic growth made possible by universal connectivity, much can be done to halt the emergence of a new digital divide.

[1] Shulz, Yogi, 2019. 5G opens new possibilities for businesses. IT World Canada. https://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/5g-opens-new-possibilities-for-businesses/415439

[2] World Econonomic Forum, 2019. More than half of the world’s population is still offline. Here’s what we’re doing about it. World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/our-impact/creating-hundreds-of-millions-of-new-internet-users

[3] Oghia, Michael J. Governing Digital Convergence: An Issue Paper on Media Development and Internet Governance. Global Forum for Media Development. https://gfmd.info/internet-governance/

[4] Harri, Steve, 2018. The trillion-dollar race: what 5G means to the global economy. Orange Business Services https://www.orange-business.com/en/blogs/trillion-dollar-race-what-5g-means-global-economy

[5] Harri, Steve, 2018. The trillion-dollar race: what 5G means to the global economy. Orange Business Services https://www.orange-business.com/en/blogs/trillion-dollar-race-what-5g-means-global-economy

[6] Rosenberg, Don, 2018. How 5G will change the world. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/the-world-is-about-to-become-even-more-interconnected-here-s-how/

[7] World Wide Web Foundation, 2018. UNIVERSAL SERVICE AND ACCESS FUNDS: An Untapped Resource to Close the Gender Digital Divide.  https://webfoundation.org/docs/2018/03/Using-USAFs-to-Close-the-Gender-Digital-Divide-in-Africa.pdf

[8] Carlos Baca, Luca Belli, Erick Huerta & Karla Velasco, 2018. Community Networks in Latin America: Challenges, Regulations and Solutions. Internet Society.

Photo: Kheng Guan Toh/Shutterstock

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.”