Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control
•
physical violence;
•
other possible forms of harassment 27.
1.3
Note on methodology
The methodological approach to the research process included the following elements: 1.
Revision of a wide range of available sources (no more than five-years-old), including: (i) official EU legal and policy documents; (ii) subject-relevant international human rights ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ law; (iii) subject-relevant publications by international organisations working on human rights and their bodies/mechanisms; (iv) academic and grey literature focused on digital technologies and rights; (v) jurisprudence; (vi) publications from established and independent media channels that display a high level of reporting on digital technologies and human rights.
2.
Stakeholder consultations, based on topic guides tailored to different respondent categories, which targeted 23 respondents from the following groups 28: (i) CSOs or their coalitions, working on human rights and digital technologies; (ii) EU institutions – in particular, representatives of the EC; (iii) CSOs or their coalitions, supporting human rights defenders (HRDs) and other groups affected by digitally-mediated repression and attempts at social control; (iv) representatives of the private sector, particularly ICT companies; (v) representatives of international organisations. 29
The main goal of the interviews was to reach a better understanding of the practice, including how the EU foreign policy framework and toolbox are employed in selected third countries, and thus, to offer an “insider” perspective on the research subject. Since the aspiration of the research was to see how the toolbox is applied in practice on the ground, some interviews had a specific country-focus. The selection of countries, which serve as practical examples, was based on the following criteria:
•
extensive use of digital technologies for repression and social control;
•
different levels of democratisation/freedom, including both authoritarian and democratic states, and those in transition;
•
geographic distribution, meaning countries located in different continents and regions, representing different ‘spheres of influence’.
Feldstein, S., 'When it comes to digital authoritarianism, China is a challenge- but not only', War on Rocks, 2020.; Freedom House, 'Freedom of the Net 2020. China country report', 2020.; Freedom House, 'Freedom of the Net 2018', 2018, p. 24. 28 No responses were obtained from representative of EU foreign policy think tanks and journalists working at the crosssection of human rights and digital technologies who were also contacted during the research process. 29 Annex 1 presents the list of consulted stakeholders and topic guides. 27
13
