Human rights essay

Human Rights and Wrongs in a Globalised World

Essay I

The Dark side of Technology in the Defence of Human Rights.

Candidate: Y0069446

“Technological advances have decreased rather than increased the capacity of human rights defenders to conduct their work. Provide a critical evaluation of this proposition with references to two case studies.”

3,000 words

Has the increase in the use of technology negatively outweighed its effectiveness in human rights activism and defence? That is unlikely given the fact that technology goes beyond the bounds of old methods of communication and data handling. This essay is framed within the context of freedom of expression; the universal human right to freely express an opinion without repression or fear of reprisal. A human rights defender is a person who has “made a major commitment to, and openly taken up, the defence and promotion of the human rights of others” 1 and the United Nation’s Declaration on Human Rights Defenders2 protects them and the work they carry out. Despite this, HRDs carry out their work in fear of violence directly or indirectly caused by their governments and as technology has developed, HRDs have utilised the internet, mobile phones, email and social media to make the world aware of the human rights violations occurring in their country. By using technology it has arguably made it easier to carry out their work, but on the other hand, technology remains in the control of the government and developers of such technology, so much so that privacy is often overlooked. Privacy is a major feature required of technology to HRDs. Without privacy, communications can be intercepted and the whereabouts of HRDs can be uncovered through metadata packaged with email attachments and photographs posted to social media sites and networks.

This has led to a game of cat and mouse whereby the HRDs and non-­‐ governmental organisations (NGOs) develop tools to circumvent system defaults which allow surveillance of communications, and as a result of their efforts, governments and private companies create tools which fight back and restore their ability to hijack communications and track users online.

Has technology positively impacted the work of Human Rights Defenders?

Broadly speaking, it can be argued that technology has not only positively impacted the works of HRDs, but it has empowered activists. Human rights movements, before the increase in the use of technology, existed with a more physical presence. This meant protesting in person, rallying governments to keep to their obligations under international conventions. More often, we now see that the human rights movement has utilised the digital online space to protest against the political powers of their constituent countries because “some governments are so oppressive that no domestic human rights movement can exist openly”3, and to escape the risk of violence, the use of technology removes almost all threat. Technology will have almost directly impacted the number of cases of physical inflictions of violence from governments on HRDs. In essence, technology has begun to address the imbalance of the power of state and citizen.

1 Laurie Wiseberg, ‘Protecting Human Rights Activists and NGOs: What More Can Be Done? (1991) 13 Human Rights Quarterly 525, 526 2 United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 3 Kenneth Roth, ‘The Abuser’s Reaction: Intensifying Attacks on Human Rights Defenders, Orgnizations (sic), and Institutions’ (2010) 16 Brown Journal of World Affairs 15, 17

There are many different positive effects of technology. Technology has been able to give power to do more to everyone in the human rights movement, right down from the men and women on the ground at the frontlines, all the way up to the many national and international NGOs. The internet is now ubiquitous with nearly a third of humankind online and the affect of that is increased communications for all 4 . Technologies range from data gathering to communications. Social media tools have had a great affect on the human rights movement. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have given all HRDs the ability to send messages, pictures and videos quickly and easily to a vast audience across the world. NGOs harness “the power of social media tools to build social movements at a scale and a pace that was not previously possible”5.

The beauty of the use of Facebook and Twitter is that with these sites being based in forward-­‐thinking nations, there are little barriers to free expression enabling HRDs to communicate as they wish to convey the real issue at stake.

Additionally, with the audience being global, oppressive governments are put under pressure from other nations to step in line with other nations who respect human rights and fundamental freedoms6. Another advantage of technology is data collection. There exists a software package in use by human rights activists that helps to systematize information. The software is “designed to facilitate the collection of detailed stories, and to turn those stories into data that can be used to present a complete and accurate picture of human rights violations”7. The point made is that technologies exist in different forms but can be summed up into data collection and communications technologies. One has the power to collect information on human rights abuses, and the other, to let the world know about those abuses.

What makes social media and email so effective? It may be argued that, compared to previous methods of communication, the speed of data transmission due to the increase in use of technology, and of the quality of the technology itself, has benefitted HRDs and even contributes to saving lives. Even in the general sense, “for social justice activists, the speed with which news now crosses the globe creates a tremendous opportunity to respond to human rights

4 Hilary Clinton, ‘Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World’ (US Department of State, 15 February 2011) <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm> accessed 8 January 2014 5 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘New Technologies and Human Rights Monitoring’ (OHCHR, 6-­‐7 August 2012) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/AMeetings/20thsession/Ne wTechnologiesBriefing_item5.pdf> accessed 8 January 2014 6 Hilary Clinton, ‘Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World’ (US Department of State, 15 February 2011) <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm> accessed 8 January 2014 7 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘New Technologies and Human Rights Monitoring’ (OHCHR, 6-­‐7 August 2012) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/AMeetings/20thsession/Ne wTechnologiesBriefing_item5.pdf> accessed 8 January 2014

issues as they emerge”8. Before, NGOs and HRDs would write letters, telling stories of human rights violations and “while still writing letters, [they now] present these stories to a much broader network of individuals, each of whom raise their voice and stay informed in real time and with various social media tools”9. It has been argued that, for example, “if torture is to be prevented two criteria are fundamental: speed of reaction and the ability to reach bodies capable of taking actions”10. Social media in the form of Facebook, Twitter and email can give the means to fulfil those criteria. The speed of reaction is left largely in the hands of the people on each end of the transmission as technology now allows instantaneous data circulation. Fulfilling the second element of the criteria is more difficult. Firstly, you may choose email and this requires having the email address of the individual or body whom you wish to make contact with.

Otherwise, you may build up a network of people whom communicate directly with NGOs, governments and international human rights committees and they will be relied upon to pass the message forward. Secondly, there is Facebook, Twitter and online blogs. They are less targeted forms of communication but give the ability to make stories viral or better still, national and international news where it will certainly reach the right body capable of taking strategic action.

Building on our previous efforts, we are now going to engage more closely with the use of networks. We are not discussing here the use of the internet as a network (though, these networks require an internet connection), but instead, networks which exist or have been built which aid a specific part of the work of a HRD. The use of networks has meant that communicating with members and partners of NGOs is now almost never paper based11. The advantages of this is that paper-­‐based documentation is slow to send and receive as well as, arguably, easier to compromise. Additionally, on a network you are able to send documents to as many people as you wish and you are able to encrypt files to keep them secure. Overall, networks are capable of mass communication that is safe and instantaneous and this helps HRDs substantially.

Networks have been taken advantage of greatly by Amnesty International (AI). AI’s Urgent Action network (UA) was developed back in 1976. The UA network is a “tactic intended to permit an immediate and dramatic response to a situation where there is a grave risk that someone will be tortured or killed and where time is of the essence”12, like what we have previously made mention of.

8 Hans Thoolen, ‘The double face of technology for Human Rights Defenders’ (Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders, 13 November 2013) <http://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/the-­‐double-­‐face-­‐of-­‐technology-­‐ for-­‐human-­‐rights-­‐defenders/> accessed 8 January 2014 9 Samir Goswami, ‘How Technology Is Helping Us Better Protect Human Rights’ (Huffington Post, 11 November 2013) <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samir-­‐ goswami/technology-­‐is-­‐helping-­‐human-­‐rights_b_4235715.html> accessed 8 January 2014 10 Steven Hick, Edward Halpin and Eric Hoskins, Human Rights and the Internet (Macmillan Press 2000) 82 11 Steven Hick, Edward Halpin and Eric Hoskins, Human Rights and the Internet (Macmillan Press 2000) 77 12 Laurie Wiseberg, ‘Protecting Human Rights Activists and NGOs: What More Can Be Done? (1991) 13 Human Rights Quarterly 525, 532

The network consists of members who have agreed to be on standby to promptly send appeals on new cases to coordinators whom file the appeals in the country where the case occurred 13 , thus immediately responding to human rights violations in a manner which deals appropriately with the issue, and which without technology, is certainly impossible. AI’s UA network has been a great success and is being replicated by other organisations across the world.

Networks, where there are a number of contributors, have been developed through software applications built for specific purposes. In this day, “cheap and readily available software mixed with a little common sense means that mass communication is within reach of even the smallest human rights organisation and the individual activist”14. For example, Van Jones, a HRD from the United States who is advocating against police brutality makes good use of a database. His NGO, Bay Area Police Watch, has designed a computer database that allows them to track problem officers, precincts and practices15. Van Jones claims, “At the click of a mouse we can now identify trouble spots and trouble-­‐ makers”16. Doing this without advanced technology is not impossible. It would require a lot of effort to keep up to date, perhaps using an illustrated map, and is cumbersome and would not be accessible by contributors across the country.

Thus, software gives great processing power to HRDs, requiring less work and ultimately meeting greater goals with a greater audience. However, in the information age databases can only do so much to make data and information surplus into a usable state17. Technology can only be relied upon up to a certain point at which it becomes the job of the HRDs to process the information. With the surplus of information we see now, it would require tremendous manpower to use the data collected.

The dark side: Hacking, tracking and privacy concerns

Whilst what has been previously discussed has proved to be very effective in human rights activism, with the creation of new methods of working, come new flaws and opportunities for others to exploit those flaws. Governments, whilst they are themselves resistant to change (especially with regards to human rights), their efforts to combat HRDs has evolved with the changing game of the HRDs. “There is a long, sordid history of human rights defenders being censored, imprisoned, mysteriously “disappearing,” or killed. But in recent years, the silence-­‐the-­‐messenger efforts of many governments have grown in subtlety and sophistication.”18 The increase in use of technology has given governments the

13 Laurie Wiseberg, ‘Protecting Human Rights Activists and NGOs: What More Can Be Done? (1991) 13 Human Rights Quarterly 525, 532 14 Steven Hick, Edward Halpin and Eric Hoskins, Human Rights and the Internet (Macmillan Press 2000) 77 15 Kerry Kennedy, Speak True To Power (Crown Publishers 2004) 68-­‐69 16 Kerry Kennedy, Speak True To Power (Crown Publishers 2004) 68-­‐69 17 Steven Hick, Edward Halpin and Eric Hoskins, Human Rights and the Internet (Macmillan Press 2000) 78 18 Kenneth Roth, ‘The Abuser’s Reaction: Intensifying Attacks on Human Rights Defenders, Orgnizations (sic), and Institutions’ (2010) 16 Brown Journal of World Affairs 15, 16

ability to pursue their interests in a more covert way. With each evolution in technology, the government has again changed its way to counter the human rights movement’s efforts, thus, the use of technology has started a game of cat and mouse. Neither party is likely to give up until it succeeds, however, with the power of the state “supporters of human rights should help defend the defenders by identifying and countering these reactionary efforts”, as what NGO Frontline Defenders does with its technology workshops, educating HRDs to conduct themselves safely online19.

There are distinctly three examples of how technology can decrease the capacity of HRDs to carry out their work. Those are (1) hacking and data theft (2) tracking; and (3) privacy concerns. Beginning firstly with hacking and data theft, this concerns the practice of governments and private companies/organisations that intentionally break through security measures that have been put in place to protect the data and prevent anyone but the targeted recipient from viewing the data. Google knows that the Chinese government hacks into the email accounts of activists 20 and research shows that even HRDs know their emails are “routinely hacked and monitored by governments.” 21 Some governments go further than monitoring HRDs and research shows that “emails [are] being read, forwarded, modified and deleted.” 22 Additionally, software is installed on activist’s computers which records activity including passwords that then enables oppressive regimes to steal computer files and compromise further internet services used by HRDs. If some of this work was carried out on paper, it could arguably be safer and more secure. The HRD would know how many copies are in existence and who those copies are held by.

Tracking is a big issue for individual activists. Governments are capable of tracking a user’s online activity to find where the connection originates and finally determine who and where the targeted person is to take action against that person. One of the problems is that “the digital technologies and tools people tend to use to expose rights abuses, however, are designed with unprecedented tracking and archiving abilities.”23 It only takes exploiting those abilities to compromise the location of a given person. Many HRDs choose to tackle this by “achiev[ing] and maintain[ing] complete anonymity [or by]

19 Frontline Defenders (http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/) 20 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 160 21 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 160 22 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 161 23 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 162

intentionally creat[ing] a carefully crafted public profile.”24 This is done to mask either the identity or the location of the person. One method of doing this is to use Tor, which runs on the onion network. Governments see the use of Tor as a threat and have decided to call them “dark networks.”25 They are called dark networks because some activity carried out on the network is criminal in nature.

This has fuelled the cat and mouse game once again, creating a justification for governments to intensify surveillance26. Marta is a Honduran HRD and operates within a network of human rights investigators and chooses to use Tor to “encrypt her internet traffic and routes it via remote computers, masking the location of her internet activities.”27 Technology continually changes unlike old methods of paper-­‐based communication and to counter the use of dark networks, Raytheon the world’s fifth largest defence contractor28 has created an “extreme-­‐scale analytics system.”29 The “secretly developed software [is] capable of tracking people’s movements and predicting future behaviour by mining data from social networking websites.”30 This is both a tracking and privacy concern, as will be discussed next, however, it is safe to say that such powerful technology in the hands of private companies and governments will inevitably be used in a malevolent way to further the oppressive regime’s aims – the problem is that there is no one to safeguard the use of the technology and surely it may be regarded as an infringement of the right to a private and family life31 if the data was mined from social networking sites where a user has finely tuned their

24 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 169 25 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 158 26 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 158 27 Tanya O’Carroll, ‘Mobile technologies helping activists and human rights defenders’ (Ethical Consumer) <http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/mobilesreport/activism.aspx > accessed 8 January 2014 28 Tanya O’Carroll, ‘Mobile technologies helping activists and human rights defenders’ (Ethical Consumer) <http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/mobilesreport/activism.aspx > accessed 8 January 2014 29 Ryan Gallagher, ‘Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm’ (Guardian, 10 February 2013) <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/10/software-­‐tracks-­‐social-­‐ media-­‐defence> accessed 8 January 2014 30 Ryan Gallagher, ‘Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm’ (Guardian, 10 February 2013) <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/10/software-­‐tracks-­‐social-­‐ media-­‐defence> accessed 8 January 2014 31 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8

security settings to only allow friends and family to view their content.

Dangerously, the Riot technology can break through that security and makes it possible so that “intelligence gathering can now be carried out as desk research that would have previously taken more resources and time to gather.”32

For all HRDs, privacy is of the utmost priority. HRDs fail to protect themselves by assuming that the technology in use is secure and therefore are ignorant of that fact and fail to take adequate safety measures. There is firstly the manifest disadvantage to the use of new technologies with further abilities for “companies and the state to monitor private communications”33, but additionally the legal ramifications of emerging and proposed privacy laws in reaction to the changes in technology which legitimise and allow new levels of surveillance on citizens of the state34. HRDs also send their material to organisations under the false impression that their data is safe. Unfortunately for some HRDs, when Wikileaks released diplomatic cables as they did, “Wikileaks exposed people to even greater risk”35 as the United States diplomats “closely collaborate with activists, journalists, and citizens.” 36 Even software that HRDs use on their “secure” devices with a “secure” connection are not safe. Basem Fathi, a HRD from Egypt said: “we were using Skype for a long time thinking that it was protected and secure.”37 The problem is that “many users don’t think through the potential misuse of the content they willingly contribute and don’t look ahead to the profile they are building of themselves when services and networks become inter-­‐linked.”38 Some HRDs have had the insight, as previously mentioned, to build a public profile which maintains level of security and safety for the activists. Algerian blogger Abdelghani Aloui failed to do this and shared photos

32 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 166 33 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 160 34 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 160 35 Hilary Clinton, ‘Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World’ (US Department of State, 15 February 2011) <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm> accessed 8 January 2014 36 Hilary Clinton, ‘Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World’ (US Department of State, 15 February 2011) <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm> accessed 8 January 2014 37 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 163 38 John Lannon and Edward Halpin, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013) 166

and caricatures of the President and Prime Minister on his Facebook account.39 Whilst this is more appropriately a question centred on freedom of expression, it highlights governments’ use of social networks to monitor HRDs in their private online space. Using his own name and failing to secure his profile, the government was able to locate and detain Aloui. That is the chilling effect of the rise of technology and failure to change with technology and maintain a perimeter of safety without reliance on technology.

In sum, technology has empowered citizens in the fight against government for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It has now become much safer to protest against governments online than it is to do the same in person, holding a physical rally against an oppressive regime that often ends in violence, tyranny and even deaths. The internet is now so widespread that it enables more HRDs to connect with each other and with NGOs to instantaneously share data on human rights violations. The internet and social media allows HRDs to synthesize targeted campaigns and push stories of human rights violations, with a little help from an engaged audience, into national and international news and press which aids HRDs and NGOs by adding pressure to governments to follow their human rights obligations. The final advantage of technology discussed is the leverage and power unlocked by networking through the internet. Activists are able to deal with violations swiftly and in an appropriate fashion such as AI’s UA network. On the other side of these arguments is the exploitation of technology. Hacking HRDs gives the ability for private companies and governments to monitor and steal data. They are then able to use this data to locate a person and find his/her identity to take action against that person, no matter the steps taken to prevent this. Finally, privacy cannot be secured online and HRDs are covertly spied on with technology they use, often without suspicion of surveillance. This essay finds that technology has not decreased the capacity of HRDs to carry out their work as each disadvantage is more than compensated by the power of technology.

39 Amnesty International, ‘Algeria: Release blogger held for sharing photos on Facebook’ (Amnesty International, 15 October 2013) <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/algeria-­‐release-­‐blogger-­‐held-­‐sharing-­‐ photos-­‐facebook-­‐2013-­‐10-­‐15> accessed 8 January 2014

Bibliography

Hick S, Halpin E and Hoskins E, Human Rights and the Internet (Macmillan Press 2000)

Lannon J and Halpin E, Human Rights and Information Communication Technologies: Trends and Consequences of Use (IGI Global 2013)

Kennedy K, Speak True To Power (Crown Publishers 2004)

Kennedy D, The Dark Sides of Virtue (Princeton University Press 2004)

Danieli Y, Sharing the Front Line and the Black Hills (Baywood Publishing Company 2002)

Mahony L and Eguren L, Unarmed Bodyguards (Kumarian Press 1997)

Athanasiou E, ‘The human rights defenders at the crossroads of the new century: Fighting for freedom and security in the OSCE area’ (2005) 14 Helsinki Monitor 16

East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, ‘Networks for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders: Notes from the Field’ (2013) November Journal of Human Rights Practice 522

Amir M, ‘A Study of the Experience of Woman human Rights Defenders in Eleven Egyptian Governorates’ (2013) November Journal of Human Rights Practice 460

Rhodes A, ‘Protecting human rights defenders: A priority for the OSCE participating states’ (2006) 17 Helsinki Monitor 295

Wiseberg L, ‘Protecting Human Rights Activists and NGOs: What More Can Be Done? (1991) 13 Human Rights Quarterly 525

Roth K, ‘The Abuser’s Reaction: Intensifying Attacks on Human Rights Defenders, Orgnizations (sic), and Institutions’ (2010) 16 Brown Journal of World Affairs 15

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘New Technologies and Human Rights Monitoring’ (OHCHR, 6-­‐7 August 2012) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/AMeetings/20thsession/Ne wTechnologiesBriefing_item5.pdf> accessed 8 January 2014

Goswami S, ‘How Technology Is Helping Us Better Protect Human Rights’ (Huffington Post, 11 November 2013) <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samir-­‐ goswami/technology-­‐is-­‐helping-­‐human-­‐rights_b_4235715.html> accessed 8 January 2014

Thoolen H, ‘The double face of technology for Human Rights Defenders’ (Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders, 13 November 2013)

<http://thoolen.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/the-­‐double-­‐face-­‐of-­‐technology-­‐ for-­‐human-­‐rights-­‐defenders/> accessed 8 January 2014

O’Carroll T, ‘An Invisible Threat: How Technology Can Hurt Human Rights Defenders’ (Amnesty USA Human Rights Blog, 11 November 2013) <http://blog.amnestyusa.org/middle-­‐east/an-­‐invisible-­‐threat-­‐how-­‐technology-­‐ can-­‐hurt-­‐human-­‐rights-­‐defenders/> accessed 8 January 2014

Amnesty International, ‘Tunisia: ‘You can go to jail for a word or an idea’’ (Amnesty Inernational, 11 December 2013) <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/tunisia-­‐you-­‐can-­‐go-­‐jail-­‐word-­‐or-­‐idea-­‐ 2013-­‐12-­‐11> accessed 8 January 2014

O’Carroll T, ‘Mobile technologies helping activists and human rights defenders’ (Ethical Consumer) <http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/mobilesreport/activism.aspx > accessed 8 January 2014

Gallagher R, ‘Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm’ (Guardian, 10 February 2013) <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/10/software-­‐tracks-­‐social-­‐ media-­‐defence> accessed 8 January 2014

Clinton H, ‘Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World’ (US Department of State, 15 February 2011) <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm> accessed 8 January 2014

Amnesty International, ‘Algeria: Release blogger held for sharing photos on Facebook’ (Amnesty International, 15 October 2013) <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/algeria-­‐release-­‐blogger-­‐held-­‐sharing-­‐ photos-­‐facebook-­‐2013-­‐10-­‐15> accessed 8 January 2014