HRC III

TEIMUN

11th July - 17th July 2011

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL (HRC) Topic III: Redefining te Right to Information on a Global Scale (Wikileaks)

Background Paper: Human Rights and the Internet

Foreword Last November almost everyone remotely interested in International Relations or diplomacy was waiting for the new revelations of Wikileaks, a whistle-­‐blowing platform.

Wikileaks published 250,000 diplomatic cables of the United States government. By clicking from the Wikileaks website to its international media partners (such as Der Spiegel, Le Monde, the Guardian etc.) we hoped for a new scoop. The whole affair culminated in a witch-­‐hunt for Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. The United States charged him under the Espionage Act and asked for his handing over. The Internet has given this case a different dimension. Assange defended himself on the freedom of press, which is linked to the freedom of expression, and the freedom of information.

These two freedoms are of utmost importance to democratic values and human rights.

As we have seen in the case of Wikileaks, the emergence of the Internet gives these basic rights a different dimension; that is why these will be discussed during TEIMUN 2011.

We will develop remedies for the protection of those rights in a new era. Until 2006 the United Nations did not take a stance on Internet in connection to rights. We will change this and move the topic forward.

Abbreviations

ICCPR International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

IGF Internet Governance Forum

WSIS World Summit on Information Society

ISP Internet Service Provider

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Introduction

Internet has changed the world and our understanding of it tremendously. Human rights were accordingly altered by this revolution and now a different dimension as a result of the emergence of the Internet. This paper will discuss two rights that have been clearly influenced by the emergence of the Internet: the Freedom of Expression and the Right to information. The Internet did not only broaden their scope, it has almost altered their content. The Internet transformed the Freedom of Expression, by making it possible for everyone to both send and receive information. The Right to information, as we have seen in the case of Wikileaks, has a new scope, due to the opportunities Internet gives for transparency, anonymity, and information leaking.

The freedom of expression and the freedom of information are discussed in separate parts of this introductory paper. Every part contains a description of the right itself, and then identifies problems arising with connection to the Internet.

The first section discusses the freedom of speech and the Internet. Internet is a network and medium for information and communication. The freedom of expression, as codified in article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is protecting the content and expression on Internet.1 This right is further elaborated in article 19 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Derived from the freedom of expression is a myriad of other rights and issues to consider: Does freedom of expression entail the broader right to communication? And is this freedom of expression equal to the freedom of press, since all can be journalists on the web now?2 This culminates in the question, whether there is a right to Internet access. Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State of the United States of America, declared Internet to be the fifth freedom. Accordingly, this background paper explores what this can entail; the freedom of Internet.

There are three problems related to the Freedom of Expression and the Internet that are worth profound scrutiny: censorship and filtering, violation of privacy, and the so-­‐called digital divide. Censorship and filtering refers to blocking the access to Internet, which

1 2

The universal declaration of the human rights Gillmore, D., We the media: Grassroots journalism, By the people, for the people O’Reilly (Sebastopol, 2004).

effectively closes of people’s medium of sending and receiving information and opinion forming. Violation of privacy, with more widespread Internet usage and data tracking, is another issue to consider, while with intensive and widespread use of Internet the opportunities for tracking individual’s traces have increased. The last problem of Internet access and human rights is the digital divide. The percentages of Internet connectivity per country range from almost 90% to 1%. As Internet is becoming more a source of information and development and a tool for democracy, this digital divide is a problem.

In the second section the Freedom to Information will be discussed. Freedom of speech cannot be disengaged from the freedom of information. Has this right transformed since the emergence of the Internet? This is again closely linked to Wikileaks and in this section we will address both the significance of the right to information, secrecy and the rights of whistle blowers. The difficulty for national regulations is the transnational character of sites as Wikileaks, and the opportunities Internet for spreading information in ways and on a speed that is untraceable.

The Freedom of Expression Article 19 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. 3

The freedom of expression and the freedom to information are considered interlinked.

This means that individuals both have the right to express themselves and have a right to access all information available through any media. In ICCPR this is explicit; the rights

3

The ICCPR, article 19, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art19.

are jointly discussed in article 19. These rights are considered to be of utmost importance for maintaining liberal values and democracy. The freedom should be without any interference, except for restrictions for upholding rights and reputation of others, the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.4 These last remarks limit the absolute protection of the freedom of expression.

Internet gives the freedom of expression a new dimension. Everyone can nowadays post their opinions on the web, and comment on others’ opinions. The bar for expressing and publishing opinions has been lowered tremendously.5 This is an enormous extension of this right, and creates a myriad of opportunities and controversies. This means that the remedies to abuses of the freedom of expression have to be reconsidered, and maybe even that these limits themselves have to be reconsidered. This movement towards broader expression of opinions and the possibilities Internet provides for everyone has to be considered in the light of the scale of Internet nowadays. It is important to keep in mind that the mere size of the Internet means that even though the opinions might be expressed, there are so many, which means that not all of them have the same impact as that of previous opinion makers in traditional media channels.6

On top of the achievements in the field of grassroots journalism, the character of the Internet as a network impedes the ability of governments to control the content of information available to their citizens. This is exactly why censorship on a wide scale is applied on the Internet in some countries. Political Rights, however object to this censorship. It impedes both the right to send and receive information, and the ability to communicate on a broader scale, which is also closely linked to the freedom of assembly.

On the other hand, these regulations can be circumvented, due to the very nature of the Internet as a network. The example of the blackout in Egypt last January shows that it is still possible for governments to entirely shut down the Internet for almost the entire country. The place Internet has nowadays in our societies and the role it fulfills in the

4

Beatson, J., and Y. Cripps, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information: Essays in honour of Sir David Williams Oxford University Press (Oxford: 2000). 237 5 Gillmore, D., We the media: Grassroots journalism, By the people, for the people O’Reilly (Sebastopol, 2004).

6 Rowland, D., ‘Virtual world, real right?: Human Rights and the Internet’ in: M. Odello, S. Cavandoli (ed.)

Emerging Areas of Human Rights in the 21st Century. Routledge (London: 2011).

spread of communication and information and the promotion of democracy, shutdowns of Internet on this scale are a violation of human rights.7

The Right to Internet Access

The fact that Internet has acquired such an enormous role in our means of communication, information gathering and expressing ourselves, legitimizes the question: is the Internet a basic human right in itself?

Secretary of state Hilary Clinton formulated it as the fifth freedom, the freedom of Internet. Everybody should have access to Internet, and the state may not restrict this basic right, not by censorship, and not by technically making Internet inaccessible.8 A French court ruled, in a case against shutting down a connection as a penalty for illegal downloading of intellectual property as songs and films, that Internet was a basic human right, and hence it could not be shutdown as a penalty.9 Next to France, also Estonia, Greece, Finland and Spain also declared Internet a basic human right. Internet has obtained a place in one of the tools for democracy, freedom of expression, communication and gathering information.10

Freedom of Internet is a negative freedom in this respect: states are not allowed to infringe the right to Internet and deny citizens’ access, either trough censorship of websites, or making connection to the web impossible.

At the end of January, in the midst of the protests against Mubarak on Tahir Square in Cairo, Egypt, the entire country faced a blackout of both the Internet and the mobile

7

Human Rights Watch, ‘Egypt: Nationwide Internet blackout endangers rights’ 28-01-2011 <http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/01/28/egypt-nationwide-Internet-blackout-endangers-rights> retrieved: 194-2011.

8 Marciel, S., ‘Universal human rights and Internet freedom’ The Jakarta Post 2-19-2011, <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/02/19/universal-human-rights-and-Internet-freedom.html> retrieved: 19-4-2011.

9 Sparks, I., ‘Internet access is a fundamental human right, rules French court’ Daily Mail 12-6-2009, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1192359/Internet-access-fundamental-human-right-rulesFrench-court.html#ixzz1JbKqnLrl> retrieved 19-4-2011.

10 A Human Right.Org ‘why access to information and Internet is a human right’ 15-10-2010 <http://ahumanright.org/blog/2010/10/why-the-Internet-is-a-human-right/> retrieved: 19-4-2011.

phone networks. It was shocking for several reasons; first that the government would cut their citizens off of communication, that it was able to execute that, and the impact it had on communication and organization of the protest. It shows how important Internet has become in promoting democracy, and more importantly, why governments should not be allowed to interfere with Internet-­‐access and communication networks.11

A far-­‐reaching initiative in this matter, but a promising one, is the development of a “Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet”. This charter is written by the dynamic coalition on the Internet rights and principles, a working group of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The IGF is established in 2006 and gathers every year to discuss, expand, and develop Internet governance. Remarkably, the governance of Internet in this forum is mainly concerned with safeguarding the freedom of the Internet in close connection to civil rights. It draws on the WSIS Declaration of Principles of Geneva, and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, which both recognize the potential the Internet has and the opportunities it presents for people to emancipate and develop. The charter places the Human Rights in the context of the Internet; “they should apply online as they do offline”.12

Censorship and Filtering

The complete Internet blackouts as we have witnessed in Egypt are seldom. Content filters and censoring of the Internet is widespread, by both governments and private parties. Almost all governments are involved in practices filtering or censoring the content of the Internet. The most severe limitations are found in the following countries (2007): Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma/Myanmar, China, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, UAE, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Yemen.13

11

Human Rights Watch, ‘Egypt: Nationwide Internet blackout endangers rights’ 28-01-2011 <http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/01/28/egypt-nationwide-Internet-blackout-endangers-rights> retrieved: 194-2011.

12 Internet and Human Rights Principles commission, Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet, version 1.1 http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/files/DRAFTVersion1.1%283%29.pdf retrieved: 27-5-2011.

13 BBC, Global Net Censorship Growing, 18-5-2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6665945.stm#list

All states are to some extent involved in filtering and censoring the content and access to the Internet. Companies are cooperating with governments, by supplying the software or enabling filters on their Internet Service Providers. This reminds most of us immediately of Google’s dealing with China, but it also applies to the more subtle blockages of search hits for Nazi-­‐paraphernalia by Google for Germany and France.14

The justification for Internet filters is usually either national security, or upholding community standards. The latter excuse is for example used in Saudi Arabia to filter pornography. The first reason is more widespread; especially after 9/11 many governments tightened their national security laws for blocking and monitoring Internet use of their citizens. In less democratic states, as most of the above-­‐mentioned states, the justifications for filtering are more imaginative: “national unity, anti-­‐Liberian material, likely to cause alarm or despondency”.15

14

Open Net Initiative, ‘A starting point. Legal implications of Internet filtering’ Ibid, p. 7, quotes as quoted here from: Privacy International and the GreenNet Educational Trust, Silenced: An international Report on Censorship and Control of the Internet.

15

Source: http://map.opennet.net/ 16

Without rendering certain justification valid or not, Internet filtering will usually impose an infringement to the Freedom of Expression, Press, and Association (among others).

Filtering with justification, which is in line with the limitations of the freedom of expression as phrased in article 19 of the ICCPR (with respect to rights and reputation of others, the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals), should then be allowed. The problem of either blocking or filtering data-­‐traffic and content is that it is usually broad or under-­‐inclusive. Hence, they infringe those rights unnecessary.17

The legal site of these disputes is complicated, as noted before, the nature of Internet (being a network) makes it hard to establish jurisdiction and regulate or control content legally, even if the filtering would be justified or blocking content can be justified, as for cases of copyright infringement. A few attempts for the governance of Internet have

16 17

Visit this website, also to see other maps and animations, and even a youtube-censorship timeline.

Ibid, 8.

been developed internationally. The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in December 2003 were concerned earlier especially with regulations, as copyright laws.

They are since then extending their attempts for governance, standard setting for both Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and governments. It is feared, though, that these efforts for governance might even lead to more filtering, or standardized control, in stead of less.18

The United Nations support the Internet Government Forum, the follow-­‐up to the first two WSIS meetings. Contrary to the earlier fear, the governance efforts are mainly directed towards opening Internet and providing access. This entails affordable connections to the Internet in developing countries, to protest against blockage. Every year meetings are held around the globe, and different ‘dynamic coalitions’ including scientists rather than government delegates, discusses on a wide range of topics concerning Internet, its usage and freedom of Internet. For example, it was last year in Vilnius concerned with filtering, and research conducted in Turkey concerning Internet filtering, and found that similar justifications were used in the UK and other countries.19

Violation of Privacy One of these rights that should apply online as they do offline is the right to privacy. As we also saw in the discussion of the enforcement of limitations to other rights here above, it is hard to enforce any remedies on the Internet. Also the right to privacy is hard to enforce. Privacy and the Internet know to main problems: data-­‐storage by private parties, and data tracking by governments.

Cookies in websites store information about website visits, preferences, and other data.

Google saves search data for up to two years and social network website entail pictures, personal data and store data on user's preferences. These different data can be linked to each other, and even to credit card data, while it is almost impossible to use services on the Internet without them. This enormous amount of traces users leave behind, and data on their social network sites, provide a wealth of information for many parties. The

18

Ibid, 12. http://dcexpression.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/meeting-report-from-the-igf-2010-of-the-freedom-ofexpression-and-freedom-of-the-media-on-the-Internet-dynamic-coalition/

19

possibilities for marketing and advertisement, but also for red tape for unwanted costumers, are enormous. But more importantly, these data infringe privacy, especially when this data is linked and sold to third parties.20

The infringements governments make on privacy trough the Internet are evenly grave.

Considering investigations, Internet is treated as a telephone company. The rules for tracking and wire-­‐tapping telephones are less strict in light of investigation. Hence, data-­‐ traffic can be wired and tracked, and user information can be demanded from Internet providers, including IP-­‐addresses. The tracking of information of our data-­‐traffic on the Internet intrusive to out privacy, even more then telephone taps. Internet use, surfing behavior, in combination to data available on social networks and in emails (which is not treated with the same rules and confidentiality as the paper counter-­‐part) can give a full-­‐scale picture of a person. Hence, countries should reconsider their rules for investigation and data-­‐storage, while it is clearly greatly intrusive to the right of privacy.21

The Digital Divide

The right to Internet can also be interpreted as a positive right, the duty of the state to provide everyone with Internet-­‐access, or at least possibilities for Internet-­‐access in the public arena (such as libraries). Critics point out that this right is at odds with other basic needs the state is supposed to provide, such as food, water, housing.22 Internet does not seem to fit in this list. Especially for developing countries providing Internet for citizens seems to far-­‐fetched. Still, Internet is nowadays connected to political rights to such an extent, that it might have become a duty of states to make it available.

20

Internet site privacy en Rowland, D., ‘Virtual world, real right?: Human Rights and the Internet’ in: M. Odello, S. Cavandoli (ed.) Emerging Areas of Human Rights in the 21st Century. Routledge (London: 2011).

21 Beatson, J., and Y. Cripps, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information: Essays in honour of Sir David Williams Oxford University Press (Oxford: 2000) and Rowland, D., ‘Virtual world, real right?: Human Rights and the Internet’ in: M. Odello, S. Cavandoli (ed.) Emerging Areas of Human Rights in the 21st Century.

Routledge (London: 2011) and Privacy International ‘Overview Privacy and free speech’ 4-8-2004 <https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/overview-privacy-and-free-speech> retrieved: 19-4-2010.

22 Rotham, W., ‘Is Internet access a human right?’ Technolog 28-1-2011. <http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/28/5941854-is-Internet-access-a-human-right> retrieved 19-42011.

The point that critics make concerning developing states not being able to meet the basic needs of their citizens, let alone provide them with Internet, is a valid one. This point touches upon the widening gap between developed and developing countries: the digital divide. Scandinavian countries have over 90% of the population connected to the Internet, in comparison to the poorest countries where Internet connectedness is less then 1%.23 Furthermore, many countries face internal divides in technological haves and have-­‐nots. This has severe impact on the ability for the vulnerable and poor groups to participate in society and contribute to democracy in their countries.24

Since the beginning of 2000 several global forums have considered the problem of the digital divide, and at the same time heralded the ICT-­‐revolution for its possibilities in the spread of human rights and democratic values. In 2000 this was expressed in the Okinwana Charter on Global Information Society, by the G8. The United Nations presented a similar program to allow all citizens to profit from the information society, presented at the world summit on the Information Society in Geneva in 2003. At this summit the Internet Governance Forum was established. The IGF focuses on governing issues and Internet, and stresses the benefits of Internet for democracy and human rights25. The IGF investigates now, through different working groups and dynamic coalitions the role Internet can play for development. Moreover, it tries to develop initiatives to enable even people in third world countries to have affordable access to Internet.

Part II: The right to Information The right to information or Freedom of information laws are the laws which give citizens, and especially the media, the right to inquire and demand information and transparency of public authorities. The government is obliged to disclose all information, unless it is considered harmful to the national security. Companies have to disclose information if it is vital to the public interest.26

23

Rowland, D., ‘Virtual world, real right?: Human Rights and the Internet’ in: M. Odello, S. Cavandoli (ed.)

Emerging Areas of Human Rights in the 21st Century. Routledge (London: 2011). 13 24 Idem 25 Idem 26 Privacy International, Legal Protections and Barriers on the Right ot Information, State Secrets and Protection of Sources in OSCE Participating States, (London: 2007) https://www.privacyinternational.org/foi/OSCE-access-analysis.pdf. Retrieved: 25-05-2011.

Access to information is one of the prerequisites for a functioning democracy, and is also one of the assets of freedom of press and freedom of speech. The public needs information to meaningfully join public debate and participate in democratic processes.27

Most governments have some freedom of information laws in place. For those to be effective they should address certain the following: right of access, without specific interest be allowed to demand information; duty to respond; exemption, on grounds of for example national security, and privacy; possibility to appeal; oversight on this right by an independent body; duty to publish certain types of information; and sanctions for the latter and non-­‐cooperation with the freedom of information.

Two Conventions are concerned with this matter. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation, in Decision making and Access to Justice in Environmetal matters (Aarhuus Convention). This convention mainly concerns the disclosure of public information on the environments. 28 Furthermore, the Convention against Corruption also notes the importance of public reporting and access to information in the battle against corruption.29

In this perspective the media has even a bigger role, in most societies they are not granted specific rights concerning disclosure in the name of the public interest. But there are, or should be, special arrangements in place for the protection of the sources.

The freedom of press entails a larger protection of the media against prosecution. This is even in fully democratic states not fully adhered to. These are examples of 10 cases from OSCE countries which prosecuted journalists for revealing state secrets: Netherlands in 2005, in Canada in 2006, in Denmark in 2006, in Germany in 2006, in Hungary in 2004, and in 2005, Romania in 2006, Russia in 2001, in Switzerland in 2003, and in the UK in 2005. In some cases the journalists were eventually acquitted. Still it shows the

27

Beatson, J., and Y. Cripps, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information: Essays in honour of Sir David Williams Oxford University Press (Oxford: 2000).

28 Privacy International, Legal Protections and Barriers on the Right ot Information, State Secrets and Protection of Sources in OSCE Participating States, (London: 2007) https://www.privacyinternational.org/foi/OSCE-access-analysis.pdf. Retrieved: 25-05-2011. p. 6.

29 Ibid.

vulnerability of the press when revealing state secrets and the difficulty to find a balance between the right to know of the public and state secrets.30

The problem with state secrecy is that it can be quite largely defined. It is often unclear what should be classified and why. Laws on the freedom of information are supposed to be the counter-­‐balance to this, and set the standard that information is by default public, instead of secret. Hence, what is exempted from the Right to information should be defined as concrete as possible. This protect from arbitrary protection and protection for other purposes, as reputation damage, under the banner of state-­‐secrecy.

Furthermore, over-­‐classification leads to weakening of the overall protection system.

Hence state-­‐secrecy might sometimes be necessary, but should always be balanced between the public interest to know and the national security. Furthermore, concrete rules on which content can be labeled classified and for a limited time period should accompany the laws.31

Whistle Blowing

Closely connected to this right to know, is the disclosure by individuals of classified information: whistle-­‐blowing. The disclosure of classified information for companies is allowed in cases of public health, public order, or in the greater public interest.

Remarkable, the disclosure is only allowed if the whistle-­‐blower has sincere intention to prevent the harm of the greater public, and specific suspicions. For the disclosure of classified information of the government, it is often classified in the name of national security, in case it cannot be disclosed, not by invoking a right to know, or by a whistle-­‐ blower.32 Considered in the light of the before said, case-­‐by-­‐case the balance has to be sought between the revealed content, the harm it could be doing to national security, and the peoples right to know. Furthermore, journalists have to be allowed to protect their sources, and protected from searches, and taps, and electronic data trafficking.33

30

ibid Ibid 32 MacDonalds, J., The law of freedom of Information Oxford University Press (Oxford: 2003). Chapter 13.

33 Privacy International, Legal Protections and Barriers on the Right ot Information, State Secrets and Protection of Sources in OSCE Participating States, (London: 2007) https://www.privacyinternational.org/foi/OSCE-access-analysis.pdf. Retrieved: 25-05-2011.

31

The right to information on the Internet is a new area to investigate, and set standards.

On one hand the Internet provides opportunities for information sharing, investigation by private parties, and leaking and whistle-­‐blowing. On the other hand, the Internet is harder to control for governments, and the exemptions on the right to information are hard to enforce on the Internet. At the same time, it provides also many opportunities for that same governments for investigation and data-­‐trafficking. Here also the rights of the whistle-­‐blowers and journalists against these practices should be protected.

Wikileaks

The website Wikileaks provides whistle-­‐blowers a portal to drop their leaks anonymously online. Consecutively, these are posted online, in their rough form. They have been publishing documents since 2007, subjects ranging from Sarah Palin's email, to corruption in Kenya, to big leaks on the US foreign policy. The latter consisted of leaks concerning Abu Graib, Afghanistan, Iraq papers, and the last one: the cables. The cables are 250,000 classified documents concerning the United States' diplomatic cables. The content of the cables hardly brought any news, yet. It is the mere size of this leakage, and the fact that is posted on the Internet, without the specific purpose to expose abuse or in the public interest, which was novel to this leakage.34

The response of the US government is grave, Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange is on trial for conspiracy under the Espionage Act. The source of the leakage, Mr. Warren, is in prison under dire circumstances, on trial for a military court and facing a charge of 52 years in prison.

35Responses

from the media are mixed, some see it as a brave

courageous act, helping people to stand up against their government. Others point out that the cables (other then for example the Iraq or Afghanistan papers, which did reveal abuses) had no specific secret to reveal, except for the secret workings of the US diplomatic services. Diplomatic relations are secretive for a purpose; secrecy smoothens relations and continues conversations in spite of public animosity. It will harm these

34 35

The Economist, ‘WikiLeaks: Unpluggable’ 2-12-2010.

Fildes, J., Wikileaks site unfazed by arrest of US army 'source' BBC News 8-6-2010 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10265430>

relations, while the US is not trusted anymore to keep its diplomatic-­‐traffic secret. 36 On the other hand, the debate has started on the need for secrecy. Governments do have the tendency to classify much more then necessary. Eventually governments and the democracy gains more with increased transparency. The cables sparked this debate.37

Wikileaks is defended by this call for increased transparency and the peoples right to know. One needs whistle-­‐blowers for that. But as we saw above, whistle-­‐blowers in cases of national security are exempted from protection. In the case of the pentagon-­‐ papers though, the court decided in favor of the whistle-­‐blowers. For Wikileaks, the judge still has to decide. But we can look into an increased protection of whistle-­‐ blowers.

Conclusion and Questions for Debate

Two Rights and their altering under pressure of the Internet have been highlighted in this paper: The freedom of expression and the right to information. The former is the most important political rights, and a prerequisite for a functioning democracy; the latter is the basis for transparency and accountable governance. Both have to be protected, but it knows its limitations, which are hard to enforce over Internet. The question is, should the limitations be broadened? Or should we find new ways to impose these limitations?

The scope of the freedom of expression has been extended, the Internet gives people the opportunity to interactively join the public debate: ‘everybody can be a journalist now’.

Hence The internet has become so important for full enjoyment of one of the most important political rights that the question has risen, is there a right to access to internet? In several countries courts have decided that this is actually the case. If so, how to protect this Right?

Furthermore three problems have been identified concerning access to Internet: censorship and filtering, violation of privacy and data-­‐storage; and digital divide.

36 37

The Economist, ‘WikiLeaks: Read cables and red faces’ 2-12-2010.

The Economist, ‘WikiLeaks: Read cables and red faces’ 2-12-2010.

Many governments are involved in practices of censorship and filtering, some very severe and others mild, it can be simply to block porn on public accessible computers for example. On the website of the Open Net Initiative you can find updates and maps, and country-­‐specific information. The difficulty concerning filtering and censorship is that it usually goes unnoticed. Still, we have to develop standards: to what extent is filtering and censoring internet content acceptable, and when does it violate peoples Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Information?

The right to privacy is an established right and protects us from unnecessary (state-­‐) interference with our personal lives. Nowadays, the storage of personal data and surfing behavior trough the Internet is done on such a large scale, it even tops George Orwells darkest dreams. How to protect privacy? What are governments, Internet Service Providers, and companies as google and facebook allowed to know from us, and especially to store and especially use from our data?

The right to internet as a asset for development is the final topic of the first section. The digital divide implies that large parts of the world-­‐population are effectively excluded from participating in processes shaping also their world. How can we use the full potential of Internet as a tool for development and emancipation, especially in the Third World. Even stronger: How can w assure access to Internet for all?

The second part is concerned with the right to information, of freedom of information.

Some states have public disclosure acts incorporated in their legislation, should this be encouraged by the Human Rights council to increase transparency? And now whistle-­‐ blowing has gone global, should we also consider international standards or protection for whistle-­‐blowing, or should this remain subject to national jurisdiction?

References A Human Right.Org ‘why access to information and Internet is a human right’ 15-­‐ 10-­‐2010

<http://ahumanright.org/blog/2010/10/why-­‐the-­‐Internet-­‐is-­‐a-­‐human-­‐

right/> retrieved: 19-­‐4-­‐2011.

BBC, Global Net http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6665945.stm#list

Censorship

Growing,

18-5-2007.

Beatson, J., and Y. Cripps, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information: Essays in honour of Sir David Williams Oxford University Press (Oxford: 2000).

Fildes, J., Wikileaks site unfazed by arrest of US army 'source' BBC News 8-­‐6-­‐2010 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10265430> Gillmore, D., We the media: Grassroots journalism, By the people, for the people O’Reilly (Sebastopol, 2004).

Human Rights Watch, ‘Egypt: Nationwide Internet blackout endangers rights’ 28-­‐ 01-­‐2011

<http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/01/28/egypt-­‐nationwide-­‐Internet-­‐

blackout-­‐endangers-­‐rights> retrieved: 19-­‐4-­‐2011.

MacDonalds, J., The law of freedom of Information Oxford University Press (Oxford: 2003).

Marciel, S., ‘Universal human rights and Internet freedom’ The Jakarta Post 2-­‐19-­‐ 2011,

<http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/02/19/universal-­‐human-­‐rights-­‐

and-­‐Internet-­‐freedom.html> retrieved: 19-­‐4-­‐2011.

Open Net Initiative, ‘A starting point. Legal implications of Internet filtering’ www.opennetinitiave.org, september 2004. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F %2Fopennet.net%2Fdocs%2FLegal_Implications.pdf&rct=j&q=internet%20filters%20privac y%20international&ei=UB7gTdunJJGbOorz0PMJ&usg=AFQjCNHBN9zLDzhzK2kDoGnkt 1xuR6wvEQ

Privacy International ‘Overview Privacy and free speech’ 4-­‐8-­‐2004 <https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/overview-­‐privacy-­‐and-­‐free-­‐speech> retrieved: 19-­‐4-­‐2010.

Privacy International and the GreenNet Educational Trust, Silenced: An international Report on Censorship and Control of the Internet.

Privacy International, Legal Protections and Barriers on the Right ot Information, State Secrets and Protection of Sources in OSCE Participating States, (London: 2007) https://www.privacyinternational.org/foi/OSCE-­‐access-­‐analysis.pdf. Retrieved: 25-­‐05-­‐ 2011.

Rowland, D., ‘Virtual world, real right?: Human Rights and the Internet’ in: M. Odello, S. Cavandoli (ed.) Emerging Areas of Human Rights in the 21st Century. Routledge (London: 2011).

Rotham, W., ‘Is Internet access a human right?’ Technolog 28-­‐1-­‐2011. <http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/28/5941854-­‐is-­‐Internet-­‐access-­‐a-­‐ human-­‐right> retrieved 19-­‐4-­‐2011.

The Economist, ‘WikiLeaks: Read cables and red faces’ 2-­‐12-­‐2010.

The Economist, ‘WikiLeaks: Unpluggable’ 2-­‐12-­‐2010.

Sparks, I., ‘Internet access is a fundamental human right, rules French court’ Daily Mail

12-­‐6-­‐2009,

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-­‐

1192359/Internet-­‐access-­‐fundamental-­‐human-­‐right-­‐rules-­‐French-­‐ court.html#ixzz1JbKqnLrl> retrieved 19-­‐4-­‐2011.

Internet and Human Rights Principles commission, Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet, version 1.1 http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/files/DRAFTVersion1.1%283%29.pdf retrieved: 275-2011.