The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 35
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- Necessity also implies an assessment of the proportionality of the measures limiting the use of and access to security online. A proportionality assessment should ensure that the restriction is "the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result". The limitation must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the interference with third parties' rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion. The restriction must also be "proportionate to the interest to be protected". A high risk of damage to a critical, legitimate State interest may justify limited intrusions on the freedom of expression. Conversely, where a restriction has a broad impact on individuals who pose no threat to a legitimate government interest, the State's burden to justify the restriction will be very high. Moreover, a proportionality analysis must take into account the strong possibility that encroachments on encryption and anonymity will be exploited by the same criminal and terrorist networks that the limitations aim to deter. In any case, "a detailed and evidence-based public justification" is critical to enable transparent public debate over restrictions that implicate and possibly undermine freedom of expression (see A/69/397, para. 12).
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Reference
- SR Freedom of Opinion, Report to the HRC (2015), A/HRC/29/32, para. 35.
- Paragraph number
- 35
sorted by
Date added
58 relationships, 58 entities