Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 1365 entities
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- The use of encryption and anonymity tools and better digital literacy should be encouraged. The Special Rapporteur, recognizing that the value of encryption and anonymity tools depends on their widespread adoption, encourages States, civil society organizations and corporations to engage in a campaign to bring encryption by design and default to users around the world and, where necessary, to ensure that users at risk be provided the tools to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression securely.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- While the present report does not draw conclusions about corporate responsibilities for communication security, it is nonetheless clear that, given the threats to freedom of expression online, corporate actors should review the adequacy of their practices with regard to human right norms. At a minimum, companies should adhere to principles such as those laid out in the http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfGuiding Principles http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdfon Business and Human Rights, the Global Network Initiative's Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, the European Commission's ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue Guiding Principles. Companies, like States, should refrain from blocking or limiting the transmission of encrypted communications and permit anonymous communication. Attention should be given to efforts to expand the availability of encrypted data-centre links, support secure technologies for websites and develop widespread default end-to-end encryption. Corporate actors that supply technology to undermine encryption and anonymity should be especially transparent as to their products and customers.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- States, international organizations, corporations and civil society groups should promote online security. Given the relevance of new communication technologies in the promotion of human rights and development, all those involved should systematically promote access to encryption and anonymity without discrimination. The Special Rapporteur urgently calls upon entities of the United Nations system, especially those involved in human rights and humanitarian protection, to support the use of communication security tools in order to ensure that those who interact with them may do so securely. United Nations entities must revise their communication practices and tools and invest resources in enhancing security and confidentiality for the multiple stakeholders interacting with the Organization through digital communications. Particular attention must be paid by human rights protection mechanisms when requesting and managing information received from civil society and witnesses and victims of human rights violations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- States should not restrict encryption and anonymity, which facilitate and often enable the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Blanket prohibitions fail to be necessary and proportionate. States should avoid all measures that weaken the security that individuals may enjoy online, such as backdoors, weak encryption standards and key escrows. In addition, States should refrain from making the identification of users a condition for access to digital communications and online services and requiring SIM card registration for mobile users. Corporate actors should likewise consider their own policies that restrict encryption and anonymity (including through the use of pseudonyms). Court-ordered decryption, subject to domestic and international law, may only be permissible when it results from transparent and publicly accessible laws applied solely on a targeted, case-by-case basis to individuals (i.e., not to a mass of people) and subject to judicial warrant and the protection of due process rights of individuals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- States should promote strong encryption and anonymity. National laws should recognize that individuals are free to protect the privacy of their digital communications by using encryption technology and tools that allow anonymity online. Legislation and regulations protecting human rights defenders and journalists should also include provisions enabling access and providing support to use the technologies to secure their communications.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- Discussions of encryption and anonymity have all too often focused only on their potential use for criminal purposes in times of terrorism. But emergency situations do not relieve States of the obligation to ensure respect for international human rights law. Legislative proposals for the revision or adoption of restrictions on individual security online should be subject to public debate and adopted according to regular, public, informed and transparent legislative process. States must promote effective participation of a wide variety of civil society actors and minority groups in such debate and processes and avoid adopting such legislation under accelerated legislative procedures. General debate should highlight the protection that encryption and anonymity provide, especially to the groups most at risk of unlawful interferences. Any such debate must also take into account that restrictions are subject to strict tests: if they interfere with the right to hold opinions, restrictions must not be adopted. Restrictions on privacy that limit freedom of expression - for purposes of the present report, restrictions on encryption and anonymity - must be provided by law and be necessary and proportionate to achieve one of a small number of legitimate objectives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- States should revise or establish, as appropriate, national laws and regulations to promote and protect the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression. With respect to encryption and anonymity, States should adopt policies of non-restriction or comprehensive protection, only adopt restrictions on a case-specific basis and that meet the requirements of legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimacy in objective, require court orders for any specific limitation, and promote security and privacy online through public education.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Encryption and anonymity, and the security concepts behind them, provide the privacy and security necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age. Such security may be essential for the exercise of other rights, including economic rights, privacy, due process, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and the right to life and bodily integrity. Because of their importance to the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, restrictions on encryption and anonymity must be strictly limited according to principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimacy in objective. The Special Rapporteur therefore recommends the following.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- Broad mandatory data retention policies limit an individual's ability to remain anonymous. A State's ability to require Internet service and telecommunications providers to collect and store records documenting the online activities of all users has inevitably resulted in the State having everyone's digital footprint. A State's ability to collect and retain personal records expands its capacity to conduct surveillance and increases the potential for theft and disclosure of individual information.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Some States and regional courts have moved towards imposing responsibilities on Internet service providers and media platforms to regulate online comments by anonymous users. Ecuador, for instance, in its Organic Communications Law, requires intermediaries to generate mechanisms to record personal data to allow the identification of those posting comments. In Delfi v. Estonia (application No. 64569/09), the European Court of Human Rights upheld an Estonian law that imposes liability on a media platform for anonymous defamatory statements posted on its site. Such intermediary liability is likely to result either in real-name registration policies, thereby undermining anonymity, or the elimination of posting altogether by those websites that cannot afford to implement screening procedures, thus harming smaller, independent media. The recently adopted Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, drafted by a coalition of civil society organizations, provide a sound set of guidelines for States and international and regional mechanisms to protect expression online.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Anonymous speech has been necessary for activists and protestors, but States have regularly attempted to ban or intercept anonymous communications in times of protest. Such attempts to interfere with the freedom of expression unlawfully pursue an illegitimate objective of undermining the right to peaceful protest under the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- States have also attempted to combat anonymity tools, such as Tor, proxies and VPNs, by denying access to them. China has long blocked access to Tor, and Russian government officials reportedly offered more than $100,000 for techniques to identify anonymous users of Tor. In addition, Ethiopia, Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Kazakhstan have reportedly sought to block Tor traffic. Because such tools may be the only mechanisms for individuals to exercise freedom of opinion and expression securely, access to them should be protected and promoted.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Likewise, Governments often require SIM card registration; for instance, nearly 50 countries in Africa require or are in the process of requiring the registration of personally identifiable data when activating a SIM card. Colombia has had a mandatory mobile registration policy since 2011, and Peru has associated all SIM cards with a national identification number since 2010. Other countries are considering such policies. Such policies directly undermine anonymity, particularly for those who access the Internet only through mobile technology. Compulsory SIM card registration may provide Governments with the capacity to monitor individuals and journalists well beyond any legitimate government interest.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- Certain States have passed laws that require real-name registration for online activity, a kind of ban on anonymity. In the Russian Federation, bloggers with 3,000 or more daily readers must register with the media regulator and identify themselves publicly, and cybercafe users reportedly must provide identification to connect to public wireless facilities. China reportedly announced regulations requiring Internet users to register real names for certain websites and avoid spreading content that challenges national interests. South Africa also requires real name registration for online and mobile telephone users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Prohibition of anonymity online interferes with the right to freedom of expression. Many States ban it regardless of any specific government interest. The Constitution of Brazil (art. 5) prohibits anonymous speech. The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (art. 57) similarly prohibits anonymity. In 2013, Viet Nam outlawed the use of pseudonyms, which forced individuals with personal blogs to publicly list their real name and address. In 2012, the Islamic Republic of Iran required the registration of all IP addresses in use inside the country and cybercafe users to register their real names before using a computer. Ecuadoran law requires commenters on websites and mobile phone owners to register under a real name.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Many States recognize the lawfulness of maintaining the anonymity of journalists' sources. The Mexican Supreme Court and Mexican Code of Criminal Procedures recognize the right of journalists to maintain the anonymity of their sources; yet pressures on journalists are in fact severe. The Constitutions of Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay explicitly protect sources; Chile, El Salvador, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) protect sources in law. The Mozambique Constitution protects sources, while Angola purports to do so by statute. Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand have established case-specific judicial balancing tests to analyse source protection, although pressure on journalists may undermine such protections over time. States often breach source anonymity in practice, even where it is provided for in law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Anonymity has been recognized for the important role it plays in safeguarding and advancing privacy, free expression, political accountability, public participation and debate. The Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights do not address anonymity. During negotiation of the Covenant, it was proposed to include in article 19 (1) the phrase, "anonymity is not permitted". However, this was rejected "on the grounds, among others, that anonymity might at times be necessary to protect the author" and "that such a clause might prevent the use of pen names". The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that "the right to freedom of thought and expression and the right to private life protect anonymous speech from government restrictions". Several States enjoy long traditions of celebrating anonymity in their political cultures, but very few provide general protection in law for anonymous expression. Some States exert significant pressure against anonymity, offline and online. Yet because anonymity facilitates opinion and expression in significant ways online, States should protect it and generally not restrict the technologies that provide it. Several States' judiciaries have protected anonymity, at least in limited instances. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down the warrantless acquisition of anonymous user identity online. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea struck down anti-anonymity laws as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently protected the right to anonymous expression. The European Court of Human Rights has recognized anonymity as important to the freedom of expression but permits limitations in cases where necessary to achieve legitimate objectives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- Some States may identify the mere use of encryption technologies as illicit behaviour. For instance, charges against the Zone 9 blogger collective in Ethiopia included suggestions that the mere training in communication security was evidence of criminal behaviour. Such presumptions fail to meet the standards for permissible restrictions. Similarly, States undermine the rights to privacy and freedom of expression when they penalize those who produce and distribute tools to facilitate online access for activists.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- In a situation where law enforcement or national security arguments may justify requests for access to communications, authorities may see two options: order either decryption of particular communications or, because of a lack of confidence that a targeted party would comply with a decryption order, disclosure of the key necessary for decryption. Targeted decryption orders may be seen as more limited and less likely to raise proportionality concerns than key disclosure, focusing on specific communications rather than an individual's entire set of communications encrypted by a particular key. Key disclosure, by contrast, could expose private data well beyond what is required by the exigencies of a situation. Moreover, key disclosure or decryption orders often force corporations to cooperate with Governments, creating serious challenges that implicate individual users online. Key disclosure exists by law in a number of European countries. In both cases, however, such orders should be based on publicly accessible law, clearly limited in scope focused on a specific target, implemented under independent and impartial judicial authority, in particular to preserve the due process rights of targets, and only adopted when necessary and when less intrusive means of investigation are not available. Such measures may only be justified if used in targeting a specific user or users, subject to judicial oversight.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- A key escrow system permits individual access to encryption but requires users to store their private keys with the Government or a "trusted third party". Key escrows, however, have substantial vulnerabilities. For instance, the key escrow system depends on the integrity of the person, department or system charged with safeguarding the private keys, and the key database itself could be vulnerable to attack, undermining any user's communication security and privacy. Key escrow systems, rejected (along with back-door access) after significant debate in the United States in the so-called Crypto Wars of the 1990s, are currently in place in several countries and have been proposed in others. In 2011, Turkey passed regulations requiring encryption suppliers to provide copies of encryption keys to government regulators before offering their encryption tools to users. The vulnerabilities inherent in key escrows render them a serious threat to the security to exercise the freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The debate on this issue highlights a critical point: requiring encryption back-door access, even if for legitimate purposes, threatens the privacy necessary to the unencumbered exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Back-door access has practical limitations; the exploitation of intentional weaknesses could render encrypted content susceptible to attack, even if access is provided with the sole intention of allowing government or judicial control. Governments certainly face a dilemma when their obligation to protect freedom of expression is in conflict with their obligations to prevent violations of the right to life or bodily integrity, which are put at risk by terrorism and other criminal behaviour. But other recourses are available to States to request the disclosure of encrypted information, such as through judicial warrants. In such situations, States must demonstrate that general limitations on the security provided by encryption would be necessary and proportionate. States must show, publicly and transparently, that other less intrusive means are unavailable or have failed and that only broadly intrusive measures, such as backdoors, would achieve the legitimate aim. Regardless, measures that impose generally applicable restrictions on massive numbers of persons, without a case-by-case assessment, would almost certainly fail to satisfy proportionality.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Some States have implemented or proposed implementing so-called back-door access in commercially available products, forcing developers to install weaknesses that allow government authorities access to encrypted communications. Some Governments have developed or purchased tools to allow such access for domestic surveillance purposes. Senior officials in the United Kingdom and the United States appear to advocate requiring back-door access. States supporting such measures often claim that a legal framework for back-door access is necessary to intercept the content of encrypted communications. Governments proposing back-door access, however, have not demonstrated that criminal or terrorist use of encryption serves as an insuperable barrier to law enforcement objectives. Moreover, based on existing technology, intentional flaws invariably undermine the security of all users online, since a backdoor, even if intended solely for government access, can be accessed by unauthorized entities, including other States or non-State actors. Given its widespread and indiscriminate impact, back-door access would affect, disproportionately, all online users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- State regulation of encryption may be tantamount to a ban, such as rules (a) requiring licences for encryption use; (b) setting weak technical standards for encryption; and (c) controlling the import and export of encryption tools. By limiting encryption tools to government-approved standards and controlling the import or export of encryption technologies, States ensure encryption software maintains weaknesses that allow Governments to access the content of communications. For example, while the law may be in flux, India has provided that service providers may not deploy "bulk encryption" on their networks, while the law has also restricted individuals from using encryption greater than an easily breakable 40-bit key length without prior permission and required anyone using stronger encryption to provide the Government with a copy of the encryption keys. Reports indicate that encryption products in China may be required to adhere to government-approved encryption algorithms that have not been peer-reviewed for security. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority requires prior approval for the use of VPNs and encryption. Cuba requires regulatory authorization for those using encryption. In Ethiopia, the Government has the power to set the technical standards of encryption and recently enacted regulation that criminalizes the manufacture, assembly or import of any telecommunications equipment without a permit. Such regulations impermissibly interfere with the individual use of encryption in communications.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- Outright prohibitions on the individual use of encryption technology disproportionately restrict the freedom of expression, because they deprive all online users in a particular jurisdiction of the right to carve out private space for opinion and expression, without any particular claim of the use of encryption for unlawful ends.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Nonetheless, the regulation of encryption often fails to meet freedom of expression standards in two leading respects. First, restrictions have generally not been shown to be necessary to meet a particular legitimate interest. This is especially the case given the breadth and depth of other tools, such as traditional policing and intelligence and transnational cooperation, that may already provide substantial information for specific law enforcement or other legitimate purposes. Second, they disproportionately impact the rights to freedom of opinion and expression enjoyed by targeted persons or the general population.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Some Governments seek to protect or promote encryption to ensure the privacy of communications. For instance, the Marco Civil da Internet Law of Brazil, adopted in 2014, guarantees the inviolability and secrecy of user communications online, permitting exceptions only by court order. The E-Commerce Act and Telecommunication Act of Austria do not restrict encryption, and the Government has undertaken public awareness campaigns to educate the public about digital security. Greek law and regulations promote the effective use of both encryption and anonymity tools. Germany, Ireland and Norway permit and promote the use of encryption technologies and oppose any efforts to weaken encryption protocols. Similarly, Swedish and Slovak laws do not restrict the use of encryption online. The United States of America encourages the use of encryption, and the United States Congress should further consider a secure data act introduced in the Congress that would prohibit the Government from requiring companies to weaken product security or insert back-door access measures. Several Governments fund efforts to share or train in the use of encryption and anonymity technologies to help individuals evade censorship and protect their security online, including Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States. In addition, export regulations should facilitate the transfer of encryption technologies wherever possible. Although the present report does not provide an overall legal assessment of all national approaches to encryption, these noted elements - non-restriction or comprehensive protection, the requirement of court orders for any specific limitation, and public education - deserve wider application as means to protect and promote the rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- It also bears noting that the United Nations itself has not provided strong communication security tools to its staff or to those who would visit United Nations websites, making it difficult for those under threat to securely reach the United Nations, human rights mechanisms online.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The trend lines regarding security and privacy online are deeply worrying. States often fail to provide public justification to support restrictions. Encrypted and anonymous communications may frustrate law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials, and they complicate surveillance, but State authorities have not generally identified situations - even in general terms, given the potential need for confidentiality - where a restriction has been necessary to achieve a legitimate goal. States downplay the value of traditional non-digital tools in law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts, including transnational cooperation. As a consequence, the public lacks an opportunity to measure whether restrictions on their online security would be justified by any real gains in national security and crime prevention. Efforts to restrict encryption and anonymity also tend to be quick reactions to terrorism, even when the attackers themselves are not alleged to have used encryption or anonymity to plan or carry out an attack. Moreover, even where the restriction is arguably in pursuit of a legitimate interest, many laws and policies regularly do not meet the standards of necessity and proportionality and have broad, deleterious effects on the ability of all individuals to exercise freely their rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 35
- 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).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Third, the State must show that any restriction on encryption or anonymity is "necessary" to achieve the legitimate objective. The European Court of Human Rights has concluded appropriately that the word "necessary" in article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms means that the restriction must be something more than "useful," "reasonable" or "desirable". Once the legitimate objective has been achieved, the restriction may no longer be applied. Given the fundamental rights at issue, limitations should be subject to independent and impartial judicial authority, in particular to preserve the due process rights of individuals.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph