Search Tips
sorted by
300 shown of 1365 entities
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- Internet and telecommunications shutdowns involve measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of human rights law (see A/HRC/32/13, para. 10). Governments typically conduct or order shutdowns, often with the assistance of private actors that operate networks or facilitate network traffic. Large-scale attacks on network infrastructure committed by private parties, such as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, may also have shutdown effects. While shutdowns are frequently associated with total network outages, they may also arise when access to mobile communications, websites or social media and messaging applications is blocked, throttled or rendered “effectively unusable”. Shutdowns may affect towns or regions within a country, an entire country or even multiple countries and may last for periods ranging from hours to months.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- Shutdowns ordered pursuant to vaguely formulated laws and regulations also fail to satisfy the legality requirement. In Tajikistan, the amended Law on the State of Emergency authorizes the Government to block mobile services and Internet access without a court order following the declaration of a state of emergency. The law fails to define when and for what purposes a state of emergency may be declared. Such ambiguity enables authorities’ unfettered discretion to implement shutdowns. In some countries, authorities rely on antiquated laws to justify shutdowns. Laws and regulations adopted and implemented in secret also violate the legality requirement. In the United States of America, the National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications has largely redacted public release of standard operating procedure 303, an executive regulation that establishes “detailed procedures” on the “disruption of cellular service.” While these procedures have not been publicly invoked, the potential for authorities to evade legal scrutiny and public accountability runs contrary to article 19 of the Covenant.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Restrictions on expression must be necessary to achieve aims specified by article 19 (3) of the Covenant and may never be invoked to justify the suppression of advocacy for democratic rights (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34, para. 23; and A/71/373, para. 26). However, governments frequently impose shutdowns during demonstrations, elections and other events of extraordinary public interest, with little or no explanation. In Bahrain, disruptions to mobile and Internet access in Duraz allegedly coincided with sit-ins outside the home of a prominent religious leader whose citizenship the Government had revoked. Internet users in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were reportedly denied Internet access during widespread protests against the Government in 2014. Network disruptions have been recorded during or around elections or protests in Cameroon, the Gambia, India, Myanmar, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Uganda and Montenegro.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- Like any decision to bring legal proceedings, companies may take into account a range of considerations, such as the “potential beneficial [human rights] impact, the likelihood of success, the severity of the case, cost, the representativeness of the case and whether the case is part of a larger trend”. However, companies should assign substantial overall weight to human rights considerations in their decision-making processes and carefully assess both the potential benefits and risks to human rights. For example, companies should be inclined to challenge overbroad requests where there is a reasonable likelihood of success, even if these challenges might be resource intensive; on the other hand, companies might pursue alternative options if a challenge is likely to create adverse precedent or backlash and undermine expression and privacy.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Companies should develop clear and specific criteria for identifying activities that implicate freedom of expression and trigger due diligence processes. The company’s past and ongoing human rights effects, as well as industry practice, provide useful indicators. In the digital access industry, such activities might include mergers and acquisitions; market entry or exit; government or non-government requests for content restriction or user data; the development of or changes to content restriction and privacy policies; product changes regarding content moderation or encrypted communications; arrangements that facilitate prioritized access to Internet content and applications; the design, sale and purchase of network interception and filtering equipment and technologies as well as associated training and consultation services. This list, which is far from exhaustive, “requires constant vigilance and updating”, taking into account new areas of business, developments in technology, and other changes in operating context.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- Individuals depend on digital access to exercise fundamental rights, including freedom of opinion and expression, the right to life and a range of economic, social and cultural rights. They also regularly face obstacles to access: from shutdowns to surveillance. The present report is largely concerned with the obstacles that deny, deter or exclude expression through blunt reliance on digital censorship. The present report has not addressed other serious obstacles — such as the lack of adequate connectivity infrastructure, high costs of access imposed by government, gender inequality, and language barriers — that also may constitute forms of censorship. Much of it therefore focuses on the roles and obligations of States. But States increasingly exercise censorship through the private sector. The report has aimed not only to address the constraints on State action under human rights law but also the principles that private actors should observe in respecting human rights. Key recommendations, already highlighted in the analysis above, are set out below.
- 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
- Gender
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- It is also critical for the Council and States to draw the connections between privacy interference and freedom of expression. To be sure, interferences with privacy must be assessed on their own merits under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other norms of human rights law. But certain interferences — such as overbroad requests for user data and third party retention of such data — can have both near- and long-term deterrent effects on expression, and should be avoided as a matter of law and policy. At a minimum, States should ensure that surveillance is authorized by an independent, impartial and competent judicial authority certifying that the request is necessary and proportionate to protect a legitimate aim.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 82
- Paragraph text
- For years now, individuals and companies within the digital access sector have understood that they play an essential role in the vast expansion of access to information and communications services. They are in a business in which the model for success should involve expanding access, efficiencies, diversity and transparency. They should take the principles identified in the present report as tools to strengthen their own roles in advancing users’ rights to freedom of expression. In this spirit, in addition to high-level policy commitments to human rights, the industry should allocate appropriate resources towards the fulfilment of these commitments, including due diligence, rights-oriented design and engineering choices, stakeholder engagement, strategies to prevent or mitigate human rights risks, transparency and effective remedies. In doing so, the design and implementation of corporate human rights accountability measures should draw on both internal and external expertise, and ensure meaningful input from customers and other affected rights holders, civil society and the human rights community.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 4
- Paragraph text
- There is evidently no formal process according to which a member of the public, let alone a special rapporteur, may seek such information from the United Nations. As a result, even if an intergovernmental organization has a good case for non-disclosure in a particular situation, that argument is not tested (see ST/SGB/2007/6). To address this point one must ask how are institutional decisions and analyses, and decision makers, to be put to the test when such information is so difficult to obtain? Instead of a formal process that would enable the submission of requests for information, public knowledge of the policies and actions of the United Nations and of other intergovernmental organizations is limited to only what those bodies choose to publish, while external evaluation typically depends on the efforts of journalists or researchers who develop access within such organizations. Within the United Nations, and most intergovernmental organizations, there appears to be no obligation on the part of any official source to provide reasons for refusing to disclose 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
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- In the years since, elaboration of the right to information has been a common thread in reporting under the mandate. In 2013, the Special Rapporteur gave a full rationale for a robust right to information: “… public authorities act as representatives of the public, fulfilling a public good; therefore, in principle, their decisions and actions should be transparent. A culture of secrecy is acceptable only in very exceptional cases, when confidentiality may be essential for the effectiveness of their work. There is consequently a strong public interest in the disclosure of some types of information. Moreover, access to certain types of information can affect the enjoyment by individuals of other rights. In such cases, information can be withheld only in very exceptional circumstances, if at all (A/68/362, para. 20).”
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- In parallel with the work of the Human Rights Committee and its special procedures mechanisms, the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly also articulated the importance of freedom of information. As recently as 2016, the Council called upon all States to ensure disclosure of information held by public authorities and “to adopt transparent, clear and expedient laws and policies that provide for the effective disclosure of information held by public authorities and a general right to request and receive information, for which public access should be granted, except within narrow, proportionate, necessary and clearly defined limitations”. Access to information has become a standard element of other human rights treaties (A/70/361, para. 6), and has been widely adopted in international agreements pertaining to development, the environment, food and agriculture and corruption, among other substantive areas. The Aarhus Convention provides an example of international agreement that access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, an area of major public interest, “contribute[s] to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being”. Similarly, in recognition of the essential role played by the right to freedom of information, Sustainable Development Goal 16 links access to information to good governance, human rights and accountability and calls on all Member States to adopt and implement public access to information laws and policies (resolution 70/1, paras. 16.6-16.10).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Third, the United Nations whistle-blower policy provides that: “The individual must make the report in good faith and must submit information or evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct has occurred” (ST/SGB/2017/2, para. 2.1 (a)). In the context of whistle-blowing, a “good faith” requirement should not require justification other than the fact that the whistle-blower aims to disclose waste, fraud, abuse or some other illegal conduct. It should not be understood to require or permit any kind of inquiry into other motives that the whistle-blower may have.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- The media coverage of intergovernmental organizations is also radically different from the day-to-day or hour-to-hour reporting in domestic environments. Considering the size of the international bureaucracy, in comparison to the coverage in robust media environments of national or local governance, very few reporters cover the United Nations or other intergovernmental organizations on a dedicated basis. Those who do cover them must often work hard to get their editors, and certainly their readers, to understand the relevance of these institutions to their own lives and public policy preferences. As a result, members of the international civil service do not find themselves under the journalistic microscope in the same way that domestic bureaucrats do (or should) around the world. Such oversight may be pursued by Member States from time to time, particularly in areas of budgeting, but the difficulty of accessing information about the workings of intergovernmental organizations exacerbates the already difficult situation in terms of the pursuit of accountability at the international level. In this kind of atmosphere, every newspaper or magazine article that uncovers a problematic practice on the part of an intergovernmental organization may be taken as an attack on the institution as a whole, largely because the work of these institutions is so removed from the lives of members of the public. Fixing that, and adopting robust access-to-information policies, is one step towards better understanding, accountability, oversight and protection of the missions of intergovernmental organizations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- After reviewing domestic access to information policies and existing policies adopted by these and other institutions, as well as consulting with stakeholders and examining the related work of the previous Special Rapporteur, I have identified practices that intergovernmental organizations should include as part of their access to information policies.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Although they vary in structure, all national right-to-information laws provide an appeals mechanism in the event of non-disclosure. Intergovernmental organizations should also ensure an independent appeals process, protected against political interference and with the competence to make binding decisions. Grounds for appeal should be broad and clear procedures should be in place, including timelines.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Fourth, the policy could be clearer about the channels that would-be whistle-blowers should and may use to report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal or to report actual cases of retaliation. The strength of the policy is clouded somewhat by its legalism; the United Nations should be undertaking significant outreach to ensure that all staff understand the appropriate channels.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 61b
- Paragraph text
- [The political bodies of the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, and other intergovernmental organizations should:] Ensure the development of monitoring and oversight functions;
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- Pre-existing policies and mechanisms could also be reformed or strengthened to address violations of freedom of expression. For example, a provider could make improvements to its content restriction policy and the training of its content moderation teams to reduce the likelihood of unfair website takedowns or overbroad content restrictions such as filtering. Customer complaint mechanisms could also be updated to allow users to flag network traffic management practices, commercial filtering classifications and other content restrictions they deem to be unduly restrictive or unfair.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Since content delivery networks process large volumes of user requests for Internet content from multiple websites and platforms, they are also vulnerable to government surveillance. In 2016, for example, Amazon Web Services, which houses one of the world’s biggest content delivery networks, reported that government requests to access data more than doubled from the previous year. Researchers also believe that mass surveillance activities strategically target content delivery networks to maximize information collection, but specifically how this is conducted and the extent of content delivery network involvement, if any, is unclear.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- While the duty of States to respect and protect freedom of expression is well-established, the private actors that establish, operate and maintain digital access also play a critical role.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- Telecommunications providers (Telcos) and ISPs (collectively referred to in the present report as “providers”) offer a diverse range of services. While they principally operate and sell access to the series of networks that comprise the Internet, they also enable users to communicate and share information through mobile services and traditional landlines (see A/HRC/32/38, para. 16). While providers remain State-owned in many regions, a growing number are now privately established and managed. The industry is also increasingly multinational: some of the world’s biggest providers operate networks in multiple countries and regions, often through partnerships with domestic companies or their own subsidiaries.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 83
- Paragraph text
- This is not to say that private companies do not face pressures. They do. But when States request corporate involvement in censorship or surveillance, companies should seek to prevent or mitigate the adverse human rights impacts of their involvement to the maximum extent allowed by law. In any event, companies should take all necessary and lawful measures to ensure that they do not cause, contribute or become complicit in human rights abuses. Arrangements with corporate partners should be structured to ensure that all parties uphold their human rights responsibilities. Companies should also seek to build leverage in pre-existing business relationships to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- As with every major technology development, design and engineering choices reflect public policy considerations, and should be guided by respect for human rights. For example, network slicing, a key 5G technology, could enable mobile providers to manage network traffic more efficiently and cater to the ever-expanding range of consumer needs in the Internet of Things (IoT) era. At the same time, networks could also be “sliced” into fast and slow lanes that prioritize access to some Internet applications over others, potentially interfering with net neutrality. Accordingly, companies should ensure that innovations in network equipment and technology — particularly those with multiple uses — are designed and deployed so as to be consistent with freedom of expression and privacy standards.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law also recognizes connections between the right to freedom of expression as contained in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other rights. The right to information is also closely connected to article 25 (1) of the International Covenant, which protects every citizen’s right and opportunity to “take part in the conduct of public affairs”. The Human Rights Committee has emphasized the importance of freedom of information to public participation “without censorship” (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, para. 25). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reiterated and expanded on this point (and others) in its 2015 report on the promotion, protection and implementation of the right to participate in public affairs in the context of the existing human rights law (A/HRC/30/26).
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- Over the past 70 years, the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations have served foundational roles in expanding the rule of law globally. While not always successful, these organizations enable the coordination of policy and the development of legal norms in the fields of security, development, governance and many others, and they are consistently perceived as important institutions by public opinion around the world. Strengthening them, ensuring that they serve the functions for which they were created, enhancing public participation in their work, these are the underlying goals of the present report. Development of access-to-information policies, in keeping with the global legal trends for freedom of information, will advance the objectives of intergovernmental organizations and the Member States that constitute them.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- Intergovernmental organizations should make efforts now to create openness and to establish policies and infrastructure that not only provide information of all kinds but also promote such requests. Intergovernmental organizations should welcome the opportunities to provide transparency because, although transparency can cause embarrassment and, occasionally, give rise to scandal, it also sends a broader message of understanding that public knowledge is critical, especially so since these institutions serve critical public functions. Opacity, by contrast, sends the opposite message: we are distant; our work does not concern you; your support is unnecessary.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- UNDP provides a useful model. Upon a non-disclosure response from its Legal Office, a person making a request may ask for a review of the determination by the Information Disclosure Oversight Panel. According to paragraph 21 of the UNDP information disclosure policy, the Panel consists of four members, all appointed by the UNDP Administrator with input from the Bureaux, including one from the UNDP Office of Audit and Investigations; one from the UNDP Ethics Office; one from a United Nations agency other than UNDP; and one from a non-governmental organization. The Panel reviews the denial of requests to disclose a document or portion of a document to a member of the public, and provides a final recommendation within 30 calendar days of receipt of the appeal. The Panel shares its recommendation with the UNDP Administrator and the relevant internal unit or office. The Administrator has the authority to make the final decision, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Panel. If the Administrator determines that the requested information will not be disclosed, the reasoning is provided.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 61c
- Paragraph text
- [The political bodies of the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, and other intergovernmental organizations should:] Provide comprehensive information concerning organizational governance mechanisms, including election and selection or appointment processes, and broader and simpler accreditation of organizations to participate in and monitor organizational activities;
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 61d
- Paragraph text
- [The political bodies of the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, and other intergovernmental organizations should:] Promote knowledge of access to information policies, including through the provision of clear information on websites and active dissemination and promotion of those policies to staff and stakeholders.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 60a
- Paragraph text
- [International organizations, especially the United Nations, should:] Begin the process of adopting rigorous access-to-information policies. At a minimum, organizations should identify and appoint access-to-information focal points to coordinate the adoption process. I specifically encourage the Secretary-General to appoint the director of the Department of Public Information to lead such an effort on an urgent basis;
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about reports of threats and intimidation of companies, their employees and their equipment and infrastructure. Also, the Council’s emphasis on the important role — and need for protection — of the private sector deserves consideration. States should review all activities to obtain network access to ensure that they are lawful, necessary and proportionate, paying particular attention to whether these activities are the least intrusive means for protecting a legitimate aim.
- 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
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- It is not enough simply to adopt access to information policies, such policies must be rigorous and principled, drawing on the broad global acceptance that the right of access to information held by public authorities is rooted in international law. I encourage international organizations and the United Nations to align their policies with those being adopted and implemented, increasingly, by States, not only to emulate the best aspects of governmental behaviour, but to serve as a model for States to follow.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- While the UNDP process involves strong elements of review, in general the decision-making authority should be lodged in an independent actor, not in the Administrator. Such a rule is reflected in most international standards and can be seen in domestic freedom of information laws. An independent body, such as an ombudsperson or commissioner, should be established to guarantee the right to information outside the chain of the organization’s normal authority.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- A content delivery network (CDN) is a network of servers strategically distributed around the world to enable the efficient delivery of web pages and other Internet content. Large content producers rely on content delivery networks to reach as many users as quickly as possible. A content delivery network stores copies of content hosted on these platforms and redirects a user’s request for such content from the platform’s servers to the servers within its network that are located closest to the user. This process enhances the speed of content delivery, particularly to users located far away from the platform’s servers. Content delivery networks are regarded as an effective safeguard against website blocking; censorship measures targeting servers that host a particular website or platform do not affect the content delivery network’s delivery of copies of the same content to users. Content delivery networks have also become a critical bulwark against network disruptions. The demands of rapid access have incentivized them to invest significant resources in infrastructure and services that can withstand distributed denial-of-service and other malicious attacks.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- States also have obligations to take steps to protect individuals from undue interference with human rights when committed by private actors (see art. 2 (2) of the Covenant; and Human Rights Committee general comment No. 31 (2004)). Human rights law protects individuals against violations by the State as well as abuses committed by private persons or entities (see general comment No. 31, para. 8). The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, endorsed by the Human Rights Council in 2011, explains that States are required to take appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress private actors’ abuse (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principle 1). Such steps include the adoption and implementation of legislative, judicial, administrative, educative and other appropriate measures that require or enable business respect for freedom of expression, and, where private sector abuses occur, access to an effective remedy (see general comment No. 31, para. 7; and A/HRC/17/31, annex, principles 3 and 25).
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- Given their business model, vendors are required to navigate the human rights challenges that their customers face or create. In the area of surveillance, vendors are often bound by “lawful interception” measures, which require the configuration of networks to enable government access to user data. Additionally, vendors may be contracted to establish “administration and mediation systems” that facilitate the sharing of intercepted data between the network operator and the government authority as well as the government systems that process the intercepted data. In arrangements where vendors also manage the networks that they have built, they may also be responsible for handling government requests for user data on the operator’s behalf.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- While dedicated business and human rights professionals within a company are important, due diligence should not be solely their responsibility, but must involve other relevant functional groups within the business. This requires dialogue and collaboration among various business units (such as privacy, law enforcement, government relations, compliance, risk management, product development and operations) and professionals (such as engineers, user-experience researchers, sales teams and business executives). In the privacy context, researchers have found that measures such as “involving and assigning responsibility to senior business unit executives” for privacy management and “embedding staff with privacy protection expertise and personal responsibility for privacy … into the business units”, create an environment conducive to privacy protection. Similar management practices could also ensure business respect for freedom of expression. For small and medium-size enterprises, these considerations might require the entire operation to engage in due diligence activities.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- Given the wide knowledge base required, due diligence processes should draw on external, non-governmental expertise, including local civil society, international human rights organizations, the human rights mechanisms of international and regional organizations, academia and the technical community. Multi-stakeholder fora also provide opportunities for shared learning and mutual accountability. For example, researchers have found that membership in sector- or industry-specific human rights initiatives, such as the Global Network Initiative and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue, coincides with companies’ human rights performance.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Government surveillance today relies on access to communications and associated data belonging to users of privately owned networks. While such access frequently requires the assistance of private actors, it may also be obtained without their knowledge or involvement. As with other forms of surveillance, government access to user data may interfere with privacy in a manner that can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas (see A/HRC/23/40, para. 24). Undue access to personal data implicitly warns users to think twice and possibly avoid controversial viewpoints, the exchange of sensitive information and other exercises of freedom of expression that may be under government scrutiny (see A/HRC/27/37, para. 20).
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 32/13, condemned unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law, and called upon all States to refrain from and cease such measures. This condemnation, which is critical to the Council’s promotion of human rights online, should be supplemented and specified. Intentional prevention or disruption of access includes any action that shuts down or renders ineffective access to telecommunications networks, mobile services, social media platforms and so forth. Future work of the Council that clarifies the rules that apply to digital access, as outlined in this report, would advance the right to freedom of opinion and 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- There is no principled reason why intergovernmental organizations should adopt access-to-information policies that vary from those adopted by States. While notions of “national security” and “public order” may not generally apply to intergovernmental organization for purposes of restrictions on access to information, each institution needs to identify how the restrictions applicable under human rights law apply in their particular context. Some argue that, because of their nature, intergovernmental organizations need to withhold information generated or provided by Member States. But that would overreach, providing a potentially major loophole that could interfere with the development of policies that advance the public’s right to know.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have active institutional websites, training guides and designated access-to-information departments that oversee annual reporting and information disclosure. In its submission, the Center for Law and Democracy stated that the prevalence of access-to-information policies in the international finance sector “is largely due to heightened civil society scrutiny of their work, given its high impact, and also partly due to the fact that Member States are keen to ensure that their money is being handled appropriately”. There is also focused attention on the part of civil society, to such an extent that the Global Transparency Initiative, an informal network of civil society organizations promoting openness at financial institutions, has created a charter elaborating the standards upon which the access-to-information policies of international financial institutions should be based. This rights-based approach to establishing an access-to-information policy includes a presumption of disclosure, generous automatic disclosure rules, a clear framework for processing requests for information, limited (though still often overbroad) exceptions and a right to appeal refusals to disclose information to an independent body. Many financial institutions have access-to-information policies that embody a significant number of the elements of the charter advanced by the Global Transparency Initiative. For example, the World Bank’s policy includes guiding principles upholding maximum access to information, a list of exceptions, a set of procedures describing how information is made available and a two-stage appeals mechanism. Under the appeals mechanism, the requester enjoys recourse to an appeals board, consisting of external and independent outside experts. Its disclosure policy includes a declassification system timeline and a set of definitions. The World Bank has also instituted an “access to information committee”, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the policy.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 60c
- Paragraph text
- [International organizations, especially the United Nations, should:] Consult with those organizations that already have active access-to-information policies, such as UNEP and UNDP, to understand their processes and any lessons learned they may impart;
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Apart from the organizations mentioned above, most intergovernmental organizations operate on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis; different departments authorize or withhold disclosure in the absence of standards.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 60b
- Paragraph text
- [International organizations, especially the United Nations, should:] Develop a multi-stakeholder process to engage civil society, including the media, and Member States in identifying the key elements of an access policy;
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- In practice, companies should as far as possible interpret requests in a manner that ensures the least restriction on content and access to customer data. For example, when requests appear overbroad, Global Network Initiative recommends that companies seek clarification on their scope and obtain appropriate modifications.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- The design of network equipment and technology with multiple uses raises freedom of expression and privacy concerns. Deep packet inspection devices, for example, are used for innocuous technical purposes such as the management of network congestion, but have also been employed to filter Internet content, intercept communications and throttle data flows. Mobile networks are configured to monitor the real-time location of cell phones to ensure that cellular services may be accessed from any location, but such monitoring may also be used to target 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- The digital access industry is in the business of digital expression; its commercial viability depends on users who seek, receive and impart information and ideas on the networks it builds and operates. Since privately owned networks are indispensable to the contemporary exercise of freedom of expression, their operators also assume critical social and public functions. The industry’s decisions, whether in response to government demands or rooted in commercial interests, can directly impact freedom of expression and related human rights in both beneficial and detrimental ways.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Shutdowns ordered covertly or without an obvious legal basis violate the requirement of article 19 (3) of the Covenant that restrictions be “provided by law”. In Chad, the failure of authorities to provide a meaningful public explanation for a series of Internet and social media shutdowns between February and October 2016 created the presumption that they were unlawful. In Gabon, total network outages were allegedly recorded every evening for almost two weeks during the 2016 election period, contrary to government assurances that such services would not be disrupted.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Shutdowns also affect areas beyond those of specific concern. In the lead up to the 2015 National Day Parade in Pakistan, mobile communications networks were allegedly cut off at the parade site as well as in surrounding areas that were not expected to experience any potential security threat. During the Pope’s visit to the Philippines in 2015, the shutdown of mobile networks for safety reasons affected areas well beyond the travel route. When specific services or platforms are disrupted, governments typically target those that are the most efficient, secure or widely used.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Vague laws and regulations violate the legality requirement (see A/HRC/23/40, para. 50). The Communications and Multimedia Act of Malaysia, for example, permits authorities to order the disclosure of “any communication or class of communications” on “the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety”. The Act does not define the conditions that trigger a public emergency and certification by the King is deemed “conclusive proof on the point”. In Qatar, law enforcement enjoys a broad right to seek access to providers’ customer communications in cases of national security or emergency. These provisions empower authorities to request user data based on a mere assertion of national security. Users are thus unable to predict with reasonable certainty the circumstances under which their communications and associated data may be disclosed to authorities.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Providers should only be compelled to release user data when ordered by judicial authorities certifying necessity and proportionality to achieve a legitimate objective. The Criminal Code of Canada requires law enforcement to submit requests for the disclosure of telephone records in criminal investigations to a judge for approval. In Portugal, the authorities must obtain a judicial order to compel the disclosure of communications data. However, national law often exempts user data requests from judicial authorization. In Bangladesh, the authorities require only executive branch approval to access communications data belonging to telecommunications subscribers on the grounds of national security and public order.
- 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
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- Under paid prioritization schemes, providers give preferential treatment to certain types of Internet traffic over others for payment or other commercial benefits. These schemes effectively create Internet fast lanes for content providers that can afford to pay extra and slow lanes for all others. This hierarchy of data undermines user choice. Users experience higher costs or lower quality of service when they attempt to access Internet content and applications in the slow lanes. At the same time, they may be compelled to engage with content that has been prioritized without their knowledge or input.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Several States prohibit paid prioritization. For example, the Netherlands, an early adopter of net neutrality, forbids providers from making “the price of the rates for Internet access services dependent on the services and applications which are offered or used via these services”. The United States Federal Communications Commission 2015 Open Internet Order bans the “management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favour some traffic over other traffic ... in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or to benefit an affiliated entity”.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Zero rating is the practice of not charging for the use of Internet data associated with a particular application or service; other services or applications, meanwhile, are subject to metered costs. Zero rating arrangements vary from data plans that exempt certain Internet services from a subscriber’s usage count to the provision of unmetered access to certain services without the purchase of a plan. Variations notwithstanding, zero rating arrangements privilege access to content and may increase the cost of metered data. For users who struggle to afford metered data, they might end up relying exclusively on zero-rated services, resulting in limited access to information for communities that may already be marginalized in their access to information and public participation.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- While several providers attempt to resist censorship and surveillance requests, many assist in government efforts without meaningful challenge. In the United States, one of the country’s largest providers is alleged to have created a “super search engine” to facilitate law enforcement access to customer phone calls, even though not legally required to do so. In the United Kingdom, a complaint filed with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development alleged that major providers granted the country’s intelligence agency access to their networks and customer data well beyond what was required by the law at the time.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Network shutdowns invariably fail to meet the standard of necessity. Necessity requires a showing that shutdowns would achieve their stated purpose, which in fact they often jeopardize. Some governments argue that it is important to ban the spread of news about terrorist attacks, even accurate reporting, in order to prevent panic and copycat actions. Yet it has been found that maintaining network connectivity may mitigate public safety concerns and help restore public order. During public disturbances in London in 2011, for example, authorities used social media networks to identify perpetrators, disseminate accurate information and conduct clean-up operations. In Kashmir, police have reported on the positive role of mobile phones in locating people trapped during terrorist attacks.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- All digital access providers implicate the freedom of expression of end users in one way or another. Accordingly, even companies that are not consumer facing should consult end users as part of their risk assessment process. Such consultation is distinguishable from the broader multi-stakeholder engagement efforts outlined above and contemplates a “two-way dialogue” to “gather specific views or advice from affected stakeholders (or their representatives) that are then taken into account in the company’s internal decision-making and implementation processes”. For example, vulnerable or marginalized individuals and groups might be consulted while licensing negotiations in high-risk operating environments are ongoing or during the design, testing and rollout of zero rating policies. Meaningful consultation should also involve regular outreach to civil society organizations, which may provide a useful proxy for the needs and interests of end users in particular communities, and might themselves be at greater risk of pressure for their advocacy.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- Transparency is a key feature of the digital access industry’s responsibility to respect. Information about government activities that require corporate assistance or involvement should be disclosed to the maximum extent allowed by law. Companies should be mindful that such information is primarily used by civil society to challenge human rights abuses in court, register grievances before domestic or international mechanisms on behalf of users or seek alternative means of accountability. Accordingly, such disclosures should be regular and ongoing, and in an accessible format that provides appropriate context.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- Human rights engagement with governments, corporate partners and other stakeholders may prevent or mitigate human rights violations down the line. Companies that deal directly with governments should push for human rights safeguards in operating licences and sales contracts, such as assurances that network equipment will not be accessed or modified without the company’s knowledge (which can be for the purpose of facilitating human rights abuses). Timely intervention during litigation (such as amicus filings in cases brought by civil society groups or peer companies against censorship or surveillance laws) and human rights-oriented lobbying in legislative and policymaking processes may also advance legal protections for freedom of expression and privacy.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- Companies should disclose their policies and actions that implicate freedom of expression. Relevant disclosures include data retention and use policies, network management practices and the sale and purchase of network filtering and interception technologies. Companies should also disclose information about the frequency, scope and subject matter of due diligence processes and a summary of high-level findings. In general, companies should consult the growing number of resources that study valuable transparency indicators and other transparency best practices. Users, civil society and peer companies should also be consulted on the design and implementation of transparency measures.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- While certain aspects of corporate responsibility have advanced in recent years, remedial steps often seem omitted from the private sector’s agenda. Yet remedies are a key pillar of corporate responsibility and should be provided whenever businesses “have caused or contributed to adverse impacts” (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principle 22). States bear the primary duty to remediate business-related human rights abuses, particularly those they instigate, such as overbroad content restriction, unlawful user data requests and disproportionate surveillance. Yet companies that fail to implement appropriate due diligence measures and other safeguards may also cause or contribute to such abuses. In those situations, companies should “provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes” (Ibid.).
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- Companies should ensure that all requests for content restriction and customer data comply not only with procedural and legal requirements specified under local law, but also internationally established due process standards. Given the intrusion on human rights, such requests should be authorized by independent and impartial courts or adjudicatory bodies. Furthermore, companies should require that requests be made in writing and present a clear explanation of the legal basis, and the name, title and signature of the authorizing official. Companies should also seek to verify that the relevant official or government entity is authorized to issue this request. These formalities should be requested even if they are not required by law. Additionally, companies should preserve a written record of all communications between them and the requester relating to each request and logs of access to user data when executing the request, provided that such a record does not pose undue privacy risks.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- These general points about access to information are hardly controversial today in discussions of governmental power and policy. A majority of Governments around the world have adopted freedom of information laws, with varying degrees of robustness and levels of implementation. But the movement for open government has largely bypassed global institutions — not totally, but so significantly that “access to information” carries very little currency within the centres of international governance. Ask an international official about access to information and one is more likely to hear about websites and archive policy (extremely important information, but not exactly to the point) than the public’s ability to gain access to the contemporary workings or failings of or debates within intergovernmental organizations or institutions. This is not to begrudge the work done by intergovernmental organizations during the decades of the digital revolution to open up their workings to the public. Whereas researchers and journalists once had to carry out their work at physical libraries serving as repositories for the documentation of the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations, vast amounts of material may now be found on websites, including recently adopted material, which can sometimes be traced within days (and sometimes hours) of adoption. Public information officers should be congratulated for their willingness to ensure the widespread accessibility of official documents. Similarly, there are examples of organizations and agencies opening up files on their spending and contracting to public scrutiny, although with varying degrees of success.
- 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
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- And yet, despite the fact that intergovernmental organizations make much of the public work of their institutions available online, including legal instruments, resolutions, decisions of committees and monitoring bodies, field work and webcasts of public meetings, few organizations have access-to-information policies that enable the public, either on an individual basis or through the work of journalists and researchers, to make requests for information not otherwise disclosed. Organizations that do include such policies, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank, the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and a handful of others — mostly international financial institutions and funds — are discussed in section III below. Even if they entertain such requests, most organizations make little or no effort to publicize their willingness or to highlight the standards by which decisions to disclose information are made.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The right to information under international law has its roots in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As formulated in the International Covenant, everyone enjoys the “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”. The Human Rights Committee has provided a clear enunciation of what the right involves, emphasizing that article 19 “embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies”. “Such information”, the Committee noted, “includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source and the date of production” (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 18). Moreover, the Committee emphasized that the right does not merely depend on public authorities’ reaction to requests for information: “To give effect to the right of access to information, States parties should proactively put in the public domain Government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective and practical access to such information. States parties should also enact the necessary procedures, whereby one may gain access to information, such as by means of freedom of information legislation. The procedures should provide for the timely processing of requests for information according to clear rules that are compatible with the Covenant. Fees for requests for information should not be such as to constitute an unreasonable impediment to access to information. Authorities should provide reasons for any refusal to provide access to information. Arrangements should be put in place for appeals from refusals to provide access to information as well as in cases of failure to respond to requests (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 19).”
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- I make the following core recommendations in keeping with the findings of the present report.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Recognition of the right to information, consistent with article 19 of the International Covenant, has come with the acknowledgment that access to information may be subject to limitations. Those limitations, originating in article 19 (3), must be provided by law and be necessary and proportionate in order to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security or public order or public health or morals. I have previously reviewed how the restrictions permissible under article 19 (3) apply in the context of freedom of information (A/70/361, paras. 8-13). How international organizations might translate the norms of the International Covenant for the purposes of their own access-to-information initiatives is discussed below.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- The legitimate subjects of restriction for States, to protect the rights or the reputation of others, national security or public order or public health or morals, may also serve as a basis for restrictions on the part of intergovernmental organizations. The rights of others, for instance, would counsel for the creation of protections to ensure that disclosures do not interfere with the privacy rights of individuals employed by or in some way connected to the intergovernmental organization. Public order may be an especially salient basis for sensitivity with regard to disclosure in the context of peacekeeping, while national security could be a basis, for example: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) might choose not to disclose certain information about nuclear inspections; or the World Health Organization (WHO) could cite public health concerns as a basis for withholding sensitive information. Even for these generic bases for non-disclosure, the organization would still need to demonstrate necessity and proportionality in a given case.
- 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
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- The policies of intergovernmental organizations must clarify what kinds of information may not be disclosed; in their actual withholding of information, they should be held to a high standard in identifying their reasons. At a minimum, intergovernmental organizations should specify what kinds of information they consider to be sensitive and subject to non-disclosure. In doing so, they should not overstate what is subject to non-disclosure but adhere strictly to notions of public 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 60d
- Paragraph text
- [International organizations, especially the United Nations, should:] Ensure that policies include the main elements identified above, in particular, proactive, clear, searchable and secure disclosures; comprehensive policies with binding rules; clear rules about what information may be withheld; effective complaint and appeals mechanisms; strong implementation, review and monitoring systems; and independent whistle-blowing protections.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- Observers have also noted the growing use of shutdowns to prevent cheating by students during national exams. Uzbekistan may have been the first to invoke this justification during university entrance exams in 2014. In 2016, authorities allegedly ordered shutdowns during exams in India, Algeria, Ethiopia and Iraq.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles emphasize the need for companies to take into account the particularities of their operating context when executing their human rights responsibilities (Ibid.). In the digital access industry, several contexts must be considered.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62a
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Encourage intergovernmental organizations to adopt access-to-information policies that meet the standards identified in the present report;
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- As gatekeepers of vast information networks, providers face significant government pressure to comply with censorship and surveillance activities. To operate a network in a country, they are required to invest substantial physical and business infrastructure, including network equipment and personnel. They are typically subject to local law and other licensing requirements set out in agreements with the State. In addition to legal pressure, providers have also faced extralegal intimidation, such as threats to the safety of their employees and infrastructure in the event of non-compliance.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 3
- Paragraph text
- There have been similar information-poor situations involving peacekeeping, whistle-blowing, allegations of fraud, personnel decisions and conflicts of interest for which a comprehensive freedom of information policy for the United Nations would have advanced public understanding of and engagement with global issues and reinforced mechanisms for accountability. A lack of transparency and proper access to information, for instance, has arguably played a role in the lack of accountability on the part of peacekeepers accused of sexual abuse.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- Among the principles set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 19 (3) states that all restrictions on the right to access information must be provided by law. In the context of States, this is understood to require adoption of restrictions through regular legislative processes with clear rules to avoid excessive restrictions on access to information on the part of decision-makers or undue restrictions on public engagement (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 46). Intergovernmental organizations should ensure that stakeholders, including members of the public and civil society organizations, have the ability to participate meaningfully in the development, review and updating of access policies. Several organizations have undertaken to involve stakeholders when developing policies. For example, UNEP publicized drafts of its interim policy and revised policy, posting them on its website for two months for input and comments from member States, observers and the general public. The organization also held formal hearings discussing the policy, which was live streamed to allow for public participation. The IFC policy evolved in three phases, involving the public and various external stakeholders. Throughout the process, IFC consulted various stakeholder groups, including its clients, the banking community, other financial institutions, civil society organizations, affected communities, an external advisory group, academia and think tanks, practitioners and Governments.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The findings and recommendations in the present report apply to any entity that engages in the provision of digital access as described above. A growing number of Internet companies are adding critical digital access and infrastructure services to their portfolio. For example, Alibaba and Tencent, two of the biggest Chinese Internet companies, now also offer content delivery network services. Google has been experimenting with methods to provide wireless access that bypass traditional providers; in 2010, it launched a high-speed Internet connection service to homes and businesses in select cities in the United States. It is also working with Facebook and Microsoft to build undersea cable networks that would enable them to connect users without relying on third-party equipment or systems.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Standards developing organizations (SDOs), although not strictly “industry actors”, establish technical protocols and standards that enable inter-operability in the telecommunications and Internet infrastructure. Standards development that neglects human rights considerations may adversely impact freedom of expression. For example, the failure to mandate Transport Layer Security (TLS) as a feature of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) left web traffic vulnerable to censorship and surveillance. The technical community’s efforts to incorporate human rights due diligence into standards development is therefore a step in the right direction.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights recognize the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights, independent of State obligations or the implementation of those obligations (see A/HRC/17/31, annex; and A/HRC/32/38, paras. 9-10). They provide a minimum baseline for corporate human rights accountability, urging companies to adopt public statements of commitment to respect human rights endorsed by senior or executive-level management; conduct due diligence processes that meaningfully “identify, prevent, mitigate and account for” actual and potential human rights impacts throughout the company’s operations; and provide for or cooperate in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principles 16-24).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles seek to address the gaps in corporate accountability left because of a lack of national legislation or implementation. However, zealous enforcement of domestic law also poses human rights challenges in the digital access industry. For example, States may hold providers liable for, or otherwise pressure them to restrict, Internet content posted by users on their networks, under laws as varied as hate speech, defamation, cybercrime and lese-majesty. Yet such intermediary liability creates a strong incentive to censor: providers may find it safest not to challenge such regulation but to over-regulate content such that legitimate and lawful expression also ends up restricted. The pressure to assist in State censorship and surveillance also escalates when authorities harass, threaten or arrest employees, or attempt to tamper with the company’s networks or equipment.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- Companies should assume an active and engaged role in developing expression and privacy enhancing measures. For example, digital security measures that detect and prevent distributed denial-of-service attacks and hacking should be implemented in a manner that targets malicious traffic without compromising legitimate interactions among individuals, organizations and communities. Configuring network equipment to minimize unnecessary information collection about users — given local legal and routing requirements — effectively pre-empts overbroad data requests, since companies cannot turn over information they do not have. Even if user information is logged, meaningful limits on whether and for how long they are retained also restrict the scope of personal and sensitive data available for third party access.
- 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
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- Even if local law limits full transparency, companies should nonetheless disclose all relevant and publishable information. For example, if companies are prohibited from disclosing the origin or basis of a shutdown request, they should nevertheless seek to provide regular updates about the services affected or restored, the steps they are taking to address the issue and explanations after the fact. Innovative transparency measures, such as the publication of aggregate data and the selective withholding of information, also mitigate the impact of gag orders and other non-disclosure laws. Companies should disclose all the local laws with which they comply and, where possible, challenge any law or regulation that prevents or hinders them from being transparent to users and the general public.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Arrangements with corporate partners should enable all parties to uphold their human rights responsibilities. In particular, such arrangements should be designed to ensure that subsidiaries, joint venture partners, suppliers and distributors will abide by whatever freedom of expression and privacy policies the company has in place. For example, when local operations receive unconventional censorship or surveillance requests, company policy should ensure that these requests are escalated to global management for review. Whistle-blowing mechanisms should be made available to both employees and contractors. To the extent that companies are already in business relationships that raise human rights concerns, they should seek to build leverage over time to prevent or mitigate harm.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- Companies may also enhance respect for human rights through collaborative action. Such collaboration includes joint outreach and advocacy with peer companies; engagement with regional or international bodies, including human rights mechanisms and economic institutions; and membership in industry associations and multi-stakeholder initiatives. Regular consultations with users, civil society and affected rights holders can also mobilize public support for company efforts to resist government overreach. Cross-sector collaboration strengthens the normative force of agreed upon human rights best practices and standards, intensifying pressure on both governments and peer companies to comply.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- To the extent that companies handle content regulation and user data requests, specific policies and practices to mitigate the harms of government restrictions may be adopted.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- The present report, which explores freedom of information policies in the context of international organizations, placing specific but not exclusive focus on the United Nations system, is the result of a year’s worth of research and investigation, including a call for submissions that generated responses from 16 international organizations and 5 non-governmental actors. Access to information under human rights law, noting the expansion of freedom of information policies adopted by Governments worldwide, is discussed in section II below. The elements necessary for an effective freedom of information policy at the international level are presented in section III, and a series of recommendations for intergovernmental organizations, Member States and non-State participants in international governance are presented in section IV.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- Intergovernmental organizations, like many (if not all) bureaucratic institutions, prize some measure of secrecy and the ability to work outside the public eye. In order to chip away at the secrecy embedded in large institutions, implementation must continue throughout the life of an access policy, including through education of the staff and leadership. The World Bank has developed a staff handbook, a mandatory training programme, workflow automation and records management systems, including dedicated websites, to provide easy access to documents (including an online portal for users to submit requests for information). Such internal programming is necessary to ensure that access to information becomes a part of organizational culture, understood as the responsibility of a public institution rather than an interference with its work.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 2
- Paragraph text
- In his 2016 report detailing the refusal of the United Nations to acknowledge responsibility for the tragic outbreak of cholera in Haiti, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights noted the following: “It has been suggested to the Special Rapporteur by several sources that the legal advice originally submitted to the Secretary-General took a rather different approach to these crucial issues [the responsibility of the United Nations for the cholera outbreak] from that which was finally adopted, but this cannot be confirmed since none of the analyses of the Office of Legal Affairs have been made public. If true, however, it might explain why the arguments adduced in order to abdicate responsibility are both peremptory and inadequately justified (A/71/367, para. 33).”
- 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
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- Second, information about the selection and election process for all categories of committees and monitoring bodies, whether involving Member States, experts or others, should be subject to disclosure. Generally, intergovernmental organizations should be making greater efforts to disclose specific kinds of governance decision-making. For instance, one of the most basic public functions of organizations, elections, whether of State delegations to serve on committees or individuals to serve in expert roles such as special rapporteurs, remain largely closed to public scrutiny. Organizations should devote clearly identifiable space on their websites for information about candidates to elective or selective positions, and they should provide information about State compliance with the organization’s norms in the context of elections to bodies held by State delegations. Those making appointments or selections to expert bodies should make public the reasons for their choices. Timely and interactive access to such processes would enhance their credibility as well as the accountability of those making the selections. As noted below, some kinds of information may be subject to non-disclosure, for instance, if necessary to protect the personal data of individual candidates for positions. Generally, however, there is legitimate dissatisfaction among civil society organizations about their limited ability to learn about such processes as they are happening. In turn, the lack of information leads to misunderstandings about the nature of elective or appointment processes.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Before assessing what elements might constitute an appropriate freedom of information policy for intergovernmental organizations, it is worth examining the norms that apply under human rights law, for it is evident that the policies that underlie the law apply with equal force both to intergovernmental organizations and to States.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 61a
- Paragraph text
- [The political bodies of the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, and other intergovernmental organizations should:] Promote the adoption of access to information policies through resolutions and other governance mechanisms;
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Network neutrality — the principle that all Internet data should be treated equally without undue interference — promotes the widest possible access to information. In the digital age, the freedom to choose among information sources is meaningful only when Internet content and applications of all kinds are transmitted without undue discrimination or interference by non-State actors, including providers. The State’s positive duty to promote freedom of expression argues strongly for network neutrality in order to promote the widest possible non-discriminatory access to 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
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- The censorship resilience of content delivery networks has also made them targets of disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression. In Egypt, the blocking of The New Arab website in August 2016 also disrupted access to content on other sites that, although unaffiliated, shared the same content delivery network, which led researchers to believe authorities had targeted that particular network. In China, a national filter has reportedly blocked EdgeCast content delivery network, which handles content for a number of large websites in the country.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- First, and perhaps most seriously, the new policy does not provide for sanctions against those who retaliate against whistle-blowers. Notably, the policy provides consequences that could favour the person claiming retaliation, such as rescission of the decision, reinstatement, or transfer (ST/SGB/2017/2, para. 8.5). Nonetheless, it does not provide for the imposition of any penalty on the staff or leadership responsible for the retaliatory action. Until the policy provides for such penalties, the protective framework will be weak.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Access information policy at UNEP is focused on a policy of maximum disclosure and openness. Its policy defines the type of information it can disclose, which is any information relating to UNEP and in its possession, and includes established exceptions, consistent with relevant rules and practices of the United Nations, for example, how to handle sensitive information and classification. UNEP has a specific information request mechanism that includes information on how to frame a request, and to whom. Furthermore, it specifies that if there is an exception of concern, the officer handling the request shall seek guidance from a senior legal officer. UNEP has a timeline for handling requests, indicating that receipt of a request must be acknowledged within 5 days, a response within 30 days, and a response to an information appeal within 60 days. The policy contains a fee structure, under which most information is released free of charge, except for printing costs. It requires a reason for the denial of a request for information and establishes an appeals mechanism, made up of a panel of two members of UNEP and one outside representative. In addition, the policy includes a public interest override test according to which UNEP will release information if the benefits of disclosure outweigh potential harm.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Public disclosure should also involve the following points: first, the institutions themselves should engage on a regular basis with members of the public, typically through civil society organizations, to ensure that they are making public all relevant and valuable information. For instance, in its submission for the present report, the International Service for Human Rights highlighted the kinds of information that it believes to be in the public interest and how OHCHR could improve its proactive disclosures. Regular dialogue with civil society organizations would enable all intergovernmental organizations to be efficient in the disclosure of information, and would likely reduce the resources devoted to such requests. Second, disclosed information must be shared in a way that is easily searched and analysed. Third, in an age of surveillance and information insecurity, all organizations must take steps to ensure both the security of their information systems and of the individuals who may be seeking access to them. I have already raised the issue of digital insecurity at OHCHR, including in my 2015 report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/29/32, para. 37). The OHCHR website, and the website of the United Nations itself, remain unencrypted (as do many other institutions), potentially deterring those concerned about the privacy of their online searches from seeking 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- International human rights law establishes the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and through any media of his or her choice (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 19). The Human Rights Council and General Assembly have reiterated that the freedom of expression and other rights apply online (see Council resolutions 26/13 and 32/13; General Assembly resolution 68/167; and A/HRC/32/38). The Human Rights Committee, previous mandate holders and the Special Rapporteur have examined States’ obligations under article 19 of the Covenant. In short, States may not interfere with, or in any way restrict, the holding of opinions (see art. 19 (1) of the Covenant; and A/HRC/29/32, para. 19). Article 19 (3) of the Covenant provides that States may limit freedom of expression only where provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34 (2011); A/71/373; and A/HRC/29/32).
- 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
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- The government actions described below often fail to meet the standards of human rights law. Moreover, a lack of transparency pervades government interferences with the digital access industry. Failures of transparency include vague laws providing excessive discretion to authorities, legal restrictions on third party disclosures concerning government access to user data and specific gag orders. The lack of transparency undermines the rule of law as well as public understanding across this sector.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62c
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Focus on ensuring the broadest possible access to information, only seeking to protect from disclosure State-generated information that could be withheld under international human rights law, in particular article 19 (3) of 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Zero rating arrangements may provide users with limited Internet access in areas that would otherwise completely lack access. However, broader Internet access may still remain out of reach for users, trapping them in permanently walled online gardens. The assumption that limited access will eventually ripen into full connectivity requires further study. It may be dependent upon factors such as user behaviour, market conditions, the human rights landscape and the regulatory environment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- During the period of normative expansion in the establishment and work of human rights bodies, States were also adopting legislation to implement the right to information, while many incorporated a right to information as a matter of constitutional law. At the domestic level, States have increasingly opened up the workings of government as a matter of law, if not always achieving the best implementation practices. Nevertheless, the environment of confidentiality and withholding that tends to prevail within bureaucracies and in political leadership around the world remains difficult to eliminate. A prevailing exclusion of national security information from right-to-information legal frameworks encourages a tendency to look at disclosures, even those of the highest public interest without meaningful harm to governmental interests, as contrary to “the national interest”. Such attitudes put significant negative pressure on access-to-information laws, and they may have a spill-over effect beyond traditional national security environments. In short, while the legal framework for access to information has improved globally, open government still faces significant barriers in terms of overcoming attitudes and instilling implementation practices.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- A growing number of providers are establishing arrangements with media and other content-producing companies that threaten net neutrality and are lobbying intensely for concessions on net neutrality standards. For example, as European regulators were developing net neutrality guidelines, 17 major providers in the region issued the “5G Manifesto”, warning that “excessively prescriptive” guidelines would delay their investment in 5G, the next generation of mobile Internet connection.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- The failure to explain or acknowledge shutdowns creates the perception that they are designed to suppress reporting, criticism or dissent. Reports of repression and State-sanctioned violence in the wake of network disruptions have led to allegations that some States exploit the darkness to commit and cover up abuses. In Sudan, for example, Internet access was shut down for several hours during a deadly crackdown on demonstrators protesting fuel price hikes in September 2013.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Transparency within intergovernmental organizations advances the same objectives that underlie the expansion of freedom of information and open government initiatives. As noted in the submission of the Centre for Law and Democracy, such organizations are public institutions, performing governmental functions, much as States do. Members of the public can only seriously engage with the critical issues pursued by intergovernmental organizations when they have access to information about them. In the context of multilateral institutions, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly noted that for “civil society to engage effectively in global decision-making, the right to access information is indispensable” (A/69/365, para. 15). In countries where intergovernmental organizations do extensive work, whether it involves peacekeeping or development assistance or human rights, to name a few areas, genuine engagement and participation means the ability to gain current information about the work of such missions. It means having mechanisms of public accountability so that individuals can determine whether the organizations are serving their interests or those of the organization itself, including, possibly, corporations, local leaders or corrupt participants in public life.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- It bears re-emphasizing that article 19 of the International Covenant guarantees everyone the right to seek and receive information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. At a minimum, States are obligated not to stand in the way of members of the public receiving information from organizations like the United Nations and its departments and agencies, absent a demonstration of the legitimate application of the limitations found in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. One can go a step further and highlight the broad consensus that States are obligated not only to avoid illegitimate restrictions on access to information but that they should create enabling environments for all rights under article 19 of the Covenant. While intergovernmental organizations clearly enjoy an independent personality under international law, their main policies and legal norms are often the result of the decisions of their Member States. As such, States should encourage the creation of environments that include access to information not merely because of some legalistic approach to intergovernmental organizations and the responsibility of the United Nations but because their citizens — all citizens, everywhere — should enjoy the right to information of all kinds regardless of frontiers, including information about intergovernmental organizations and the United Nations.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Sixteen institutions made submissions for the compilation of the present report, which I supplemented with interviews and consultations. Despite extensive outreach, dozens of intergovernmental organizations and agencies within the United Nations system did not respond to the mandate’s call for submission. I was particularly disappointed not to receive a submission from the Secretariat of the United Nations Headquarters in New York. While organizations that did not make any submission may have some kind of access-to-information policy in place, 10 organizations that made submissions have formal access-to-information, disclosure or transparency policies; two are currently drafting policies; one does not have a formal access-to-information policy but provides access through an array of its policies; and three do not have any information access policies. Based on research, it appears that most international organizations lack binding policies to protect and promote the right of access to information. Put another way, based on my research, with a few notable exceptions, intergovernmental organizations have failed to create mechanisms that can penetrate their opacity and enable easy access to their operations. Most egregiously, the United Nations does not have an access-to-information policy that applies to every department and specialized agency; it does not even have ad hoc standards for response to access-to-information requests.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- The UNDP information disclosure policy provides a good example of how to approach exceptions. Its policy, which notes that the organization operates in contexts of “crisis, conflict or humanitarian disasters” that pose challenges to UNDP operations and Member State interests, identifies several categories of information deemed confidential and “not available to the public”. Not all of the categories of exceptions are entirely appropriate, such as “[c]ommercial information where disclosure would harm either the financial interests of UNDP or those of third parties involved” or “[i]nformation which, if disclosed, in UNDP’s view would seriously undermine the policy dialogue with Member States or implementing partners”. (These exceptions are found in the policies of other intergovernmental organizations as well.) Both categories seem overbroad and subject to undue discretion of the organization. Nonetheless, recognizing this potential for overbreadth and potentially illegitimate non-disclosure in paragraph 12 of its information disclosure policy, UNDP provides that it could disclose even “confidential” information “if it determines that the overall benefits and public interest of such disclosure outweighs the likely harm to the interest(s) protected by the exception(s)”. Such authority rests not only in UNDP itself but in the independent panel created to oversee such decisions.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Not every organization with an access-to-information policy deals with exceptions in the same way, but a fundamental problem with many is that they do not provide a basis for disclosure in the public interest (which UNDP does provide). For instance, while the policy of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) largely follows along the lines of UNDP, it fails to include a public interest test to provide for disclosure, even in situations where non-disclosure may be permitted. UNESCO has recently adopted a policy that, while noting a commitment to transparency (and despite its role in the United Nations system in promoting access to information), includes similar restrictions as UNDP. However, like UNFPA, it does not provide a public interest override, such that material normally subject to non-disclosure could be released. If an organization does not provide a public interest test, its exceptions appear rigid and likely to result in barriers to transparency. As part of any public interest test, organizations should include a strong presumption that information about threats to the environment, health or human rights and information revealing corruption should be released because of heightened public interest in such information. This would be consistent with emerging norms governing State access to information policies.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- From the early days of the mandate’s work, Special Rapporteurs have elaborated on the right to information. In only the second report of the mandate, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the “vitally important” roles served by the right to information (E/CN.4/1995/32, para. 135), and the 1998 report emphasized that “the right to access to information held by the Government must be the rule rather than the exception”. The 1998 report also noted a specific right to information about “State security” and, in a notable statement, raised concerns about government prosecution of civil servants who disclose “information which has been classified”, adding that Governments “continue to classify far more information than could be considered necessary”. By this the Special Rapporteur meant that Governments should only withhold material in which “serious harm to the State’s interest is unavoidable if the information is made public and that this harm outweighs the harm to the rights of opinion, expression and information”. He concluded, “The tendency to classify or withhold information on the basis of, for example, ‘Cabinet confidentiality’ is too often the practice, which adversely affects access to information” (E/CN.4/1998/40, paras. 12 and 13).
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Like Governments, intergovernmental organizations should establish an explicit and comprehensive legal framework that recognizes a right to information applicable throughout the entire organization and its subsidiary organs. Any access policy should, explicitly or implicitly, promote disclosure of information in the public interest — that is, information to which the public has a right of access because of the benefit it would provide to understanding of the work of the organization. Information should be defined broadly to include all records, documents, data, analyses, opinions and processes, regardless of the media in which it is held, in keeping with the principle that individuals have a right to information and ideas of all kinds, subject only to narrow non-disclosure rules. The policy should be uniform across the organization, and should be written in plain language. It should also be binding, precluding the organization from withholding information on any basis found outside the policy itself. For instance, WFP generally recognizes a wide range of categories of information, capturing all sorts of media, and emphasizes the policy as a “directive” to be carried out by senior management.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- International organizations must open themselves up to greater public scrutiny and participation if they are to thrive. Their leaders seem to recognize this, as is evident in their extensive websites, professional (if underresourced) communications offices and the public presence of a great number of officials of intergovernmental organizations in social, broadcast and print media. However, apart from a handful of exceptions noted herein, this recognition on their part does not generally lead to policies that promote and regularize the exercise of the right to information. Why this is so is not difficult to understand: with perhaps the exception of the work of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, and high-level ministerial meetings of Heads of State and Government, intergovernmental organizations generally conduct their day-to-day operations far from the media’s gaze, a situation that changes only in the event of scandal or abuse. The absence of that gaze, and the haze generated by large and difficult to penetrate bureaucracies, means that officials generally do not feel the pressure to release information. This, however, is a mistake.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62b
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Participate actively in the development of policies that advance everyone’s right to freedom of 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
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- The intersection of State behaviour and corporate roles in the digital age remains somewhat new for many States. One profitable way forward, at both the international and domestic levels, would involve the development of national action plans on business and human rights in order to establish meaningful avenues for all categories of the digital access industry to identify and address their respective human rights impacts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- IXPs enable the exchange of Internet traffic between and among networks managed by different providers within a country or region. This form of interconnection prevents local or regional Internet traffic from taking long and circuitous international routes, thus enhancing the speed and efficiency of Internet connectivity. IXPs may be established by Internet infrastructure companies as part of a broader suite of services sold to providers or operated as non-profit or volunteer organizations.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Some evidence suggests that vendors may provide support for government censorship and surveillance. In a case pending before United States courts, Cisco has been accused of designing, implementing and helping to maintain a Chinese surveillance and internal security network known as the Golden Shield. (Cisco denies those allegations.) In Ethiopia, human rights groups found that ZTE Corporation had designed and installed a customer management database for Ethio Telecom that enabled intrusive surveillance.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence processes should critically examine at least applicable local and international laws and standards, including potential conflicts between local laws and human rights; freedom of expression and privacy risks embedded in the company’s products and services; strategies to mitigate and prevent these risks; limits on the effectiveness of these strategies given the company’s legal, regulatory or operating environment; and the potential to promote human rights throughout the company’s operations.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- Companies should be quick to adapt due diligence processes to changes in circumstances or operating context. For example, risk assessment should continue after the design phase and at regular intervals throughout the life cycle of the product or service, taking into account factors such as technology and infrastructure changes and associated security vulnerabilities, alterations in consumer behaviour, and modifications of the legal, political and social environment where companies operate.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- Companies have an interest in operating in a legal environment that is human rights compliant, consistent due process and rule of law norms. Companies should explore all legal options for challenging requests that are excessively intrusive — such as requests for shutdowns of entire services or platforms, website takedowns that are clearly targeted at criticism or dissent or customer data requests that cover broadly unspecified 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Remedies may include both financial and non-financial means (Ibid., principle 27). When freedom of expression is impaired, appropriate remedies may include access to grievance mechanisms and information about the violation and guarantees of non-repetition. Users whose accounts have been wrongly suspended may want the satisfaction of being heard and provided with explanations and assurances of non-repetition.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The protective role that States may exercise over the private sector can only go so far. They should not be promoting the economic gain of private entities over users’ rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Thus, States should prohibit attempts to assign priority to certain types of Internet content or applications over others for payment or other commercial benefits.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Where rule of law prevails, Governments and Government officials stay accountable to their citizens through a variety of mechanisms. Too often, however, accountability is a chimera, and nowhere is this more evident than in situations where authorities withhold information from the public. Without freedom to access information of all kinds — in particular when Governments withhold information from the public and its judicial, legislative and media mechanisms — abuses may take place, policies affecting the general welfare may not be tested and improved and overall public engagement and participation diminishes, often by design. By contrast, information-rich environments help promote good decision-making and meaningful public debate, building credibility for public institutions. Even if implementation may not always meet the highest standards, Governments have recognized this fundamental point, at the intersection of good, open government and the human right of access to information, recognizing that the credibility of public authorities depends on their willingness to engage with those who fund their work and elect their key officials — the members of the public.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Laws that require private actors to create large databases of user data accessible to the government raise necessity and proportionality concerns. In Kazakhstan, telephone numbers, e-mail and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and billing information must be stored by the provider for two years. The Russian Federation requires private actors to store the content of all their customers’ calls and text messages for six months, and related communications metadata for three years. Both countries also require such data to be stored locally. In countries where mobile phones are a dominant means of communication, mandatory SIM card registration laws effectively require the majority of the population to divulge personally identifiable information (see A/HRC/29/32, para. 51). The mandatory retention of large amounts of user data runs contrary to established due process standards, such as the need for individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.
- 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
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- Since the Special Rapporteur’s report on encryption and anonymity (A/HRC/29/32), unnecessary and disproportionate measures to undermine encryption have increased globally and threaten to undermine both the freedom of expression and digital security of users. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for example, the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act permits the Secretary of State to issue “technical capability notices” that require providers to remove “electronic protection” from communications — a measure that could compel backdoors or otherwise limit or weaken encryption. States have not provided sufficient evidence that such vulnerabilities are the least intrusive means of protecting national security and public order, particularly given the breadth and depth of other investigative tools at their disposal (Ibid., para. 39).
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Vendors supply the hardware and software that form the basis of Internet and telecommunications networks. Network equipment typically includes routers, switches and access points, which enable multiple devices and networks to connect with each other (see A/HRC/32/38, para. 18). Vendors have also diversified their business to provide Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) equipment, which enables wireless calls and Internet of Things (IoT) technology, which enables networking among smart devices. Vendors are rarely consumer-facing: their main customers are network operators, such as governments, ISPs, or content delivery networks. As a result, they are required to configure networks to the technical standards specified by these operators, including standards dictated by local law (such as law enforcement and national security requirements). However, vendors may also design or modify equipment and technology to ensure consistency with private or government specifications.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Vague and open-ended government requests and legal frameworks make it difficult for companies to determine whether they are in compliance with local law. However, companies can mitigate this uncertainty by adopting company-wide policies that direct all business units, including local subsidiaries, to resolve any legal ambiguity in favour of respect for freedom of expression, privacy and other human rights. Such policies are based not only on the provider’s human rights responsibilities, but also the State’s obligation to comply with applicable human rights laws and relevant protections under local law (such as constitutional, criminal procedure and data protection laws).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- The industry’s dual role as an enabler of digital access and a natural point for State-imposed restriction heightens its importance as a bulwark against government and private overreach. For example, providers are usually best placed to push back on a shutdown or user data request. Content delivery networks are strategically positioned on the Internet infrastructure to counter malicious attacks that disrupt access. Vendors are uniquely qualified to assess whether their products will be or are being used to facilitate human rights abuses, particularly when they conduct sales due diligence or perform ongoing services.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 1
- Paragraph text
- The workings of international organizations, including the United Nations, are deeply opaque to most people. Apart from the work of their highest profile bodies, what they do and how they do it is largely hidden from public view. In such an environment, how does information of legitimate interest to the public get disclosed? How does the general public, including citizens, students, journalists, scholars, activists, parliamentarians and even representatives of Member States, keep track of how the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations operate and how international civil servants comply with their obligations? What policies, if any, direct international officials to share information? What standards do international officials rely upon when deciding whether to withhold information? In general, how do intergovernmental organizations ensure their own compliance with the human rights norm guaranteeing everyone the right to seek and receive information of all kinds, especially information held by public authorities?
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- Some Governments ensure oversight through annual reports that review the status of their freedom of information regime. The World Bank has followed suit by publishing annual freedom of information reports. In the spirit of such disclosure, intergovernmental organizations should consider posting the responses to requests on their websites so that all subsequent requesters have access to that information. Annual reports that provide statistics regarding the implementation of their access-to-information policies, and their consistency with article 19 of the International Covenant, ensure the proper review of existing policies. For example, IFC monitors its own policy and issues periodic reports on its implementation. This helps show the tangible effects its policy has on increasing transparency and access to information. It also discloses monthly summaries of requests for the public to view and monitor and discloses how many appeals were filed before the Appeals Board.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Access-to-information policies should be subject to regular review and take into account the changes in the nature of information held, including a formal requirement that they be subject to comprehensive review on a regular basis. This allows an opportunity to assess how well the implementation process is and whether there is room for improvement. Moreover, it provides an opportunity to amend the policy to provide for greater information disclosure and to align it with international best practices. These reviews should be conducted in a fully transparent manner and include multi-stakeholder consultation to get feedback from a broad range of stakeholders. Particular attention should be paid to whether categories of information need to be changed. Intergovernmental organizations need to reflect the changing demands of the public and should operate on policies that best suit these demands.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Two years ago, in my annual report to the General Assembly (A/70/361), I provided an assessment of how international human rights law protects sources of information and whistle-blowers. That report sought to clarify the norms promoting and protecting whistle-blowing, specifically because of the access to information that such rules seek to guarantee, particularly information in the public interest such as, inter alia, waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, human rights violations, war crimes or crimes against humanity. The points highlighted in that report apply in the context of this report as well. Indeed, the 2015 report emphasized the importance of whistle-blower protections in intergovernmental organizations and encouraged the development of policies that would define whistle-blowing broadly to cover all sorts of otherwise unauthorized disclosures, the reinforcement of the independence and effectiveness of whistle-blowing mechanisms, the adoption of strong transparency and access-to-information processes and protection against retaliation.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Whistle-blower protections remain an issue of the highest importance, something the Secretary-General acknowledged when, in one of his first steps, he promulgated a revised policy on the protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits or investigations (ST/SGB/2017/2). The policy aims to strengthen the protections of whistle-blowers, including by enhancing protection for individuals who report misconduct to external actors under specified conditions. I do not intend here to provide a detailed evaluation of the new policy but rather to emphasize the following considerations to ensure that the policy, over the long term, effectively promotes and protects whistle-blowers.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Second, the Ethics Office remains central to the whistle-blowing policy. The creation of the Ethics Office in 2006 gave United Nations staff an important mechanism to ask questions and seek advice concerning the ethical conduct of one’s work — but it is not the appropriate place for a whistle-blower protection mandate. Importantly, it does not have a mandate to advocate on behalf of staff, nor is it necessarily expert in the global norms protecting and promoting whistle-blowing. Alternatively, an independent whistle-blower office would advise would-be whistle-blowers, evaluate complaints and provide strong protections against retaliation. Over time, an office that sees its sole duty as advocating whistle-blower protections and responding to retaliation would provide staff with a sense of security by ensuring that their reports are to be managed by an office dedicated to accountability. It should have standards that reflect international norms and focus not on the image of the institution but on the importance of disclosing wrongdoing.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- On this latter point, I note that the Ethics Office relies in part on the 2013 International Civil Service Commission’s standards of conduct for the international civil service, which, while generally valuable, provide that: “It would not be proper for international civil servants to air personal grievances or criticize their organizations in public. International civil servants should endeavour at all times to promote a positive image of the international civil service, in conformity with their oath of loyalty”. This standard, and the tone it sets, counteracts the notion that staff should report misconduct that may, in some serious cases, fail to promote a positive organizational image.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- A subject of discussion among academics and lawyers for many years, it is often argued that human rights law, including article 19 of the International Covenant and the other instruments identified herein, does not strictly apply to intergovernmental organizations, certainly not in the same way that human rights law binds States. Yet, looking at the issue purely from the perspective of organizational obligations and immunities, a legalistic approach to the human rights obligations of intergovernmental organizations misses the most salient points, both in law and in policy.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- One of the earliest access-to-information policies was established by UNDP, which operates on a presumption in favour of disclosure. It defines what type of information it discloses and where the policy applies. A notable feature of this policy is that it provides a link to publicly available information to help requesters determine what type of information they might need to request. Like many intergovernmental organizations, UNDP has a list of exceptions to disclosure. Like UNEP, it has a harm test and a public interest override, under which an independent Information Disclosure Oversight Panel determines whether certain types of information should be disclosed because such disclosure would serve a public benefit. UNDP has specific request times: 30 calendar days for information requests; and 30 calendar days for appeals. It includes not only an annex of information that describes exceptions and the information normally made available to the public but it also a flowchart as a visual aid to describe the information-request process.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Requests for information should be a necessary fall-back position in any access-to-information policy. At the foundation of such a policy, organizations must actively disclose information that is likely to be of relevance to the public, and they should do so on a timely basis, including consistent and usable updates, especially of websites. In this regard, OHCHR has made significant strides in the digital age, providing access to outcome documents from both charter-based (for example, the Human Rights Council and its special procedures mechanisms) and treaty-based mechanisms, webcasting of meetings of those mechanisms, regular press briefings by the spokesperson of the United Nations High Commissioner, annual reports and periodic reporting to the Council on all special procedures communications. While there are still important areas for improvement, the OHCHR public disclosures policy mirrors what other institutions are doing across the United Nations system and at other intergovernmental organizations.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Two categories of information deserve specific mention so as to clarify exactly how access to information advances the public’s right to participation. First, while most organizations seek to exclude “internal documents”, they should in fact be providing access to all information that enables the public to understand the bases for decisions. The Aarhus Convention, for instance, defines “environmental information” as including “cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decision-making”. Organizations should include the “analyses and assumptions” that underlie their decisions within the definition of information that may be disclosed, including not just economic but also legal, political, institutional, operational and similar kinds of analyses and assumptions. Most intergovernmental organizations are not in favour of such disclosures, but non-disclosure of important process documentation hinders public understanding of their work. At the very least, it should be presumed that such information is subject to disclosure.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- Organizations should also avoid limiting who may make requests for information. Just as article 19 of the International Covenant guarantees everyone’s access to information, without limiting or defining “everyone”, intergovernmental organizations should be open to requests regardless of the requester, without regard to concepts such as “standing” or “harm” to demonstrate a reason for the request. A person or entity making a request should not be required to provide a justification for it. In order to demonstrate that everyone should enjoy such access, policies should keep costs to the absolute minimum, eliminating fees to the greatest extent possible.
- 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
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- States may impose restrictions on access to information held by public authorities only when they meet the three-part test, of legality, necessity and proportionality, and also legitimate objective. The general limitations on access to information applicable to States should also apply to intergovernmental organizations. The requirement of legality (“provided by law”) requires that regular procedures be followed in the adoption of restrictions and that there be clarity and specificity in the rules. They must not be drafted so generically that they provide unfettered discretion on the power of the decision makers to refuse disclosure of information (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 25). Similarly, the requirement of necessity, which implies proportionality, means that the policies of intergovernmental organizations should permit non-disclosure only when disclosure would indeed cause likely harm to a legitimate interest (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 38).
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- In 2004, the Special Rapporteur joined with representatives of regional mechanisms for freedom of expression to emphasize the importance of freedom of information as a fundamental right. Together they emphasized that addressing the widespread “culture of secrecy” in public institutions required not only legislation and implementation but also “sanctions for those who wilfully obstruct access to 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
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- Dynamic and flexible access to information policies are feasible, as demonstrated by the policies adopted by several organizations. Finance, environment and development institutions tend to have active approaches to information, responsive to the demands of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders that their work be transparent and open to genuine scrutiny.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- To operationalize its human rights commitments, the digital access industry should allocate appropriate resources to at least the practices described below. Although these principles are evaluated in the context of digital access, they also bear relevance to other sectors of the digital economy, such as social media, commerce, surveillance and search.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence processes enable a digital access provider to identify, prevent and mitigate the human rights impacts of its activities (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principle 19). While one-size-fits-all due diligence approaches are neither possible nor advisable, human rights impact assessments provide a means of assessing and addressing risks to freedom of expression and privacy. Due diligence involves at least 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- Duration and geographical scope may vary, but shutdowns are generally disproportionate. Affected users are cut off from emergency services and health information, mobile banking and e-commerce, transportation, school classes, voting and election monitoring, reporting on major crises and events, and human rights investigations. Given the number of essential activities and services they affect, shutdowns restrict expression and interfere with other fundamental 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)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63a
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Engage directly and seek a formal role with intergovernmental organizations in the process of development of access to information policies, including by identifying for them the key areas of interest in 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63b
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Make requests for information from intergovernmental organizations as soon as possible, even before the development of access policies, in order to determine the way in which they currently handle such formal requests;
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 63c
- Paragraph text
- [Civil society organizations, the media and members of the public should:] Share information with other organizations and with the Special Rapporteur about the experience of engaging with intergovernmental organizations in the development of access policies.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Direct access to Internet and telecommunications networks enables authorities to intercept and monitor communications with limited legal scrutiny or accountability. Technological advances have enhanced the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain a direct connection to networks without the involvement or knowledge of the network operator. During the 2014 general election in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, intelligence authorities allegedly obtained direct access to the country’s major telecommunications networks to intercept the communications of over 20,000 people, including politicians, activists, government officials and journalists. Many targets were also sent a transcript of their phone calls. In India, it appears that authorities are developing a Central Monitoring System programme that would enable “electronic provisioning of target numbers by government agency without any manual intervention from telecommunications service providers on a secure network.” These activities do not appear to be provided by law, lacking both judicial authorization and external oversight. Furthermore, the risks they pose to the security and integrity of network infrastructure raise proportionality concerns.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- These competing considerations have led to variations in regulatory approaches. In India, public concern over Facebook’s Free Basics culminated in a ban on any arrangement that “has the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged to the consumer on the basis of content”. Restrictions on zero rating are in effect in Chile, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Japan. In contrast, the United States, followed later by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), adopted guidelines involving a case-by-case approach. States that adopt a case-by-case approach should carefully scrutinize and, if necessary, reject arrangements that, among other things, zero-rate affiliated content, condition zero rating on payment or favour access to certain applications within a class of similar applications (for example, zero rating certain music streaming services rather than all music streaming). Additionally, States should require meaningful corporate disclosures about network traffic management practices. For example, Chile requires ISPs to disclose Internet access speeds, price or speed differentials between national and international connections, and related service guarantees.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- IXPs handle an enormous volume of Internet traffic that may be filtered or intercepted at government request. The growing number of censorship and surveillance incidents involving IXPs indicates that they are major access choke points, even if their precise role is unclear. For example, in 2013, the manner in which access to YouTube was blocked in Pakistan indicated that the platform was filtered by IXPs, rather than ISPs, through a method known as “packet injection”. According to a leaked internal memo of a multinational ISP operating in Ecuador, users were unable to access Google and YouTube in March 2014 because the private Association of Internet Providers of Ecuador — which runs two of the major IXPs in the country — was “blocking access to certain Internet websites by request of the national Government”. The revelations of mass surveillance conducted by the United States National Security Agency have raised concern among technologists that the agency is intercepting a significant proportion of domestic and foreign Internet traffic by targeting United States IXPs. In September 2016, the world’s largest Internet exchange point, which is based in Germany, challenged legal orders issued by the country’s intelligence agency to monitor international communications transiting through its hub.
- 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
- 2017
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The industry’s human rights impacts are frequently global, affecting users even in markets beyond those served by the company concerned. For example, surveillance of a single Internet exchange point in the United States may capture large streams of communications among Americans and foreigners, and even those entirely among foreigners. Similarly, security vulnerabilities in network design affect all users who rely on the compromised network for digital access, including users located far away from the network. Accordingly, companies should identify and address the broader implications of their activities for freedom of expression generally, in addition to their impacts on customers or rights holders in the markets they operate. To be sure, the manner in which they account for their impacts may vary according to their size, resources, ownership, structure and operating context (Ibid., principle 14). For example, all providers should vet user data requests for compliance with a minimum set of formalities, regardless of the origin of the request or the user affected. But while a multinational provider may have dedicated teams vetting requests, a small or medium-size provider may task its legal or public policy teams to perform the same function.
- 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
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- In paragraph 10 of its general comment No. 34 (2011) on article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, the Human Rights Committee explained that any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited. No one may be penalized, harassed, intimidated or stigmatized for holding an opinion. The right to hold opinions in a digital age is often subject to interference. For example, work product, journals and diaries stored on laptops and in the cloud are increasingly subject to attack (see A/HRC/29/32, paras. 19-21). Communications include allegations that individuals may be harassed at least in part because of their membership in an organization. Such harassment may amount to impermissible interference with opinion under article 19 (1), in addition to interference with the right to freedom of association under article 22 of the Covenant.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- In contrast to the unconditional prohibition of interference with opinion, article 19 (3) of the Covenant imposes three requirements according to which States may restrict the exercise of freedom of expression. Those conditions are to be implemented narrowly (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, paras. 21-36). Article 19 (3) provides that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression involves special duties and responsibilities and may 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; and (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Article 20 of the Covenant also provides for the prohibition of propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The tools used to criminalize criticism are also applied against those who practise journalism, that is, the regular gathering of information, with or without formal training, accreditation or other government acknowledgement, with the intent to disseminate one's findings in any form. The attacks on reporting cross many themes in the present report. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that attacks on journalism are fundamentally at odds with protection of freedom of expression and access to information and, as such, they should be highlighted independently of any other rationale for restriction. Governments have a responsibility not only to respect journalism but also to ensure that journalists and their sources have protection through strong laws, prosecutions of perpetrators and ample security where necessary.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- One of the gravest and most concerning tools against reporting involves the use of counter-terrorism laws to restrict and penalize reporters. The reliance on counter-terrorism serves as a catch-all to throttle the flow of information and justify the detention of journalists, bloggers and others working in the media. In Australia, the Border Force Act of 2015 allegedly has the effect of criminalizing reporting on the detention conditions in immigration detention facilities. Ethiopia reportedly relied on its Criminal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009 to detain journalists and bloggers with the "Zone 9" collective on the grounds of "working with foreign human rights organizations and inciting violence through social media to create instability in the country", when in fact they were working for independent online media. Turkish authorities have allegedly used anti-terrorism laws to detain journalists and target academics. In 2014, Nigeria was also criticized for threatening and harassing nearly a dozen independent newspapers under the guise of fighting terrorism.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly detained journalists and bloggers on murky charges pertaining to espionage or "conspiracy against national security" - problems exacerbated by the closed nature of legal proceedings against those detained. In Germany, while the Government swiftly and correctly reversed course, two online journalists were investigated for reporting on government surveillance practices on the grounds of protecting the public prosecutor's ability to pursue cases against extremism. A presidential decree in Ukraine imposed a one-year ban on 41 foreign journalists and bloggers who were said to pose a threat to the country's national interests and sovereignty. Indonesia detained journalists reporting on the situation in West Papua, charging them with misuse of their visas and attempted treason.
- 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
- Movement
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- While the threats to freedom of expression worldwide are severe, there remain important efforts to sustain a commitment to article 19. In the wake of the attacks in Paris in January 2015, dozens of the highest leaders of States gathered for a public demonstration that was, nominally, to support the right to freedom of expression and oppose terrorism. The moment proved to be as much theatre as commitment to law and policy, as no overarching Government-led effort to promote freedom of expression - such as the protection of journalists and artists - followed. Still, one may point to concrete examples that deserve to be emulated. Importantly, many (if not most) Governments proclaim in their Constitutions the right everyone enjoys to freedom of expression. Egypt's is typical, protecting in article 65 the freedom of expression "verbally, in writing, through imagery, or by any other means of expression and publication".
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Governments increasingly require private entities providing telecommunications and Internet service to comply with censorship demands. In addition to network filtering practices, States compel or pressure companies to shut down networks or block entire services. This trend requires further documentation and scrutiny. Future work will examine laws, policies and extralegal measures that enable Governments to undertake such restrictions, and the costs and consequences of such restrictions. The Special Rapporteur will also examine the responsibilities of companies to respond to such measures in a way that respects rights, mitigates harm and provides avenues for redress where abuses occur.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 75
- Paragraph text
- Private actors face substantial pressures from Governments and individuals to restrict expression deemed to constitute extremism or hatred, hostility or harassment. Private actors may also themselves aim to foster what they perceive to be civil discourse on their platforms, regulate access through real-name requirements and other registration policies, or feature or prioritize certain content for business reasons. Future work will evaluate the potential of State abuse of private initiatives, the impact of private measures on freedom of expression, and the relevant human rights obligations and responsibilities. This reporting will not only focus on the roles of social media and search engines, but also lesser known actors such as e-commerce and financial intermediaries.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- Some States directly penalize individuals on no other ground than the prohibition of criticism itself. Viet Nam, for instance, has reportedly detained and prosecuted individuals on the grounds of "propaganda against the State". Similarly, the Islamic Republic of Iran has detained and prosecuted individuals for conducting "propaganda against the system" and "insulting" the nation's highest leadership. Activists in Azerbaijan have been detained and prosecuted on grounds of treason following comments critical of the President. Kuwaiti authorities prosecuted a journalist on the grounds of insulting the judiciary, on the basis of tweets and posts in which he raised concerns about the sentencing of others. Nepalese authorities brought contempt charges against news journalists following their critical reports on the judiciary. Bahraini authorities prosecuted an activist for criticizing torture and ill-treatment in a Bahraini prison. Myanmar has penalized individuals for criticism or insult of the army, while Cambodia has prosecuted and harassed individuals for their criticism of government policy.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- The right to freedom of opinion and expression must be respected "without distinction of any kind" (see article 2 (1) of the Covenant). Members of some groups, however, often face particular discrimination when it comes to the implementation of restrictions on expression. The Special Rapporteurs on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, on the situation of human rights defenders and on the independence of judges and lawyers address issues pertaining to human rights defenders and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), often in collaboration with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Given their focus and detailed reporting, I will not highlight here our shared concerns about restrictions imposed against NGOs, human rights defenders environmental activists, refugees and lawyers. Instead I will highlight several other groups whose expression is particularly subject to repression.
- 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
- Environment
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Persons on the move
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57b
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Engage with special procedures of the Human Rights Council. As has been shown in the present report, while the response rate to communications is quite low, several States engage with the mandate holder in good faith. Engagement with communications and invitations to conduct country missions add significant value to the work of the mandate holder, since they allow us to seek an understanding of why States pursue certain policies (and, where those policies are adverse to freedom of expression, a possibility of encouraging officials to adopt other measures);
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57d
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Support independent media and civic space. In the face of State repression of reporting, it is critical that States make an extra effort to support independent voices in the media and civil society at large. At a minimum, I encourage States to avoid imposing restrictions on reporting and research that may be seen to criticize the Government and its policies or to share information about sensitive subjects, including terrorism. States should especially avoid imposing obstacles, such as accreditation procedures or penalties through defamation lawsuits or intermediary liability, that undermine independent media. At the same time, those with the means - such as private donors and foundations - should make a special effort to support independent media and to foster strong scrutiny of media conglomerations that squeeze out the less well-financed outlets;
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 85
- Paragraph text
- States bear a primary responsibility to protect and respect the right to exercise freedom of opinion and expression. In the information and communication technology context, this means that States must not require or otherwise pressure the private sector to take steps that unnecessarily or disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression, whether through laws, policies, or extralegal means. Any demands, requests and other measures to take down digital content or access customer information must be based on validly enacted law, subject to external and independent oversight, and demonstrate a necessary and proportionate means of achieving one or more aims under article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Particularly in the context of regulating the private sector, State laws and policies must be transparently adopted and implemented.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- States often block and filter content with the assistance of the private sector. Internet service providers may block access to specific keywords, web pages or entire websites. On platforms that host content, the type of filtering technique depends on the nature of the platform and the content in question. Domain name registrars may refuse to register those that match a government blacklist; social media companies may remove postings or suspend accounts; search engines may take down search results that link to illegal content. The method of restriction required by Governments or employed by companies can raise both necessity and proportionality concerns, depending on the validity of the rationale cited for the removal and the risk of removal of legal or protected 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Technical standards and processes ensure that the infrastructure, networks and applications that comprise Internet and telecommunication networks operate seamlessly. The physical infrastructure on which Internet traffic flows, such as network cables and satellites, are set up and run according to various technical requirements that ensure their smooth functioning. Organizations that develop such requirements include the International Telecommunication Union, which sets standards for the interoperability of telecommunication networks; the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a professional association which develops standards for Wi-Fi transmission; and the Groupe Speciale Mobile Association, a private international association of the mobile industry which develops standards for mobile networks.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Ongoing debate about the minimum standards for corporate disclosures and relevant best practices reflects uncertainty about the appropriate balance between transparency and competing values, such as individual security and trade secrecy. While there is growing consensus that corporations should disclose information about how restrictions are interpreted and enforced, there is less agreement about how this should be done. Similarly, there is widespread agreement about the importance of quantitative transparency, but it is less clear how such information should be contextualized, presented and made accessible.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- E-commerce facilitates the sale of goods and services and other commercial transactions among businesses and consumers, businesses and other businesses, or consumers and other consumers. The ways in which companies provide access to, promote, or arrange these transactions, and safeguard the wealth of personal information generated by these transactions, may implicate the freedom of expression and privacy of their 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 67
- Paragraph text
- Restrictions on freedom of expression online occur on a daily basis and frequently involve corporate conduct, whether compelled by law or pursuant to corporate policy and practice (for example, as reflected in terms of service). Common examples of such restrictions include unlawful or otherwise questionable content removals, service restrictions and account suspensions, and data security breaches.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- To be sure, States enjoy legitimate interests apart from those identified in article 19 (3), such as those economic, diplomatic and political. Human rights law does not preclude States from pursuing such objectives. Article 19 merely provides that pursuit of those other objectives must involve measures that do not restrict the exercise of 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 81
- Paragraph text
- Throughout this future work, the Special Rapporteur will pay particular attention to legal developments (legislative, regulatory, and judicial) at national and regional levels. In this context, he alerts all stakeholders to his interest in gathering such materials for future communications and reporting and encourages interested parties to collect and provide such material throughout the course of this work.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- Even though this project is at its early stages, it is nonetheless critical that States and private actors take steps to ensure respect for the freedom of opinion and expression. These steps should include, at a minimum, the following, with further analysis to follow throughout the Special Rapporteur's mandate.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- Finally, the responsibility to respect involves attention to the availability of remedies - from moral remedies to compensation and guarantees of non-repetition - when the private actor has caused or contributed to adverse impacts.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Internet addresses (that is, uniform resource locators (URLs)) are allocated and sold by domain name registries and registrars, under the supervision of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit entity. Currently, the world's largest registrar hosts more than 61 million domain names.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Among the Special Rapporteur's priorities for thematic study and guidance are 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- While many of these initiatives are privately run, they sometimes collaborate with or receive support from States. For example, the Internet Watch Foundation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which provides Internet service providers and hosting platforms with a "notice and takedown" service that alerts them to potentially criminal content on their networks, also provides law enforcement agencies with "unique data" in their investigations of such content.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee everyone's right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers and through any media, including in the form of art. The Human Rights Council and the General Assembly have referred to freedom of expression as one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and development (see Council resolution 21/12) and emphasized that a free media helps to build inclusive knowledge societies and democracies and foster intercultural dialogue, peace and good governance (see Assembly resolution 68/163). Both bodies have highlighted the critical importance of journalism in the above-mentioned resolutions and have affirmed that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression (see Council resolutions 20/8, 26/13 and 32/13). Attacks on freedom of expression are nothing new, nor is the deep concern expressed about them by the United Nations (see Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/45 and Council resolution 12/16). With 168 States parties and wide acknowledgement of its centrality in human rights law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides the principal legal standard for the vast majority of communications relating to 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- In addition to physical violence and attacks, journalists also face a range of punitive measures that threaten their well-being and livelihood. For example, Kuwait and Bahrain have reportedly sought to strip journalists of their citizenship simply for doing their job. In Ecuador, the Government has filed copyright complaints in an attempt to take down content critical of its activities. In my report to the General Assembly in 2015 (A/70/361), I also identified the ways in which sources for journalists are under threat.
- 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
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Some Governments have adopted strong policies and regulations to promote freedom of expression. In 2016, Norway launched an effort to place freedom of expression at the centre of its human rights policy. In 2015, the United States Federal Communications Commission adopted a policy of network neutrality following the adoption of similar policies by Governments, such as those of the Netherlands, Chile and Brazil. Several States have made an effort to expand infrastructure to improve Internet access. In Myanmar, the Government has taken significant steps to develop its Internet infrastructure: in June 2013, for example, it awarded operating licences to two foreign telecommunications companies as part of a broader push to deregulate the telecommunications industry. The United Republic of Tanzania, Rwanda and Mauritius were early adopters of digital broadcasting, thus providing "more opportunities to increase Internet access by freeing up unused spectrum". Of critical importance are the international statements of support for multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet that privileges security and openness and recognizes the value the Internet offers for freedom of expression. Several Governments have coordinated their efforts to expand Internet freedom through the Freedom Online Coalition and promote access to information through the Open Government Partnership. Several countries have adopted strong laws on the right to information and whistle-blower protection (see A/70/361).
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- Punishment for defamation of government officials is widespread and directly interferes with freedom of expression, whether by imposing penalties on expression or dissuading individuals from criticizing officials or government policy. Journalists and writers are regular targets of defamation prosecutions or civil lawsuits. In Angola, for instance, the Government charged and convicted an author of criminal defamation upon publication of a book on conflict diamonds and corruption in the country. Honduran officials have reportedly intimidated journalists and human rights defenders on charges of defamation. In Tajikistan, while the Government has eliminated criminal penalties for defamation in most cases (but not for defamation of the President), government officials may still bring civil defamation lawsuits against journalists or publishers. Particularly with respect to public figures, national laws should be careful to ensure that any respondent in a defamation case may raise a public interest defence, and even untrue statements made in error and without malice should not be rendered unlawful or subject to penalty (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 47). The joint declaration on freedom of expression of 2000 by the Special Rapporteur, the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights cautioned against sanctioning defamation such that it chills the exercise of freedom of expression itself.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Women may also face particular restrictions targeting their expression. In 2013, the Human Rights Council affirmed the fundamental role that freedom of opinion and expression plays in the ability of women to interact with society at large, in particular in the realms of economic and political participation, and called upon States to promote, respect and ensure women's exercise of freedom of opinion and expression, both online and offline, including as members of NGOs and other associations (see Council resolution 23/2). Unfortunately, this commitment remains largely unfulfilled in many parts of the world. In 2014, in Saudi Arabia, two advocates for the rights of women were detained for driving. Earlier in 2016, I, along with other mandate holders, raised concerns about the systematic attacks and threats of sexual and physical violence made against three women human rights defenders and two women human rights lawyers in the State of Chhattisgarh, India.
- 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
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Women
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- States often present justifications that identify limitations other than those permitted by article 19 (3) or required by article 20. Saudi Arabia has noted that its Basic Law of Governance "stipulates that all means of expression must employ civil and polite language". Article 19, however, does not permit restrictions merely on the basis of civility, a capacious and subjective term. In Burundi, a radio journalist was charged with "manquement à la solidarité publique", or a breach of public solidarity, also not rooted in the objectives of article 19 (3). Bangladesh adopted a national broadcast policy that in important respects promoted the independence of broadcast media, but at the same time included prohibitions of expression "against the State and public interest", "misinformation" and "distorted truth" that were not based on permissible objectives under article 19.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- In the present report, I have sought to describe trends working against freedom of opinion and expression around the world today. Those trends are sobering. Individuals seeking to exercise their right to expression face all kinds of limitations. Rationales are often unsustainable. Some of the limitations involve assertions of a legitimate objective - typically national security or public order - without the barest demonstration of legality or necessity and proportionality. Other limitations are based on objectives that are not legitimate under international human rights law. Old tools remain in use, while others are expanding, as States exploit society's pervasive need to access the Internet. The targets of restrictions include journalists and bloggers, critics of government, dissenters from conventional life, provocateurs and minorities of all sorts. Our communications have revealed allegations relating to all of these issues, and reporting from civil society suggests that the problems are more pervasive and extensive than even our communications illuminate.
- 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
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 80
- Paragraph text
- The outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society demonstrated the continuing broad support for multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet. The existing model nonetheless faces increasing pressure in the form of specific national policies (such as data localization) and strategies such as "cybersovereignty". Moreover, there is a persistent need to maintain or increase human rights participation at all levels of governance, including the setting of technical standards, and to ensure that Internet governance frameworks and reform efforts are sensitive to the needs of women, sexual minorities and other vulnerable communities.
- 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
- Ethnic minorities
- Women
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 82
- Paragraph text
- The information and communication technology sector is always in rapid development, continually upgrading technology, digitizing everyday life. As a result, addressing legal and policy issues with an eye to current normative gaps involves some risk of failing to address trends that are only now emerging or have yet to emerge. This is a natural feature of the digital age, but even with rapid change in technology, the digital environment will continue to be animated by persistent threats to freedom of opinion and expression. These threats include government dominance of, or attempts to dominate, sources of information, using tools of censorship against online services and infrastructure; the struggle of businesses to promote their products and services in environments that are hostile to freedom of expression; the failures of many business enterprises to ensure the promotion and protection of rights in their pursuit of commercial interests; and the often contradictory demands of individuals that business entities provide them not only with security but also convenience, connectivity and community. As the project of exploring information and communication technology responsibilities moves forward, the Special Rapporteur will be looking to experts in the field -in Government, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia - to help him conduct analysis and reporting that respond both to the current issues at the intersection of technology and freedom of expression and to long-term features of the digital age.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 83
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur strongly encourages all stakeholders - whether State actors, private sector enterprises or civil society organizations and individuals - to take an active part in the development of the forthcoming projects. He particularly encourages stakeholders from less developed countries and vulnerable communities to share perspectives on the impact that the information and communication technology sector may have on the enjoyment of rights and the role that States may play in either interfering with or advancing those 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- States also seek to restrict digital content outside the law. Some States have pushed for social media companies and other hosts of user-generated content to monitor and take down content on their own initiative, rather than wait for law-based requests from the Government. Government officials have also attempted to persuade companies to adopt "counter-speech" initiatives through public forums, campaigns and in private discussions. Governments are also increasingly flagging content on social media as inappropriate under a platform's terms of service, in order to prompt the company to remove the content or deactivate an account.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 70
- Paragraph text
- The scope of the corporation's responsibility to remediate is also contested. Who bears the burden of remediating improper removals or data requests when companies interpret or enforce relevant State laws too strictly? When a company's products or services are used to perpetrate human rights abuses, what degree of causation triggers the duty to provide a remedy? When companies face allegations of wrongdoing, is there a duty to conduct internal investigations, and must these investigations meet certain standards? Where a restriction implicates individuals across borders, what jurisdiction is appropriate for the consideration of remedies? These questions reflect the uncertainty that human rights victims face in situations where corporate and State conduct are intertwined.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law does not as a general matter directly govern the activities or responsibilities of private business. A variety of initiatives provide guidance to enterprises to ensure compliance with fundamental rights. The Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework (see A/HRC/17/4 and A/HRC/17/31). Reflecting existing human rights law, the Guiding Principles reaffirm that States must ensure that not only State organs but also businesses under their jurisdiction respect human 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)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- Service shutdowns and associated restrictions are a particularly pernicious means of enforcing content regulations. Such measures are frequently justified on the basis of national security, the maintenance of public order or the prevention of public unrest. In 2015, the Special Rapporteur, together with representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights condemned as unlawful Internet "kill switches". In one year alone, there were reports of shutdowns in Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan. The Special Rapporteur confirmed instances of telecommunication service provider and service shutdowns in Tajikistan, during his official visit in March 2016.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- In addition to refraining from unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on digital access, States also have a duty to ensure a free and open Internet. Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet data, content and services be treated equally and without improper discrimination. However, Internet service providers may deploy technologies that speed up or otherwise favour access to certain content and services, while slowing down others (a practice also known as "throttling"). The growing number of collaborations between Internet service providers and content-hosting platforms that offer free wireless data to access online content or services provided by the latter (also known as the provision of "zero rated" services) has attracted controversy. While such measures detract from the principle of net neutrality, it remains a subject of debate whether they may be permissible in areas genuinely lacking Internet access.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- State regulation in this area is patchy and uncertain. A few States have recognized the general importance of network neutrality. Romania, for example, has stated that it is "in favour of all initiatives to guarantee that online information can be accessed in a meaningful way by the entire population". Fewer States have provided specific legal protection. In early 2016, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India issued a regulation prohibiting service providers from offering or charging "discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged to the consumer on the basis of content". Some form of network neutrality has been adopted in law or policy by countries including Brazil, Chile, the Netherlands and the United States.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- Companies that transmit, store or generate communications and other forms of user data - particularly telecommunication and Internet service providers, and content-hosting platforms - face mounting demands from law enforcement and security services for access to their customers' information. Future work will seek to identify approaches that could maximize the scope for freedom of expression while nonetheless addressing legitimate governmental interests in national security and public order.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 90
- Paragraph text
- Beyond adoption of policies, private entities should also integrate commitments to freedom of expression into internal policymaking, product engineering, business development, staff training and other relevant internal processes. The Special Rapporteur will aim to explore policies and the full range of implementation steps in a number of ways, including through company visits.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Web-hosting services enable users to upload and deliver files and other materials to their readers' or customers' browsers. These companies typically also provide data storage, e-mail and other services associated with the websites their customers have purchased.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Companies that create or purchase content produced on their platforms often hold the copyright to such content, enabling them to monetize and manage access to it. Some of the most influential copyright holders are media and entertainment companies, including news media, publishing houses, music labels, and film and television studios.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- The information and communications technology sector's multiple roles raise legal and policy questions that deserve attention and elaboration by international human rights mechanisms.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Courts at the national and regional levels regularly engage in careful analysis and attention to freedom of expression norms (although my mention of them in the present report goes towards the rule-of-law element and does not necessarily indicate my agreement on the merits). In 2015, for instance, the Supreme Court of India struck down a 2009 amendment to the Information Technology Act on the grounds that it risked restricting legitimate expression and clarified the scope of intermediary liability under another provision of law. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the privacy rights of Internet users in a landmark case in 2014. The East African Court of Justice held that a series of rules in Burundi's press law violated norms of the rule of law and freedom of expression. In Rodriguez v. Google (2014), the Supreme Court of Argentina held that search engines are under no duty to monitor the legality of third-party content to which they link, noting that only in exceptional cases involving "gross and manifest harm" could intermediaries be required to disable access. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela could not suspend the licence of a broadcaster on the ground that it was seeking to silence government critics. The European Court of Justice has addressed major issues at the intersection of freedom of expression and privacy, while the European Court of Human Rights has clarified the limited nature of liability of intermediaries for third-party content.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Terms of service, which individuals typically must accept as a condition to access a platform, often contain restrictions on content that may be shared. These restrictions are formulated under local laws and regulations and reflect similar prohibitions, including those against harassment, hate speech, promotion of criminal activity, gratuitous violence and direct threats. Terms of service are frequently formulated in such a general way that it may be difficult to predict with reasonable certainty what kinds of content may be restricted. The inconsistent enforcement of terms of service has also attracted public scrutiny. Some have argued that the world's most popular platforms do not adequately address the needs and interests of vulnerable groups; for example, there have been accusations of reluctance "to engage directly with technology-related violence against women, until it becomes a public relations issue". At the same time, platforms have been criticized for overzealous censorship of a wide range of legitimate but (perhaps to some audiences) "uncomfortable" expressions. Lack of an appeals process or poor communication by the company about why content was removed or an account deactivated adds to these concerns. Terms of service that require registration linked to an individual's real name or evidence to demonstrate valid use of a pseudonym can also disproportionately inhibit the ability of vulnerable groups or civil society actors in closed societies to use online platforms for expression, association or advocacy.
- 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
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles provide a useful starting point for identifying private information and communications responsibilities, but several other projects have also proposed principles for the sector. The Global Network Initiative's Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy draw on the experience and expertise of the investor, civil society and academic communities. The European Commission published the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Relevant civil society initiatives include the Manila Principles of Intermediary Liability, which establish baseline protection for intermediaries in accordance with freedom of expression standards; the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms, which promotes human rights standards and principles of openness in Internet policy formulation and implementation on the continent; and the Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index, which evaluates a set of major private actors in the digital space on the basis of their adherence to freedom of expression and privacy norms. Civil society also acts to check and balance other actors engaged in Internet governance: the Code of Good Practice on Information, Participation and Transparency in Internet Governance, for example, seeks to ensure that relevant processes are meaningfully communicated to the public, accountable to all stakeholders, and emphasize democratic participation.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 61
- Paragraph text
- It is important to note that surveillance is affected by other demands on privately held information. For example, the inability of the mutual legal assistance treaty regime to keep pace with cross-border data demands may drive States to resort to invasive extraterritorial surveillance measures. Laws that require companies to retain customer data or store such data in local data centres may also encourage such surveillance.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) requires the State to demonstrate that the tools chosen to achieve a legitimate objective are necessary and proportionate to protect the rights or reputations of others or national security, public order, or public health or morals. Necessity and proportionality also apply to prohibitions under article 20 of the Covenant (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, paras. 50-52). The State must establish a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat said to exist (ibid., para. 35). Restrictions must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the ensuing interference with third parties' rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion (see A/HRC/29/32, para. 35). The restriction must be the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve the desired result (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 34).
- 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
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Among the permissible grounds for restrictions, States often rely on national security and public order. "National security", undefined in the Covenant, should be limited in application to situations in which the interest of the whole nation is at stake, which would thereby exclude restrictions in the sole interest of a Government, regime or power group, a point emphasized in the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1985 (E/CN.4/1985/4, annex). It also may include protection of a State's political independence and territorial integrity. Similarly, "public order" (ordre public) must be limited to specific situations in which a limitation would be demonstrably warranted.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- State assertions that national security or public order justifies interference with personal security and privacy are common in cases of surveillance of personal communications, encryption and anonymity, subjects addressed in my report to the Human Rights Council in 2015 (A/HRC/29/32), in my predecessor's report in 2013 (see A/HRC/23/40) and in the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age (A/HRC/27/37). Surveillance, including both bulk collection of data and targeted attacks on specific individuals or communities, interferes directly with the privacy and security necessary for freedom of opinion and expression, and always requires evaluation under article 19. I am concerned that practice often fails to meet such standards. A law recently adopted in the Russian Federation imposes a duty on Internet providers to decrypt communications, apparently requiring the establishment of encryption back doors that will likely disproportionately undermine all users' security. Both the United Kingdom and France have proposed to provide their law enforcement and intelligence officials with the authority to require companies to grant them access to encrypted communications of their users (see A/HRC/29/32, para. 45). Brazil prohibits anonymity entirely as a matter of constitutional law online and offline (ibid., para. 49). I understand that some of these efforts involve genuine commitments to preventing terrorism or guaranteeing public order, but the Governments have not demonstrated that interference with Internet security is a necessary or proportionate measure in the light of the specific threats caused to privacy and 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- Governments have also disrupted Internet and telecommunications services in the name of national security and public order. Such disruptions include the shutdown of entire networks, the blocking of websites and platforms and the suspension of telecommunications and mobile services. In advance of elections, both Turkey and Uganda are alleged to have restricted access online. Malaysia invoked its Sedition Act to justify blocking a news site, while Nauru cited crime prevention as one of the reasons for blocking a number of social media websites in 2015. I confirmed during my mission to Tajikistan in 2016 that the Government has repeatedly blocked access to messaging services in times of public protest and has maintained a long-time block on social media websites operated from outside the country. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, India, Bangladesh, Brazil and Pakistan were reported to have blocked Internet and text messaging services in 2015.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) requires that any restriction be provided by law. A restriction does not meet this requirement simply because it is formally enacted as a national law or regulation. It must also be formulated with sufficient precision to enable both the individual and those charged with its execution to regulate conduct accordingly and be made accessible to the public. It cannot confer discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, paras. 24-26). Communications from the mandate holder have identified at least three problems that may be framed as concerns about the legality condition.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 13
- Paragraph text
- First, legislation often employs broad terms that grant authorities significant discretion to restrict expression and provide individuals with limited guidance about the lines dividing lawful from unlawful behaviour. For instance, I raised concerns with China about its draft cybersecurity legislation in 2015, noting that the law's proscriptions - for instance, that individuals "observe public order and respect social morality" and not use the Internet to "engage in activities harming national security" or "upset social order" - are so general as to permit officials excessive discretion to determine their meaning.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 76
- Paragraph text
- Intermediaries are increasingly held responsible for third party content that they host, whether through intermediary liability regimes or censorship requirements. Commonly cited rationales for such restrictions include cybersecurity, copyright, defamation and data protection. Further study will focus on the legitimate scope of such rationales, the necessity of accompanying restrictions, and the lack of procedural safeguards under existing frameworks for removing third party content. Future work will also examine sources and modes of intermediary liability in particular contexts and regions and seek to draw out the main principles and practices applicable in order to ensure the ability of intermediaries to promote and protect 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- During my mandate, I have observed States restricting and penalizing criticism or providing the legal framework to do so. The punishment of criticism of a Government or government officials is censorship of the kind that directly undermines public engagement and debate and runs counter to the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the letter of article 19 thereof. Such expression enables public debate, accountability and engagement by individuals in national self-governance. Yet States are increasingly alleged to be adopting and implementing measures that suppress political expression and, by implication, aim to protect existing power structures and individuals in positions of authority and exclude competing actors.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 40
- Paragraph text
- States often require the cooperation of intermediaries to enforce regulations on private networks and platforms. Internet and telecommunication service providers, for example, are required to comply with local laws and regulations as a condition of their operating licences, a legitimate requirement which becomes problematic when the local laws or their implementation are themselves inconsistent with human rights law. Companies less constrained by licensing requirements, such as social networking platforms, search engines and domain name registrars, nevertheless face the threat that States will disrupt local infrastructure, threaten the safety of local employees, or block local access to their platforms.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- The European Court of Justice, in Google Spain v. Mario Costeja González, compelled Google under the Data Protection Directive of the European Union to delist search results based on web pages that identified González, even though the original publication of those pages was itself not subject to takedown. The decision has found an active life outside the European context. The scope and implementation of this approach raise questions about the appropriate balance between the rights to privacy and protection of personal data on one hand, and the right to seek, receive and impart information containing such data on the other.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Another major concern is that private intermediaries are typically ill equipped to make determinations of content illegality. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has observed that private actors "lack the ability to weigh rights and to interpret the law in accordance with freedom of speech and other human rights standards". This may be due to resource constraints, lack of oversight and accountability, or potential conflicts of interest. In the face of potential liability, companies may be prone to self- or over-censorship.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57e
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] State leadership. One of the most disappointing aspects of the current situation for freedom of expression is that many States with strong histories of support for freedom of expression - in law and in their societies - have considered measures liable to abuse in their own countries or to misuse when applied elsewhere. In particular, Governments pursuing new policies to enhance surveillance or to limit Internet security should reconsider those efforts, as they often fail to meet the tests of necessity and proportionality. I strongly urge all States to consider that attacks on security on the Internet pose long-term threats not only to freedom of expression but also to national security and public order itself.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects everyone's right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers and through any media. It has become customary to emphasize that individuals enjoy the same rights online as they do offline. The previous mandate holder highlighted the increasing number and forms of restrictions on the right to information online (see A/HRC/17/27) and demonstrated the impact on freedom of expression of expanded digital surveillance (see A/HRC/23/40). In 2015, the Special Rapporteur emphasized the important role played by encryption and anonymity in protecting and advancing the freedom of expression (see A/HRC/29/32). In joint declarations, the Special Rapporteur and regional counterparts have emphasized issues relating to intermediary liability, access, content restrictions and other key topics on freedom of 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Political and human rights activists have been especially targeted by such rules against criticism, often under the pretext of protecting public order. For instance, human rights activists have been harassed repeatedly in Bahrain; one activist was prosecuted for tearing up a picture of the King. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has prosecuted and detained in solitary confinement an opposition political leader. Students in Thailand were detained by members of the military for advocating in support of the Prime Minister ousted in a coup.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 71
- Paragraph text
- The appropriate role of the State in supplementing or regulating corporate remedial mechanisms also requires closer analysis. Civil proceedings and other judicial redress are often available to consumers adversely affected by corporate action, but these are often cumbersome and expensive. Meaningful alternatives may include complaint and grievance mechanisms established and run by consumer protection bodies and industry regulators. Several States also mandate internal remedial or grievance mechanisms: India, for example, requires corporations that possess, deal with or handle sensitive personal data to designate grievance officers to address "any discrepancies and grievances […] with respect to processing of 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)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- National security is also used to justify excluding information in the public interest from disclosure, with many Governments overclassifying vast amounts of information and documents and others providing limited transparency in the process and substance of classification. In the case of Japan, for instance, the Government adopted the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets, which raised concerns about transparency, third-party oversight, the protection of journalists and their sources, and whistle-blowers. The United States enforces its Espionage Act in ways that ensure that national security whistle-blowers lack the ability to defend themselves on the merits of grounds of public 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- As examples of meeting the condition of legality, some Governments have made an effort to address gaps in legal authorities regulating surveillance and Internet governance in public ways. Although there remain, in my view, significant problems with the Investigatory Powers Bill, the Government of the United Kingdom has permitted a process involving public comment and debate. The Government of Brazil adopted a landmark law, the Marco Civil de Internet, after widespread input from stakeholders. The United States has engaged in a public debate, including in Congress, that has begun to address, albeit in limited ways, the excessive discretion in intelligence and law enforcement in the context of digital surveillance. The willingness of several Governments to engage with the mandate holder also reflects an important aspect of public justification of restrictions, as do the hosting of country visits by Tajikistan, Japan and Turkey.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- The uptick in legislation designed to combat terrorism has also raised concerns of vagueness. I and other mandate holders raised concerns about the ambiguous formulation of Kenya's counter-terrorism legislation in 2015, which included a provision that criminalized "obscene, gory or offensive material which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the general public". Together with other Special Rapporteurs, I also raised concerns about the reform of Spain's criminal law, such as provisions that would broadly criminalize the "glorification of terrorism", and about similar terms in recently adopted French law. Such broad limitations enable the punishment of expression that should not be subject to restriction.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- Second, legislative processes often do not give adequate time for public engagement or fail to address human rights obligations of the State. In 2014, for instance, Montenegro adopted public assembly legislation that offered legislators and the public little opportunity for engagement. Brazil adopted counter-terrorism legislation following similar fast-track procedures, despite expressions of concern by human rights experts. In 2016, I and other mandate holders expressed concern about the "accelerated timeline" for the adoption of cybersecurity legislation in the Russian Federation that appeared not to take into account the views of civil society and other stakeholders.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 87
- Paragraph text
- States place undeniable pressures on the private information and communication technology sector that often lead to serious restrictions on the freedom of expression. The private sector, however, also plays independent roles that may either advance or restrict rights, a point the Human Rights Council well understood by adopting the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011 as general guidance in that field. Private entities should be evaluated on the steps they take both to promote and undermine freedom of expression, even in hostile environments unfriendly to human 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
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 88
- Paragraph text
- Among the most important steps that private actors should take is the development and implementation of transparent human rights assessment procedures. They should develop and implement policies that take into account their potential impact on human rights. Such assessments should critically review the wide range of private sector activities in which they are engaged, such as the formulation and enforcement of terms of service and community standards on users' freedom of expression, including the outsourcing of such enforcement; the impact of products, services and other commercial initiatives on users' freedom of expression as they are being developed, including design and engineering choices, and plans for differential pricing of or access to Internet content and services; and the human rights impact of doing business with potential government customers, such as the operation of telecommunication infrastructure or the transfer of content-regulation or surveillance technologies.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- The work of private censorship is complicated by the sheer volume of complaints and flagged content that intermediaries identify on a daily basis. Large platforms may also outsource content moderation, creating even more distance between content moderators and internal policymaking decisions, and exacerbating inconsistencies in enforcement. Intermediaries that operate in a diverse range of markets inevitably face "complex value judgments", issues with cultural sensitivity and diversity, and "difficult decisions about conflicts of 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 91
- Paragraph text
- As the present report has shown, many international organizations play a role in information and communication technology governance processes. It is critical that such organizations provide meaningful public access to policies, standards, reports and other information concerning Internet governance created or generated by the organization and/or its membership, including through facilitating access to free online resources and public education initiatives. More generally, the multi-stakeholder process for Internet governance has been an important driver for policies supportive of freedom of expression. With that in mind, international organizations should ensure meaningful civil society participation in policymaking and other standard-setting processes, including through increasing the presence of technical experts sensitive to human rights concerns.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- State surveillance and corporate data collection and retention raise substantial issues of freedom of expression. For instance, how do States conduct surveillance activities with the cooperation of the private sector, and how does such cooperation have an impact on freedom of expression? What are the responsibilities of private actors when they discover that States covertly access Internet and telecommunications data transmitted or stored on their networks or platforms? What are the responsibilities of the private sector to protect security and anonymity 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 28
- Paragraph text
- Another group of organizations establishes and develops technical standards for how Internet data are communicated, stored, arranged and presented. The Internet Engineering Task Force develops and maintains the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, which determines how devices connect over the Internet and how data are transmitted between them. The World Wide Web Consortium sets standards concerning the display of, and interaction with, web content, which implicates issues such as language content and access for the disabled. ICANN sets policies for the registration of top-level domain names, whether generic (such as .com, .org, .edu), country code (.cn, .tj, .sg) or community or industry-specific (such as .aero). Its subsidiary, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, manages the distribution of Internet Protocol addresses, which assign and identify each device that connects to the Internet with unique numerical labels.
- 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
- Persons with disabilities
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- While technical standards have profound implications for freedom of expression, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development of the United Nations has observed that standards development often lacks sufficient consideration of human rights concerns. To be sure, interested stakeholders and members of the public are permitted to participate in or observe the work of most of these standard-setting bodies. However, because meaningful participation requires a generally high level of technical expertise, human rights perspectives are not always included in discussions, even though technical and design choices can have a substantial impact on 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 63
- Paragraph text
- Transparency can help ensure that subjects of Internet regulation are able to meaningfully predict their legal obligations and challenge them where appropriate. Gaps in compliance with these standards threaten the ability of individuals to understand the limits placed on their freedom of expression online and seek appropriate redress when their rights are violated. Transparency issues arise in both State and private sector contexts, such as public-private partnerships, private sector engagement in trade negotiations and the digital arms race.
- 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
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- In the context of the private sector, service providers and content-hosting platforms often disclose at least some information about the circumstances under which they remove content or comply with government requests for customer data. There is wide variation, however, in whether and how they convey interpretations or explanations of State regulations and terms of service, and internal processes for implementation and enforcement. There are also gaps in corporate disclosure of statistics concerning the volume, frequency and types of request for content removals and user data, whether because of State-imposed restrictions or internal policy decisions. In any case, companies are more likely to disclose statistics concerning government requests than private requests. There has also been far less research into the extent to which other intermediaries (for example, financial or e-commerce intermediaries) and companies disclose information concerning content removals and requests for customer data.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Intermediaries' policies and rules may have significant effects on the freedom of expressionWhile terms of service are the primary source of regulation, design and engineering choices may also affect the delivery of content.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The range of private sector roles in organizing, accessing, populating and regulating the Internet is vast and often includes overlapping categories.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- States regulate digital content through a variety of legal, political and technical means. Trends of concern include 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
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 86
- Paragraph text
- Governments must also adopt and implement laws and policies that protect private development and the provision of technical measures, products and services that advance freedom of expression. They must ensure legislative, policymaking and other relevant norm-setting processes concerning rights and restrictions on the Internet in order to provide the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia meaningful opportunities for input and participation.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence, according to the Guiding Principles, enables businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts. In the digital environment, human rights impacts may arise in internal decisions on how to respond to government requests to restrict content or access customer information, the adoption of terms of service, design and engineering choices that implicate security and privacy, and decisions to provide or terminate services in a particular market.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Further, telecommunication and Internet service providers purchase equipment and other network components that comprise the physical backbone of their networks from infrastructure vendors and equipment manufacturers. These products can range from simple routers and switches to deep packet inspection devices, network filtering and Internet blocking devices, and surveillance monitoring centres. Increasingly these companies also include services, consulting, training and even operation.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- In recent years, a number of Governments have adopted laws that explicitly attack expression on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. For instance, the Government of Kyrgyzstan adopted a law that criminalizes the dissemination of information relating to "non-traditional" sexual relationships. Uganda has criminalized the "promotion" of homosexuality, while the Russian Federation has banned the "propaganda of homosexuality" at the federal level across the country. In Zambia, a human rights advocate not only faced undue delays when trying to register an NGO for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and sex workers, but also was charged with "soliciting for immoral purposes" when he urged greater access to health care for sex workers and sexual minorities. In some cases, individuals and organizations involved in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender-related activism or expression even face significant threats of physical violence. In Honduras, for example, there has been a systematic lack of accountability for advocates of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights who have been murdered, kidnapped or assaulted. In an important step, the Human Rights Council, reflecting on the increasing pressure on and violence and discrimination against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, established a mandate for an independent expert to combat such discrimination and violence (see Council resolution 32/2).
- 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
- Gender
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- LGBTQI+
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- In the context of protests, it is common for journalists to be detained and prohibited from reporting. Such has been the case in Egypt, where journalists collecting information about demonstrations have been detained and charged on various grounds, including involvement in terrorism. At least seven journalists and media workers in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were arrested and their equipment confiscated for covering looting and public protests. It may also be the case that local officials carry out their functions without appropriately taking into account the roles journalists play, in particular during protests. For instance, a journalist in Mexico covering protests was allegedly detained and severely mistreated by the local authorities. In the United States, journalists covering the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 were subjected to detention by the local authorities.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 42
- Paragraph text
- Non-State actors are especially responsible for attacks on individuals for expression of belief. Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), its affiliates and some of its supporters have committed atrocity after atrocity around the world on the basis of religious or ethnic affiliation or individual expression of belief. The attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, for instance, were directed specifically against satirists who criticized all forms of dogma, religious or otherwise, although the killers in this instance were allegedly incensed over depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. Beyond ISIL, the series of murders of bloggers in Bangladesh reflects an effort to silence views that reject religious belief altogether. Such assaults are grave attacks on opinion, expression and belief, designed to silence - in a very direct way - not only the specific targets but also anyone who dares express an alternative viewpoint.
- 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
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Article 20 (2) provides for restrictions with respect to hateful advocacy that amounts to incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence; it does not permit restrictions merely on the basis of "incompatibility" with a particular faith's values, nor does it (or article 19) permit restrictions that amount to blasphemy as such. Nonetheless, Maldives enacted a law in 2016 that criminalizes speech not expressed in accordance with social norms, national security and Islam. Singapore noted that a teenager was convicted under national legislation "for posting a video containing remarks against Christianity with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of Christians". While "wounding religious feelings" may involve real emotional costs, such charges have no basis under international human rights law and limit without justification the sharing of information and ideas pertaining to religion and belief.
- 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
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- Adolescents
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- Religious people worldwide certainly do experience offence when their beliefs are criticized, but nobody should suffer penalty, under criminal or civil grounds, for such criticism, rejection or even ridicule, except in those very rare circumstances in which the critic incites violence against a believer and restriction is necessary to protect against such violence. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 16/18, and the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix) highlighted mechanisms other than criminal or civil penalty, such as broader education and law enforcement training, that could and should address hateful and offensive speech.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Companies also provide a variety of services that connect users across multiple platforms, including e-mail, web chats, discussion threads, and social and professional networking. The most prominent actors in this area include e-mail providers, social media and other networking platforms, and online bulletin boards. In addition to such platforms, news websites, e-commerce platforms and application stores provide opportunities for the sharing of information and ideas through reviews, comments and discussions. Internet payment systems also integrate a social networking functionality.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- The vast majority of enterprises described above collect information from and about their users, which in turn may be used to target advertising, customize existing services, reduce security risks, or shut down accounts of abusive users. Companies may, however, also trade in information collection and analysis, involving such services as designing, customizing or selling surveillance and information analytics technologies, or provide consulting services that facilitate law enforcement, intelligence, cybersecurity and surveillance operations.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- The regulatory ecosystem on the Internet is extensive and diverse, involving actors at domestic, regional and international levels, in private and public sectors, in academia and civil society. Some aspects of information and communications technology - such as the provision of telecommunication and Internet services - have long attracted State and international regulation as well as public scrutiny. Other areas, such as search, social media, and the sale of surveillance technologies, are also increasingly subject to such scrutiny, commensurate with their growing impact and influence on the exercise of freedom of 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- Digital communications and data transmitted or stored on private networks and platforms are increasingly subject to surveillance and other forms of interference, whether by the State or private actors. Unnecessary and disproportionate surveillance may undermine security online and access to information and ideas (see A/HRC/23/40). Surveillance may create a chilling effect on the online expression of ordinary citizens, who may self-censor for fear of being constantly tracked. Surveillance exerts a disproportionate impact on the freedom of expression of a wide range of vulnerable groups, including racial, religious, ethnic, gender and sexual minorities, members of certain political parties, civil society, human rights defenders, professionals such as journalists, lawyers and trade unionists, victims of violence and abuse, and children (see A/HRC/29/32). State capacity to conduct surveillance may depend on the extent to which business enterprises cooperate with or resist such surveillance.
- 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
- Children
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 58
- Paragraph text
- As Internet service providers, social networking platforms, search engines, cloud service providers and other companies transmit or amass enormous quantities of customer data, the volume of government requests for user information based on local laws and regulations has also begun to rise. Several major Internet companies have reported an increase in requests. Many of these requests are issued by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. State oversight of these requests varies, ranging from prior judicial authorization to high-level executive approval to none at all. Licensing agreements and the law may limit the ability of the private sector to resist these requests or compel accountability. Even content-hosting platforms, which lack physical presence in certain jurisdictions where they operate, may face the wholesale blocking of their service and attempts to intimidate employees of corporate subsidiaries. Nevertheless, companies in all areas of the information and communications technology industry are capable of establishing and exercising varying degrees of leverage in their relationships with States to resist or mitigate the harm caused by abusive application of the law. Effective strategies of resistance include: the inclusion of human rights guarantees in licensing agreements and other relevant contracts; restrictive interpretations of government requests; negotiations with government officials about the scope of such requests; judicial challenge of overbroad requests or laws; providing affected individuals, the media or public with relevant information; and suspension of service within, withdrawal from, or decisions not to enter a particular market.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- The private sector supplies hardware, software and other technologies that enable States to intercept, store or analyse communications and other information. Infrastructure vendors, hardware manufacturers and software developers may design or customize products on behalf of States, or supply dual use equipment and technology that States subsequently tailor for their own needs. Internet and telecommunication service providers may also purchase equipment or software from these companies to install on their network components in order to comply with legally mandated interception protocols in the States where they operate. States may rely on these products and services to target, harass or intimidate members of vulnerable groups.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Hardware firms design and manufacture the computer devices that connect individuals to the Internet. The range of devices equipped with personal computing functions is, however, ever-expanding and impossible to cap, given the avalanche of connectedness widely described as the "Internet of things", in which digital connection is enabled for all aspects of contemporary existence. Automobiles, refrigerators, televisions and watches are just a few examples of "smart" devices that today incorporate browser, messaging and other Internet-related functions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Industry-led initiatives also seek to address Internet governance challenges that are insufficiently addressed by existing legal regulation. The Copyright Alert System, for example, brings together trade associations in the film and recording industries and Internet service providers to develop and implement a unified approach to combating copyright infringement online. The Telecommunications Industry Dialogue brings together telecommunications operators and vendors to address freedom of expression and right to privacy concerns in their sector.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- Many questions concerning private actors in the digital age focus on content regulation. For instance, how do States facilitate or demand content removal, censorship and unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions on the right to seek, receive and impart Internet content through private platforms and networks? How do private enterprises respond to these demands and other external pressures? When the private sector develops and enforces its own internal policies and standards to protect and promote rights online, how do these have an impact on individual expression and access 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
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- Digital content transmitted on private networks and hosted on private platforms is increasingly subject to State and corporate regulation. The universe of user-generated content is always expanding - blogs, text messages, discussion threads, photographs, videos and social media postings are only a sample of the types of content that users create and share on a daily basis. Companies that manage networks and platforms for this content, known as intermediaries, may "give access to, host, transmit and index content, products and services originated by third parties" even though they do not create or produce that content.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Content regulations are commonly reflected in legislation, court orders or directives or by-laws issued by administrative bodies with delegated authority to manage telecommunications and Internet-related issues. For example, China recently amended its cybersecurity law to forbid persons and organizations from using the Internet to "upse[t] social order" or "har[m] the public interest". Similarly, a draft bill under consideration in Nigeria prohibits anyone from publishing statements in "any medium" with "malicious intent to discredit or set the public against" any person, group or government institution. Such language gives broad discretion to authorities to determine what kinds of digital expression would violate their terms. As a result, individuals and businesses are likely to err on the side of caution in order to avoid onerous penalties, filtering content of uncertain legal status and engaging in other modes of censorship and self-censorship.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Some States impose restrictions in pursuit of objectives not permitted by article 19 (3). In particular, alarm bells ring when States restrict expression relating to matters in the public interest. Article 19 precludes invoking a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 23). Both the Inter-American and the European Courts of Human Rights have noted serious concern at such restrictions.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- While a communication alone does not seek to prove a violation of article 19 of the Covenant, States nonetheless should demonstrate that the restriction meets each of the three conditions found in article 19 (3) thereof: legality, legitimate objective, and necessity and 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- To enforce terms of service, companies may not always have sufficient processes to appeal content removal or account deactivation decisions where a user believes the action was in error or the result of abusive flagging campaigns. Further research that examines best practices in how companies communicate terms of service enforcement decisions and how they implement appeals mechanisms may be useful.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- Search engines supply the vital connection between users who search for information, and those who create, aggregate and publish it. Indeed, search engine algorithms dictate what users see and in what priority, and they may be manipulated to restrict or prioritize content. Information searches, however, are not unique to search engines. Content aggregators, specialized research services, social media platforms and professional networks also enable users to search for content.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Private actors may also request intermediaries to restrict or remove content. For instance, intellectual property complaints often arise when a private party alleges that a person has shared or used content in a manner that violates its copyright or has created a domain name that violates its trademark. While fair use and other defences to such complaints may be available, intellectual property frameworks may inhibit cultural and artistic expression (see A/HRC/28/57).
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- Individuals enjoy the full range of other rights online as well, such as privacy, religious belief, association and peaceful assembly, education, culture and freedom from discrimination. States have both a negative obligation to refrain from violating rights and a positive obligation to ensure enjoyment of those rights. These positive obligations may require public authorities to take steps to protect individuals from the actions of private parties.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57c
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Support or establish regional or subregional monitoring. Several regions have developed or are developing independent approaches to supporting freedom of expression. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have established monitoring mechanisms on the basis of norms that are consistent with the international and regional standards. Human rights courts serve as critical watchdogs in these regions, including subregional courts such as the East African Court of Justice and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. At this time, however, no such monitors - expert-oriented or judicial - exist in the Middle East and North Africa or Asia. I strongly encourage States, in collaboration with United Nations and regional political bodies and civil society, to begin the process of developing independent monitoring mechanisms in those regions that do not currently enjoy them on the basis of international standards. I also strongly encourage civil society actors to make active use of the existing regional and global mechanisms, whether through supportive fact-finding and reporting or litigation, and to develop approaches to creating regional monitoring. The Special Rapporteur stands ready to support such efforts;
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 19
- Paragraph text
- Yet States often treat national security or public order as a label to legitimate any restriction. The Human Rights Council recognized this problem in 2008 in its resolution 7/36, stressing the need to ensure that invocation of national security, including counter-terrorism, is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression. One way to resist unjustifiable or arbitrary invocation of either justification is to insist that Governments demonstrate the risk that specific expression poses to a definite interest in national security or public order, that the measure chosen complies with necessity and proportionality and is the least restrictive means to protect the interest, and that any restriction is subject to independent oversight. In 2016, I shared with a federal judge in the United States of America how article 19 may be used to assess proposals to gain access to the content of encrypted personal digital devices. In my letter to the Court, I noted that alternative measures were available to the Government to conduct its investigation into the 2015 massacre in San Bernardino, California, and that the proposed order would implicate the security and freedom of expression of what would likely be a vast number of people (and would thus be disproportionate).
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- States often assert vague prohibitions on "advocacy of hatred" that do not amount to incitement under article 20 of the Covenant or meet the requirement of necessity under article 19 (3) thereof (see A/67/357). In an exchange with the Government of Pakistan, I raised concerns that recent legislation aims to limit "extremism" and "hate speech" without specifically defining either term. The Government responded as follows: "We firmly believe that for combating extremism, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, should be prohibited by law." While that statement accurately reflects article 20, the legislation itself would penalize the dissemination of information "that advances or is likely to advance inter-faith, sectarian or racial hatred", seemingly regardless of whether such dissemination constitutes incitement. European human rights law also fails to define hate speech adequately, a point emphasized in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó and Tsotsoria in the Delfi v. Estonia judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2015. The dissenting judges stated that even in the context of the prohibition of incitement, there is a very real risk that States will regulate online expression without demonstrating that the elements of incitement have been met in an online environment.
- 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
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- The "duties and responsibilities" under article 19 (3) appear nowhere else in the Covenant. Only in the preamble is it emphasized that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the Covenant. The language in the Covenant and in article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not identify duties or responsibilities of individuals to the State, but to other individuals and the communities in which they live, an acknowledgement that the only legitimate restrictions are those demonstrably grounded in and necessary for the protection of the rights of other individuals or a specific public interest. It is not unusual for States to highlight an individual's duty in order to bolster expansive limitations on the right to freedom of expression. However, the phrase "duties and responsibilities" adds nothing to claims for support of a State's powers of restriction. By no measure does the language prioritize the State over the rights enjoyed by individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Several States penalize sedition or treason in their laws, targeting critics. Malaysia, for instance, has continued to defend its ongoing prosecution of individuals on the basis of a law that criminalizes seditious words or tendencies, arguing that the law promotes "national harmony". In practice, however, dozens of individuals have been detained or subject to prosecution under the Sedition Act merely for expression critical of the Government. Swaziland detained activists on sedition charges following criticism of the monarchical system of government. India has pursued charges against individuals, including a folk singer accused of writing lyrics critical of local government, on the grounds of section 124 A of its Penal Code, which prohibits expression that may cause "hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection" towards the Government. The Gambia has prosecuted a journalist on the grounds of "sedition" and the "publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm to the public" under Gambian law. Jordan has detained and prosecuted an academic for allegedly posting anti-Government comments on his Facebook page on the grounds of "undermining the political regime in the Kingdom".
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- Closely related to these grounds are charges under lese-majesty laws and both criminal and civil defamation. Thailand, for instance, regularly detains and prosecutes people on the grounds of criticizing the royal family, imposing sentences that may reach to decades. The Government argues that the law "gives protection to the rights or reputations" of members of the royal family "in a similar way libel law does for commoners", without acknowledging the high value placed on expression directed towards matters of politics, governance and public life. National laws also allow such prosecutions in other societies with royal families, such as in the Netherlands. Just as such laws that criminalize criticism of government officials or royalty are manifestly inconsistent with freedom of expression, and unjustifiable under article 19 (3), so too are laws that criminalize insults or criticism of foreign officials. In 2016, the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe urged Governments to repeal laws that shield foreign leaders from criticism solely because of their function or status. I share the concern of the Human Rights Council with respect to the "abuse of legal provisions on defamation and criminal libel" (see Council resolution 12/16) and believe that any criminal penalties or excessive civil penalties for defamation are generally inconsistent with article 19 and should be repealed.
- 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
- Families
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- Perhaps most concerning is that Governments often fail to provide measures of protection and accountability that can deter attacks on journalists. The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented alarming statistics involving killings, kidnappings and other forms of aggression against journalists in the Americas, with extremely limited accountability despite some efforts to create special mechanisms for the protection of journalists. Messages from the most senior leadership matter, as I have pointed out in the wake of threatening comments made by the leaders of Thailand and the Philippines. The widespread failure to hold perpetrators accountable for attacks on journalists suggests the absence of concern for the role that journalists play in democratic societies. My communications have highlighted reports and allegations of the failure of accountability in, among other places, South Sudan, where journalists have been killed and disappeared; Mexico, where journalists have been murdered and accountability is inconsistent; the Philippines, which after nearly seven years has not concluded its investigations and prosecutions against those responsible for the massacre of journalists in Maguindinao; and the Russian Federation, where there are multiple reports of journalists who have been murdered and the perpetrators not held to account.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Article 2 (1) of the Covenant requires States to ensure the protection of individuals in the face of such assaults by non-State actors on rights, obligated as they are to respect and ensure respect for all human rights. However, States also need to be cautious not to provide any kind of support in their own laws and actions for the effort to strike down those who hold contrary beliefs. Yet many States still adopt or implement laws that permit them to punish individuals for expression seen to criticize belief. In 2015, for instance, Myanmar amended the Criminal Code to penalize "speech intended to cause religious outrage which insults, or attempts to insult, religion or religious belief" (see A/HRC/31/71, annex I). Saudi Arabia has harshly punished individuals for expression of religious beliefs contrary to national legislation. In 2014, Brunei Darussalam enacted a law that would subject those who insult Islam to capital punishment, which the Government did not deny in its response. Blasphemy and apostasy laws worldwide not only restrict expression but give support to those who would attack others for religious views. Such laws exist not only in the Middle East and South and South-East Asia, where they are prevalent, but also in Europe and the Americas.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- Government repression of artists of all sorts persists. For instance, the mandate holder has sent communications to the Islamic Republic of Iran pertaining to the detention of a graphic artist who made a drawing in protest against the banning of family planning, the detention and flogging sentence of human rights defenders for collections of poetry, the detention of two musicians and a film-maker for "propaganda against the State" and "insulting the sacred" through the production of underground music, and the detention of individuals for appearing in a video protesting a State ban on women watching sports in stadiums. The Egyptian Penal Code provides a basis for restricting artists in its article 98, which subjects to penalties "whoever exploits and uses the religion in advocating and propagating orally, in writing or by any other method, extremist thoughts with the aim of instigating sedition or division, or disdaining and contempting any of the heavenly religions or prejudicing national unity and social peace". Qatar detained a poet for criticizing the Amir of Qatar and praising the Tunisian revolution in poems. Saudi Arabia imposed the death sentence, later commuted, on a poet for apostasy. In Cuba, an artist was detained on the basis of a charge of intending to release two pigs named after Raul and Fidel Castro during an artistic demonstration.
- 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
- Women
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows for restrictions on the freedom of expression (but not on the freedom of opinion under article 19 (1)). According to article 19 (3), any restriction, to be legitimate, must be provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Any restriction must be precise enough and publicly accessible in order to limit the authorities' discretion and provide individuals with adequate guidance (see the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 34 (2011) on article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression). To be necessary, a restriction must be more than merely useful, reasonable or desirable. It is also well established that necessity requires an assessment of proportionality (see A/HRC/29/32). Proportionality requires demonstrating that restrictive measures are the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve their protective function and proportionate to the interest to be protected (see general comment No. 34). When restrictions fail to meet the standard of article 19 (3), individuals enjoy the right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
- 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
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law places a high value on the individual's ability to hold beliefs and practise religious faith. The Human Rights Council has raised concerns about discrimination and violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief (see Council resolution 16/18). Yet neither article 18, on freedom of religion, conscience or belief, article 19 nor article 20 (2) of the Covenant protects religions, institutions or beliefs as such. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has noted that the right to freedom of religion or belief has sometimes been misperceived as protecting religions or belief systems in themselves (see A/HRC/31/18, para. 13), when it in fact protects individuals holding or expressing those beliefs. In paragraph 48 of its general comment No. 34, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with article 19. Nor, the Committee noted, would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.
- 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
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57a
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Review and, where necessary, revise national laws. National legislation increasingly adopts overly broad definitions of key terms, such as terrorism, national security, extremism and hate speech, that fail to limit the discretion of executive authorities. Legislation often limits the role of judicial or independent and public oversight. Proponents often give limited demonstration of how new legal rules are necessary to protect legitimate interests and proportionately address specific threats, and the legislative process often limits public engagement and debate. I would urge all States considering new legislation to ensure that their laws meet these requirements, and I encourage States to implement regular public oversight of laws that implicate freedom of expression to ensure that they meet the tests of legality, legitimacy and necessity. Where possible, States should not only adopt legal frameworks but also implement training, particularly among independent oversight bodies, of the principles of 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- State demands to remove content are often based on such rationales as defamation, blasphemy, election-related regulations, harassment or hate speech, incitement, intellectual property, obscenity and indecency, terrorist recruitment or "glorification", the protection of national security and public safety, child protection and the prevention of gender-based attacks. Problems long connected to freedom of expression but increasingly complicated in the digital age have also attracted State regulation, including the "right to be forgotten" and pluralism and diversity (for example, network neutrality). Intermediaries themselves establish and enforce terms of service designed to address many of these concerns, for legal, commercial and other reasons. Many of these issues raise questions about the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and other human rights (for example, privacy, non-discrimination). While content regulations are often restrictive in nature, they may also require the transmission of Government-mandated or approved messages, or prohibit differential pricing for content and content delivery services.
- 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
- Gender
- Person(s) affected
- Children
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Intermediaries are increasingly required to assess the validity of State requests and private complaints against general legal criteria, and remove or delink such content based on such assessments. For example, the Cybercrime Act, 2015 of the United Republic of Tanzania only exempts hyperlink providers from liability for information linked provided that they "immediately remove[ ] or disable[ ] access to the information after receiving an order to do so from the relevant authority". In the context of copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of the United States of America exempts providers of "online services and network access" from liability for third party content only if they respond "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity" upon notice of such infringement. These notice and takedown frameworks have been criticized for incentivizing questionable claims and for failing to provide adequate protection for the intermediaries that seek to apply fair and human rights-sensitive standards to content regulation.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Public order is often used by States to justify measures to counter violent extremism. The measures adopted are rarely drawn narrowly enough to satisfy the necessity or proportionality criteria. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has urged Governments to address the problems of extremism with precise definition and proportionate measures. He criticized Human Rights Council resolution 30/15 on human rights and preventing and countering violent extremism as it may "allow some Governments to qualify non-violent actions that are critical of the Government as violent extremism" (see A/HRC/31/65, para. 27). In 2016, in an annual joint declaration, United Nations and regional freedom of expression experts expressed deep concerns that programmes to counter violent extremism fail to meet international standards. Legislation recently adopted in the Russian Federation broadly criminalizes statements conveying support for "the ideology and practices of terrorism". In Kyrgyzstan, article 11 of the Law on Countering Extremist Activity prohibits the dissemination of extremist materials that call for or justify activities that, among other things, are defined as a "breach of national dignity" or "the carrying out of mass disorders".
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- International legal instruments do not explicitly address how States and other actors should maintain a free and open Internet, nor may regulation by law always be an appropriate approach. Indeed, Internet governance is not the sole province of specialized bodies or Governments. Most recently, the World Summit on the Information Society emphasized the continuing importance of a governance approach that integrates government, corporate and civil society, academic and technical stakeholders and expertise (see General Assembly resolution 70/125). In the context of global trade, non-discrimination principles established under international agreements administered by the World Trade Organization may require States to restrict or otherwise regulate non-neutral services. The World Intellectual Property Organization has also faced growing demands from member States for advice on legislative frameworks that enable them to implement treaty obligations in digital environments. Regional bodies, such as the African Union, the European Commission and the Organization of American States seek to ensure that global Internet policy is formulated and implemented in a manner that takes into account the laws, particularities and concerns of their respective regions.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- Since the Special Rapporteur reported on the importance of encryption and anonymity for protecting freedom of opinion and expression, government pressure on corporations to compromise the security of their customers' digital devices, communications and information has grown. A range of private entities, from hardware manufacturers to e-mail services to messaging services, have been taking measures to develop and implement technologies that enhance user security, anonymity and privacy. These measures include end-to-end encryption for digital communications, disk encryption and timely software updates to close security loopholes. In response, States are seeking to compel companies to create or exploit technical loopholes in their products and services on their behalf. In the United States, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied to a federal court to compel Apple to create software that facilitates access to a suspect's iPhone in a terrorism investigation. The Investigative Powers Bill introduced before the British Parliament on 1 March 2016 would authorize intelligence services to apply for a warrant that requires private entities to "secure interference with any equipment for the purpose of obtaining communications […] equipment data and any other 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- Under article 2 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States parties must ensure that persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated have an effective remedy. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights anticipate that corporations should provide remedial and grievance mechanisms that are legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, rights-compatible, transparent, based on dialogue and engagement, and a source of continuous learning. There is limited guidance, however, as to how these elements should be operationalized or assessed in the context of information and communications technology. For example, improper removal of web links from search results might require the search engine to reinstate such links. It is, however, unclear how complaint or appeals mechanisms should be designed and implemented to ensure that such removals are effectively flagged, evaluated and remedied. A search engine's highly dispersed customer base further complicates design issues. It is also unclear whether companies should provide additional remedies, like financial compensation for lost revenue during the period of removal, or guarantees of non-repetition.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- Third, laws often do not provide courts or other independent third-party reviews with the authority necessary to evaluate claims of violations. In the context of France's emergency legislation, for instance, a number of mandate holders raised concerns in 2016 about the lack of judicial procedure prior to the dissolution of certain organizations. Other mandate holders and I also raised concerns about the nature of the appointment of "judicial commissioners" as part of the United Kingdom's consideration of the Investigatory Powers Bill. With regard to Egypt, I noted that the power to grant and revoke permits for artistic works - along with the power to resolve appeals against such decisions - is vested exclusively in the Ministry of Culture.
- 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
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Once an individual has shown the existence of a restriction on freedom of expression, the burden falls on the State to demonstrate that it complies with the requirements of human rights law (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 27). Essential to meeting that burden is a demonstration that the restriction does "not put in jeopardy the right itself" (ibid., para. 21). In keeping with this requirement, in each of the mandate holder's communications States are requested to provide the underlying rationale for an alleged restriction on expression. Communications thus provide the State with an opportunity to show compliance with legal norms, while at the same time giving the mandate holder and other Special Rapporteurs a tool to seek protection of the right and understand the trends concerning exercise of the right.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur has received responses to communications, many of which merely confirm receipt, approximately 52 per cent of the time (see A/HRC/32/53), but where States do respond substantively they typically acknowledge that the applicable legal framework may be found in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Several States have provided comprehensive responses addressing factual and legal concerns raised by the mandate holder. Examples of illuminating substantive responses - although views may nonetheless differ - include Pakistan's explanations of its cybersecurity legislation, the response of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to concerns regarding the Investigatory Powers Bill and Turkey's response to my serious concerns about the treatment of academics.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- In 2016, the Human Rights Council condemned unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law and called upon all States to refrain from and cease such measures (see Council resolution 32/13, para. 10). The blocking of Internet platforms and the shutting down of telecommunications infrastructure are persistent threats, for even if they are premised on national security or public order, they tend to block the communications of often millions of individuals (A/HRC/32/38, paras. 45-48). In a joint declaration in 2015, United Nations and regional experts in the field of freedom of expression condemned Internet shutdowns (or "kill switches") as unlawful. Similarly, the detention of bloggers and online journalists and other forms of attack on digital expression often rest on assertions of national security without demonstration of the necessity of such restrictions.
- 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
- Activists
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Civil society organizations and initiatives also remain vibrant and critical to expanding or strengthening freedom of expression norms, particularly in situations of significant flux, such as contemporary digital technologies or the law at the intersection of expression and religion, such as the Rabat Plan of Action. Restrictions on civic space raise particular concerns, not only with regard to freedom of expression (see Human Rights Council resolution 32/31). Independent media, in the face of growing concentrations of ownership in many markets, remain critical as watchdogs of public authorities around the world, particularly in digital space.
- 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
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- Private companies play a major role in the development, production and transfer of software and hardware that Governments may deploy for law enforcement, intelligence and public security purposes. While such tools may have legitimate purposes, they are often deployed by Governments for purposes of censorship and disproportionate surveillance. Future work will explore such issues through the human rights framework and encourage due diligence in identifying the uses of such technologies for purposes that undermine 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 79
- Paragraph text
- The billions of individuals who are connected online enjoy access to information and ideas that is denied billions more who lack the infrastructure or political, security, legal or social environment necessary for connectivity. As the private sector increasingly seeks to empower the next billions with access, it will be critical to ensure that such access is free, open and secure. Future work will explore issues around access and private sector engagement and investment in ensuring affordability and accessibility, particularly considering marginalized groups.
- 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
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 56
- Paragraph text
- In the coming years, I urge States to be particularly mindful of the context of digital rights, the integrity of digital communications and the roles of intermediaries, regardless of frontiers. It will be particularly critical for States to avoid adopting legal rules that implicate digital actors - including, but not limited to, data localization standards, intermediary liability and Internet security - that undermine the freedom of expression, and I will be monitoring such legislation closely. I see ongoing deterioration of online rights, even as the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly urge that rights offline be respected online. The coming years will test just how genuine the commitment to that proposition is.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 89
- Paragraph text
- It is also critical that private entities ensure the greatest possible transparency in their policies, standards and actions that implicate the freedom of expression and other fundamental rights. Human rights assessments should be subject to transparent review, in terms of their methodologies, their interpretation of legal obligations and the weight that such assessments have on business decisions. Transparency is important across the board, including in the context of content regulation, and should include the reporting of government requests for takedowns.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 55
- Paragraph text
- The manner in which intermediaries curate, categorize and rank content affects what information users access and view on their platforms. For example, platforms deploy algorithmic predictions of user preferences and consequently guide the advertisements individuals might see, how their social media feeds are arranged and the order in which search results appear. Other self-regulatory measures, such as "counter speech" initiatives to support anti-terror or anti-harassment messages, also affect the ways in which users might consume and process Internet content concerning sensitive topics. It remains an open question how freedom of expression concerns raised by design and engineering choices should be reconciled with the freedom of private entities to design and customize their platforms as they choose.
- 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 47
- Paragraph text
- Ambiguities in State regulation coupled with onerous intermediary liability obligations could result in excessive filtering. Even if content regulations werevalidly enacted and enforced, users may still experience unnecessary access restrictions. For example, content filtering in one jurisdiction may affect the digital expression of users in other jurisdictions. While companies may configure filters to apply only to a particular jurisdiction or region, there have been instances where they were nevertheless passed on to other networks or areas of the platform. For instance, in 2013 State-mandated filtering carried out by Airtel India led to restrictions on the same content on several networks in Oman belonging to its partner, Omantel.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles provide a framework for the consideration of private business responsibilities in the information and communications technology sector worldwide, independent of State obligations or implementation of those obligations. For instance, the Guiding Principles assert a global responsibility for businesses to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and to address such impacts when they occur and seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- As a matter of transparency, the Guiding Principles state that businesses should be prepared to communicate how they address their human rights impacts externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has also urged information and communications companies to disclose risks and government demands transparently (see A/HRC/27/37). Meaningful disclosures shed light on, among other things, the volume and context of government requests for content removals and customer data, the processes for handling such requests, and interpretations of relevant laws, policies and regulations. Corporate transparency obligations may also include a duty to disclose processes and reporting relating to terms of service enforcement and private requests for content regulation and user data.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- While Internet service providers specifically connect their subscribers to the Internet, telecommunication service providers offer a broader range of services, including access to radio, television, telephone and mobile communication. Major multinational corporations offer both categories of service, not only in their State of origin but also globally. Vodafone, for example, is a British provider that owns and operates networks in 27 countries and has partner networks in over 50 additional countries. TeliaSonera, based in Finland and Sweden, serves markets throughout Eurasia, and MTS Russia provides domestic service but also provides telecommunication services in Armenia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Companies like these often own and maintain significant aspects of the technical infrastructure that transmit Internet and telecommunications traffic, including fibre optic network cables, satellites or wireless links. Internet service providers in local and regional markets might operate a limited number of these networks or lease network capacity from large carriers in order to connect their subscribers to the Internet. State ownership is fairly common among service providers: Switzerland, for example, holds 51 per cent of the shares in Swisscom AG, and Uruguay owns Antel, a major telecommunications provider in the country. While telecommunication and Internet service providers are currently the most common providers of Internet access, a growing number of hybrid companies aim to provide Internet access as well as other Internet-related services.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- States may also covertly tap into the technical infrastructure belonging to service providers and content platforms in order to intercept a wide variety of information, including communications, user account information, and telephone and Internet records. States reportedly tamper with computer hardware while en route to customers, infiltrate private networks and platforms with malicious software, hack into specific devices, and exploit other digital security loopholes. When business enterprises have notice of such surveillance, questions concerning their human rights responsibilities may arise, such as providing notice to customers or mitigating such harm through security measures. Companies that sell equipment and services to Governments to implement covert surveillance techniques may be implicated in human rights violations that flow from their sales.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- States also increasingly rely on terms of service to remove content they find objectionable. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism has observed that several States have established content-removal mechanisms that often seek the removal of content that, while lawful, might be regarded as extremist (see A/HRC/31/65). The Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit in the United Kingdom, for example, is dedicated to removing online content of a "violent extremist or terrorist nature", including through methods that "use websites' content-flagging mechanisms to report content as a violation of the site's [terms of service]". Such practices raise the prospect that States may rely on private terms of service to bypass human rights or domestic law norms against content restrictions.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 72
- Paragraph text
- Given the range of private information and communications technology activity that frames and impacts the exercise of the freedom of opinion and expression online, the Special Rapporteur will focus on State obligations and business responsibilities in specific areas of concern. The legal and policy issues raised above will guide thematic reporting, communications with Governments, country and company visits, regional and expert consultations, and other work.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- Some organizations that set technical standards have policymaking functions as well. The International Telecommunication Union, for example, develops and coordinates global telecommunications policies. ICANN makes policy judgments about the types of top-level domain names that may be registered and who may claim ownership, in consultation with Governments, the private sector, civil society and other relevant actors.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- This mapping report rests on a basic question: to what extent should the information and communications technology sector be responsible for the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression? Addressing this question requires beginning with a summary of the international human rights law according to which States are obligated to promote and protect freedom of expression and principles addressing private-sector human rights responsibilities.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 64
- Paragraph text
- Despite multiple reform attempts, transparency concerning government requests is still lacking. While there has been some improvement in transparency reporting concerning government requests for user information, there is far less information available about the volume and nature of government requests to restrict or remove content. It is unclear whether such statistics are even retained. State restrictions on private disclosures of relevant information can be a major obstacle to corporate transparency. Several States prohibit disclosures concerning government requests for content removal or access to user data. India, for example, prohibits online intermediaries from disclosing details of government orders to block access to Internet content, as well as any action they take in response to such orders. The British Investigative Powers Bill would prohibit telecommunication service providers from disclosing, among other things, "the existence and contents" of government orders to retain customers' communications data. In other States, ambiguous laws and regulations make it difficult for corporations to determine what kinds of information they are permitted to disclose. In South Africa, for example, private disclosures of government requests for customers' data are prohibited, but it is unclear whether the same restriction extends to content removal requests.
- 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
- 2016
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Confidential sources rely on others to invoke the right to confidentiality on their behalf. Historically, States have enabled a professional class of journalists to invoke the right, but the revolution in the media and in information over the past 20 years demands reconsideration of such limitations. Article 19, which protects freedom of expression through any media, requires that States take into account a contemporary environment that has expanded well beyond traditional print and broadcast media. The protection available to sources should be based on the function of collection and dissemination and not merely the specific profession of "journalist". The practice of journalism is carried out by "professional full-time reporters and analysts, as well as bloggers and others who engage in forms of self-publication in print, on the Internet or elsewhere" (Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 44).
- 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 protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Second, "citizen journalists" and bloggers and other media "non-professionals" engage in independent reporting and disseminate their findings through a wide variety of media, from print and broadcast to social media and other online platforms. They frequently work in ways similar or identical to, or even more rigorous than, the work of traditional journalists. Some States have adopted rules that provide important protection for them. For example, the Irish High Court, in Cornec v. Morrice and Ors, found that bloggers might claim source protection because they could constitute an "organ of public opinion" and because the right to influence public opinion would be jeopardized if they were forced to disclose their sources.
- 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
- Activists
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Three considerations deserve emphasis. First, to be necessary, a restriction must protect a specific legitimate interest from actual or threatened harm that would otherwise result. As a result, general or vague assertions that a restriction is necessary are inconsistent with article 19. However legitimate a particular interest may be in principle, the categories themselves are widely relied upon to shield information that the public has a right to know. It is not legitimate to limit disclosure in order to protect against embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing, or to conceal the functioning of an institution.
- 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 protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- Second, under the well-accepted proportionality element of the necessity test, disclosure must be shown to impose a specific risk of harm to a legitimate State interest that outweighs the public's interest in the information to be disclosed. If a disclosure does not harm a legitimate State interest, there is no basis for its suppression or withholding (see general comment No. 34 of the Human Rights Committee, para. 30). Some matters should be considered presumptively in the public interest, such as criminal offences and human rights or international humanitarian law violations, corruption, public safety and environmental harm and abuse of public office. The importance of the public's interest has been emphasized repeatedly in other regional mechanisms. National laws relating to the right to information also commonly provide for a public interest analysis.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph