Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 121 entities
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
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. 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
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
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. 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. 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
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
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
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
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. 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
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
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
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. 19
- Paragraph text
- Two categories, for example, expand beyond officially recognized journalists. First, there are those who most closely reflect the professional engagement in collection and dissemination: members of civil society organizations who conduct research and issue findings, and researchers - academics, independent authors, freelance writers and others - who regularly participate in gathering and sharing information publicly. It is common for such people to adopt and publish methodologies that underscore the degree of professionalism upon which their work depends. Many non-governmental organizations are themselves publishers of well-sourced content that, in form and substance, is virtually identical to the work of the press, often the result of thorough research, in-the-field reporting and analysis. It is common for human rights researchers to rely upon sources who require confidentiality for safety. Recognizing a broad scope of protection, the European Court of Human Rights indicated that "non-governmental organisations, like the press, may be characterised as social 'watchdogs.' In that connection their activities warrant similar Convention protection to that afforded to the press". The Information Commissioner's Office in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland granted a non-governmental organization, Global Witness, an exemption from the national Data Protection Act because its work, and those of other non-media organizations, "constitutes a journalistic purpose even if they are not professional journalists and the publication forms part of a wider campaign to promote a particular cause". In Canada, a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec upheld a researcher's right to protect confidential 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)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- State entities should also support civil society organizations that are expert in the areas of access to information, protection of journalists and their sources, and whistle-blower promotion and protection. Many such organizations may offer technical advice and training. States should ensure that civil society can participate fully in all efforts to adopt or revise source and whistle-blower laws, regulations and 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
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 66
- Paragraph text
- Acts of reprisals and other attacks against whistle-blowers and the disclosure of confidential sources must be thoroughly investigated and those responsible for those acts held accountable. When the attacks are condoned or perpetrated by authorities in leadership positions they consolidate a culture of silence, secrecy and fear within institutions and beyond, deterring future disclosures. Leaders at all levels in institutions should promote whistle-blowing and be seen to support whistle-blowers, and particular attention should be paid to the ways in which authorities in leadership positions encourage retaliation, tacitly or expressly, against 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 16
- Paragraph text
- National legal systems have also widely adopted the norm of protection of confidentiality. In a strong statement of legal protection, the 2010 Media Services Act of Estonia establishes that persons who are "processing information for journalistic purposes shall have the right not to disclose the information that would enable identification of the source of information" (sect. 15 (1)). The 1987 German Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a right to refuse to testify on professional grounds (sects. 53 (1(5)) and (2)). In Sweden, the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression of 1991 prohibits journalists from disclosing their sources and has criminalized the non-consensual disclosure of source identity (chap. 2, arts. 3-5). The Constitution of Cabo Verde guarantees that "no journalist shall be forced to reveal his sources of information" (art. 48 (8)). The laws of Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, India, Mozambique and the Philippines are among the many other States in which the principle of source protection is recognized.
- 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
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- International bodies, recognizing the role played by the media in providing access to information, emphasize the importance of protecting "a free, uncensored and unhindered press or other media" (see general comment No. 34 of the Human Rights Committee, para. 13). The right to information is grounded in the public's right to know "information of public interest" (see A/68/362, para. 19). The Security Council has affirmed that the work of a free, independent and impartial media constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society (see Council resolutions 2222 (2015) and 1738 (2006)). The General Assembly in 2014 and 2015 called upon States to maintain a safe environment for journalists to work independently and without undue interference (see Assembly resolutions 68/163 and 69/185). The Human Rights Council in 2012, in its first resolution on the protection of journalists, highlighted the need to ensure greater protection for all media professionals and for journalistic sources (see Council resolution 21/12).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- National laws should ensure that protections apply strictly, with extremely limited exceptions. Under Belgian law, journalists and editorial staff may be compelled by a judge to disclose information sources only if they are of a nature to prevent crimes that pose a serious threat to the physical integrity of one or more persons, and upon a finding of the following two cumulative conditions: (a) the information is of crucial importance for preventing such crimes; and (b) the information cannot be obtained by any other means. The same conditions apply to investigative measures, such as searches, seizures and telephone tapping, with respect to journalistic 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
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- Encryption and anonymity are especially useful for the development and sharing of opinions, which often occur through online correspondence such as e-mail, text messaging, and other online interactions. Encryption provides security so that individuals are able "to verify that their communications are received only by their intended recipients, without interference or alteration, and that the communications they receive are equally free from intrusion" (see A/HRC/23/40 and Corr.1, para. 23). Given the power of metadata analysis to specify "an individual's behaviour, social relationships, private preferences and identity" (see A/HRC/27/37, para. 19), anonymity may play a critical role in securing correspondence. Besides correspondence, international and regional mechanisms have interpreted privacy to involve a range of other circumstances as well.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Everyone depends upon well-sourced stories in order to develop informed opinions about matters of public interest. Professional reporting organizations emphasize that named sources are preferable to anonymous ones. Nonetheless, reporters often rely upon, and thus promise confidentiality to, sources who risk retaliation or other harm if exposed. Without protection, many voices would remain silent and the public uninformed.
- 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
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Notably, encryption protects the content of communications but not identifying factors such as the Internet Protocol (IP) address, known as metadata. Third parties may gather significant information concerning an individual's identity through metadata analysis if the user does not employ anonymity tools. Anonymity is the condition of avoiding identification. A common human desire to protect one's identity from the crowd, anonymity may liberate a user to explore and impart ideas and opinions more than she would using her actual identity. Individuals online may adopt pseudonyms (or, for instance, fake e-mail or social media accounts) to hide their identities, image, voice, location and so forth, but the privacy afforded through such pseudonyms is superficial and easily disturbed by Governments or others with the necessary expertise; in the absence of combinations of encryption and anonymizing tools, the digital traces that users leave behind render their identities easily discoverable. Users seeking to ensure full anonymity or mask their identity (such as hiding the original IP address) against State or criminal intrusion may use tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs), proxy services, anonymizing networks and software, and peer-to-peer networks. One well-known anonymity tool, the Tor network, deploys more than 6,000 decentralized computer servers around the world to receive and relay data multiple times so as to hide identifying information about the end points, creating strong anonymity for its 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
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 37
- Paragraph text
- It also bears noting that the United Nations itself has not provided strong communication security tools to its staff or to those who would visit United Nations websites, making it difficult for those under threat to securely reach the United Nations, human rights mechanisms online.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Protection must also counter a variety of contemporary threats. A leading one is surveillance. The ubiquitous use of digital electronics, alongside government capacity to access the data and footprints that all such devices leave behind, has presented serious challenges to confidentiality and anonymity of sources and whistle-blowers. The problem of unintended self-disclosure has been a recurrent feature in the leading cases involving journalistic sources in recent years, in which the Government of the United States of America discovered probable source identities through telephone and e-mail records. Writers themselves report concern that their ability to protect sources is much diminished in the face of surveillance. National and regional courts in Europe have appropriately criticized extralegal approaches to compromising confidentiality. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, for example, protected the telephone records of a journalist because they were openly instrumental to the identification of those who had provided confidential information. The European Court of Human Rights emphasized the importance of providing "the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference" caused by surveillance. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that interception, surveillance and other digital searches "should not be applied if their purpose is to circumvent" source protection.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The trend lines regarding security and privacy online are deeply worrying. States often fail to provide public justification to support restrictions. Encrypted and anonymous communications may frustrate law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials, and they complicate surveillance, but State authorities have not generally identified situations - even in general terms, given the potential need for confidentiality - where a restriction has been necessary to achieve a legitimate goal. States downplay the value of traditional non-digital tools in law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts, including transnational cooperation. As a consequence, the public lacks an opportunity to measure whether restrictions on their online security would be justified by any real gains in national security and crime prevention. Efforts to restrict encryption and anonymity also tend to be quick reactions to terrorism, even when the attackers themselves are not alleged to have used encryption or anonymity to plan or carry out an attack. Moreover, even where the restriction is arguably in pursuit of a legitimate interest, many laws and policies regularly do not meet the standards of necessity and proportionality and have broad, deleterious effects on the ability of all individuals to exercise freely their rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 18
- Paragraph text
- Today, journalists and other "social communicators" may claim the right of confidentiality for the source. Persons other than journalists inform the public and carry out a "vital public watchdog role". International bodies increasingly use terms more general than "journalist", such as "media professionals" or "media workers". The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights refers to "media practitioners" and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media refers to "new participants in journalism". All those terms demonstrate an understanding that those performing the same journalistic functions should enjoy the right to protect sources. The Council of Europe has defined the term "journalist" functionally as "any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication". For the purposes of source protection - when, as the Norwegian Supreme Court has noted, the broadest protection should be available - any person or entity involved in collecting or gathering information with the intent to publish or otherwise disseminate it publicly should be permitted to claim the right to protect a source's confidentiality. Regular, professional engagement may indicate protection, but its absence should not be a presumptive bar to those who collect information for public dissemination.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- Certain States have passed laws that require real-name registration for online activity, a kind of ban on anonymity. In the Russian Federation, bloggers with 3,000 or more daily readers must register with the media regulator and identify themselves publicly, and cybercafe users reportedly must provide identification to connect to public wireless facilities. China reportedly announced regulations requiring Internet users to register real names for certain websites and avoid spreading content that challenges national interests. South Africa also requires real name registration for online and mobile telephone users.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Year
- 2015
Paragraph