Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 345 entities
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- A key escrow system permits individual access to encryption but requires users to store their private keys with the Government or a "trusted third party". Key escrows, however, have substantial vulnerabilities. For instance, the key escrow system depends on the integrity of the person, department or system charged with safeguarding the private keys, and the key database itself could be vulnerable to attack, undermining any user's communication security and privacy. Key escrow systems, rejected (along with back-door access) after significant debate in the United States in the so-called Crypto Wars of the 1990s, are currently in place in several countries and have been proposed in others. In 2011, Turkey passed regulations requiring encryption suppliers to provide copies of encryption keys to government regulators before offering their encryption tools to users. The vulnerabilities inherent in key escrows render them a serious threat to the security to exercise the freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Some States and regional courts have moved towards imposing responsibilities on Internet service providers and media platforms to regulate online comments by anonymous users. Ecuador, for instance, in its Organic Communications Law, requires intermediaries to generate mechanisms to record personal data to allow the identification of those posting comments. In Delfi v. Estonia (application No. 64569/09), the European Court of Human Rights upheld an Estonian law that imposes liability on a media platform for anonymous defamatory statements posted on its site. Such intermediary liability is likely to result either in real-name registration policies, thereby undermining anonymity, or the elimination of posting altogether by those websites that cannot afford to implement screening procedures, thus harming smaller, independent media. The recently adopted Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, drafted by a coalition of civil society organizations, provide a sound set of guidelines for States and international and regional mechanisms to protect expression online.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Corporations in a variety of sectors play roles in advancing or interfering with privacy, opinion and expression, including encryption and anonymity. Much online communication (and virtually all of it in some countries) is carried on networks owned and operated by private corporations, while other corporations own and manage websites with substantial user-generated content. Others are active players in the surveillance and spyware markets, providing hardware and software to Governments to compromise the security of individuals online. Others develop and provide services for secure and private online storage. Telecommunications entities, Internet service providers, search engines, cloud services and many other corporate actors, often described as intermediaries, promote, regulate or compromise privacy and expression online. Intermediaries may store massive volumes of user data, to which Governments often demand access. Encryption and anonymity may be promoted or compromised by each of these corporate 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- Generally, legislation has not kept pace with the changes in technology. In most States, legal standards are either non-existent or inadequate to deal with the modern communications surveillance environment. As a result, States are increasingly seeking to justify the use of new technologies within the ambits of old legal frameworks, without recognizing that the expanded capabilities they now possess go far beyond what such frameworks envisaged. In many countries, this means that vague and broadly conceived legal provisions are being invoked to legitimize and sanction the use of seriously intrusive techniques. Without explicit laws authorizing such technologies and techniques, and defining the scope of their use, individuals are not able to foresee - or even know about - their application. At the same time, laws are being adopted to broaden the breadth of national security exceptions, providing for the legitimization of intrusive surveillance techniques without oversight or independent review.
- 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
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 17
- Paragraph text
- In many countries, existing legislation and practices have not been reviewed and updated to address the threats and challenges of communications surveillance in the digital age. Traditional notions of access to written correspondence, for example, have been imported into laws permitting access to personal computers and other information and communications technologies, without consideration of the expanded uses of such devices and the implications for individuals' rights. At the same time, the absence of laws to regulate global communications surveillance and sharing arrangements has resulted in ad hoc practices that are beyond the supervision of any independent authority. Today, in many States, access to communications data can be conducted by a wide range of public bodies for a wide range of purposes, often without judicial authorization and independent oversight. In addition, States have sought to adopt surveillance arrangements that purport to have extra-territorial effect.
- 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
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 84
- Paragraph text
- In some cases, the continued use of parallel national laws and regulations justifying multiple grounds for secrecy, some predating the adoption of the laws regulating access to information, continues to hamper information 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
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76g
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Open meetings. In line with the notion of maximum disclosure, legislation should establish a presumption that meetings of governing bodies are open to 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)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Described below are the principles developed to guide the design and implementation of national legislation on access to information, in addition to common obstacles to the implementation of such 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)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 65
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur considers that the Tshwane Principles provide a key tool for States to ensure that national laws and practices regarding the withholding of information on national security grounds fully comply with international human rights 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
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 46
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes that multi-stakeholder initiatives are essential to deal effectively with issues related to the Internet, and the Global Network Initiative serves as a helpful example to encourage good practice by corporations. Although only three corporations, namely Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, have participated in this initiative so far, the Special Rapporteur welcomes their commitment to undertake a human rights impact assessment of their decisions, including before entering a foreign market, and to ensure transparency and accountability when confronted with situations that may undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Google's Transparency Report is an outcome of such work, and provides information on Government inquiries for information about users and requests for Google to take down or censor content, as well as statistical information on traffic to Google services, such as YouTube. By illustrating traffic patterns for a given country or region, it allows users to discern any disruption in the free flow of information, whether it is due to Government censorship or a cable cut.
- 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
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet 2011, para. 69
- Paragraph text
- There are, however, some encouraging initiatives to promote broadband Internet connection at the national level. Sweden, for example, was the first European country to develop a broadband policy in 1999, with the Government aiming to provide broadband in rural and remote areas where there is no market incentive to do so. In Brazil, the Government has been active in developing programmes that make broadband Internet access available to people in lower income brackets. For example, the e-government citizens' support service (GESAC) was set up in early 2002 for the purpose of increasing social inclusion by promoting digital inclusion, with the use of wireless technologies, such as satellite and WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), to roll out broadband to poorly served areas. The Government also operates a network of community telecentres that offer Internet access free of charge. Through GESAC, the Government aims to ensure that all of Brazil's 5,565 municipalities have at least one broadband access point.
- 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
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
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
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph