Human Rights First Joins With Internet Companies in Adopting Principles on Free Expression and Privacy

A key to implementation is a strong system of accountability

As the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and others are reporting, the group of companies, human rights organizations, academics and investors that have been working to develop a code of conduct for the Internet industry announced yesterday that the effort is going forward as the Global Network Initiative (GNI). A website (www.globalnetworkinitiative.org) will soon be up and running where the public will be able to view the agreed-upon documents that provide a general framework for the activities of the initiative going forward.

Since 2006, Human Rights First has been at the table in the discussions leading to the launching of this initiative. We are committed to continuing to press companies to take a more assertive stand, individually and collectively, to challenge intrusive practices by governments that mute dissent and persecute individuals who speak out against government policies and practices.

Much of the media attention relating to this initiative has focused on the need for a strong accountability framework to ensure that companies are living up to the commitments they’ve made through GNI to protect their users. Human Rights First believes that a key measure of the initiative’s success will be the extent to which companies’ statements about freedom of expression and privacy can be verified through transparent reporting and independent monitoring and evaluation. We will press for a strong system of accountability in the negotiations relating to the drafting of a governance charter, reporting requirements and an assessment model going forward.

In addition to the company members of GNI—Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google—we’re pleased to be working with our colleagues at Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights in China and others. Human rights organizations have an important role to play in ensuring that GNI is a credible and effective means to protecting Internet freedom. We also will continue to work with other human rights organizations that are not at the table, looking to them for external advice, insight and advocacy as we move forward.

Throughout this process, we have been driven to pursue this important initiative by the stories of journalists and activists fighting to report stories, expressing ideas and rallying support for human rights using the Internet, whether on online newspapers, blogs, email or websites. Just this week, the government in Burma is reportedly increasing its already high degree of Internet censorship to prevent web-based advocacy and reporting in advance of the 20th anniversary of the pro-democracy uprising in Burma. The government’s desire to repress activism and the free exchange of ideas captures the tension that will be at the heart of GNI’s efforts—balancing the unprecedented capacity of the Internet to facilitate the free flow of information and the protection of individuals who seek to employ its power to make their voices heard.

UK proposes surveillance database

In my last post, I didn't address the question of the legitimate role of government in conducting Internet surveillance as part of law enforcement efforts. With its story on a £12 billion British plan to establish a database to monitor email, text messages and phone calls, the Sunday Times brings the question to the forefront.

All the telecommunications companies in the US and Europe regularly cooperate with law enforcement in responding to requests for information related to criminal cases, including cases involving terrorism. These requests are made through specific warrants, which are granted through regularly established judicial processes. It's hard to argue with this kind of targeted surveillance that is squarely linked to aiding the criminal justice system.

Establishing a database to monitor every email, text and phone call sent within the UK is another story altogether. Such a system raises huge questions about the link to the judiciary, data security and the right to privacy. Details of the plan are not yet available (according to the Times article, more details will be made public in association with the Queen's speech next month), so it's too early to evaluate specifics.

That said, what distinguishes the UK proposal from the kind of surveillance being conducted in China, the UAE, Vietnam and other repressive regimes is the potential for public debate. As more details of the plan become available, I'll be curious to see how the public debate unfolds about the legitimacy of this kind of surveillance in a democracy, and how the government responds.