History of Anonymous

             I think we all have heard about this group of activists. Anonymous group have marked their presence in many coutries, including in Brazil. So, this post is a tribute to them and I hope they keep their work for a fair and better world. This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published with the incomplete title above in October of 2011 at http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/a-history-of-anonymous/#gref.  The second was published in February 2015 and  at https://www.bustle.com/articles/65444-how-did-anonymous-start-the-history-of-the-mysterious-hacktivist-group-began-quite-some-time-ago. The third was published in March of 2016 at http://abcnews.go.com/US/worldwide-hacker-group-anonymous/story?id=37761302

             Anonymous is the most famous 'hacktivist' group in the world. The informal nature of the group makes its mechanics difficult to define. Subsequently, without a formal organizational hierarchy, it is difficult to explain Anonymous to the general public. In this article, I'll explain the history of the group and offer some clarity on what is misunderstood about them. 'Hacktivist' is a portmanteau of hacker and activist. When people have technical skills, access to internet and understand how network infrastructure and servers work, it can be tempting to put that knowledge into having some effect on the world. The activist part means that they do not do their hacking without a cause. The various people behind Anonymous worldwide are united in a belief that corporations and organizations they consider to be corrupt should be attacked. Not all of Anonymous' activities involve attacking networks or websites. Anonymous has also been active in initiating public protests. But the web and IRC channels are the lifeblood of the group. If it were not for the Internet, Anonymous would have never existed. 4chan.org, an image-based bulletin board website, inspired by 2channel, a massive Internet forum, with random content, which is especially popular in Japan. 4chan allows people to post anonymously as well. Unlike 2channel, the vast majority of 4chan is in English. Any poster who does not post text in the name field automatically gets credited as 'Anonymous'. In 2008, the Project Chanology, during the various Anonymous protests against Scientology that year, many protesters wore Guy Fawkes masks, in the spirit of the popular film "V for Vendetta", and also to protect their identities from the cult, which is known for attacking dissenters that Scientology calls 'supressive persons'. In 2009, there were the Project skynet and Operation Didgeridie. In June, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in Iran, which triggered protests across the country. In response, Anonymous Iran was created, and offered Iranians a forum to the world which was kept safe amidst the Iranian government's crackdowns on online news about the riots. Project Skynet was launched in the same month, to fight Internet censorship worldwide. Operation Didgeridie started in September. The Australian government had plans to censor the Internet at the ISP level. On the 9th, an Anonymous initiated DDos attack on Prime Minister website brought it down for about an hour. In 2011, Mid-July, people from Adbusters, the anti-consumerism magazine, started discussing what could be done in response to corporate corruption on Wall Street. The Occupy Wall Street movement was planned from there. On August 23rd, Anonymous expressed support of the Occupy Wall Street movement with a video post on YouTube. From September and onward, many thousands of people have been involved in the protests. Many cities around the world have joined the movement, such as Chicago, Toronto, London, Tokio, Madrid, Milan and Stockholm. The ubiquitous and now Anonymous related Guy Fawkes masks can often be seen on protests. 'Hacktivism' is now a major phenomenon, and Anonymous is far from the only 'hacktivist' group. The Internet and the Information Age is accelerating the evolution of society and activism. It is becoming more and more difficult to censor any information. I am excited to watch how networking technology is changing the world.                                                                                                                                                                      For an unidentified group, the collective called Anonymous has made the news quite a few times since its inception. They are largely considered the most famous activist group in the world. The New Yorker surmises that they might be the most powerful non-governmental hacking group in the world. So, exactly how did Anonymous start? Where do they come from? What are they trying to do? The group, which is composed of a loosely organized international network of hacktivists, has its roots from the online bulletin board 4chan, which started in 2003. The name "Anonymous" was inspired by the perceived anonymity under which users posted on 4chan. The group's two symbols, the Guy Fawkes mask that they wear in public and the "man without the head" image, both underscore the group's inscrutability and lack of any formal leadership. Members of the group calls themselves "hacktivists", a word coined from the combination of hacker and activists. The hacker collective's first cause to make headlines was a 2008 effort called "Project Chanology." After the church of Scientology removed a video of Tom Cruise touting the benefits of the religion from the Internet because it portrayed the church in a negative light. Anonymous struck back by posting a video called "Message to Scientology" The group said they wanted to uncover how danger an organization Scientology really was, and how the removal of the Tom Cruise video violated free speech. Since then, the collective has been involved in everything from Occupy Wall Street to the shooting of Michael Brown. The group is now being praised for its work, particularly its mission to combat cyber jihadists. Whoever they are, wherever they are, with their philosophy of activism, hopefully Anonymous continues to use their power for good.

             Anonymous is an amorphous group of people that can include anyone who wants to use the brand to put forth their cause, according to internet activist Gregg Housh, formerly with Anonymous. Housh says that Anonymous was conceived to be used and adopted by anyone. There is also the real-world manifestation of the Anonymous movement, which has been represented at rallies around the world by protesters wearing the now iconic Guy Fawkes masks obscuring their identity. While there are not specific goals, there is an overarching desire to combat censorship, promote freedom of speech, and counter government control that sparks people in the so-called collective into action, according to Housh. He said that perhaps the only guiding principle is "anti-oppression." Since there are not membership lists, newsletters or committees, people organize by two primary pathways: either though previous connections or anyone with an idea can call on others to go into a chat group and discuss the idea further. That also means that not evryone associated with the group agrees on every action taken under its name. Anonymous is known to vigorously go after its targets. It has been associated with crashing web servers, website defacement and leaking hacked private information. For example, the group allegedly targeted computer security firm HPGary and its CEO, claiming that the company was going to disclose details of Anonymous members in 2011. In 2013, Anonymous gained notoriety when then 26 year-old programmer Deric Lostutter worked to expose the cover-up in the Steubenville rape case. His video message calling for action, spurred Web site take-overs and uncovering of personal emails reported Rolling Stone in a lengthy profile of the incident.. The group   The group also uses it tech-savvy abilities to promote causes it supports. Anonymous worked with other groups to assist the Arab Spring uprising, specifically in Tunisia and Egypt, to keep the internet open for organizers on the ground, according to Housh.

4th Anniversary of the Protests of June 2013

               Next Tuesday, June 20th, One of the biggest protests in Brazil history will complete four years. The reason why those protests are studied until now and other though bigger, of March 2016, for example, is not, it was its character totally spontaneous and unexpected. It was as, if suddenly, the Brazilian people realized that they deserve a better governance, a better return for so many taxes the Brazilians pay. Besides, we want respect for our human rights and justice when they are violated. We want a fair and inclusive electoral and political systems.  We want honesty, efficiency and accountability from our political and state-owned systems. In short, we want a country that really works for the well-being of its citizens. This post is a summary of the report published in March of 2017 at http://americasquarterly.org/content/revisiting-brazils-2013-protests-what-did-they-really-m. The second summary was published in June 2014 at http://www.booksandideas.net/Brazil-s-Forgotten-Political.html

              The year 2013 began quietly in Brazil, with no obvious hints of the turmoil to come. Indeed, almost no one predicted what 2013 would bring: A massive and unprecedented wave of streets protests that would in turn prove to be a major turning point in Brazilian history. Just five months later, in June 2013, more than 1 million people would pour into the streets on a single night to protest a dizzying variety of grievances, from shoddy public transportation to corruption to overcrowded hospitals. Brazil's political and chattering classes would be unified by their main reaction: Utter shock. Virtually no one saw the demonstration coming, just as no one would anticipate their unexpected medium-term consequences. The protests would cause Brazilians' perceptions of their economy and their president to completely and abruptly flip, thus ending the narrative of prosperity, that had dazzled the world in years prior. In retrospect, the protests of 2013 started a chain of events that would culminate in the impeachment of President Roussef in late 2016. But the fallout went beyond any one leader or political party, indeed, the entire political class would fall into disgrace. The suddenness of Brazil's shift from boom to bust raises several questions: what really caused the protests of 2013? Were they themselves the trigger for the downturn in public opinion, or did they belatedly reflect dissatisfaction and unrest percolating just beneath the surface? Looking back now, some of the signs of impending trouble were in fact somewhat clear. A closer look at public opinion polls, and at other gauges of national satisfaction, reveals fissures just beneath the surface. mistakes of hubris and arrogance by president Roussef, and other members of the political class, had been accumulating for some time. Indeed, the protests begins just before that fateful year, with a seemingly banal policy decision.The decision that triggered the protests was not regarded at the time as a particularly momentous one: Whether or not permit an increase in bus fares in Brazilian cities. By the turn of the decade, the strains from the growth were apparent. For example, while Brazil sold a lot of cars during the boom, its auto fleet grew 80% from 2002 to 2012, that expansion was not matched by a similar expansion in roads. This led to endemic traffic jams in Sao Paulo, Rio and other cities. Some commutes that previously lasted 45 minutes now took two hours or longer, with especially long delays for poorer living on the periphery of large metropoli. This severe imbalance between supply and demand was repeated elsewhere throughout other sectors of the economy too, at airports, hospitals, schools and elsewhere. Simply put, infrastructure had not come remotely close to keeping up with the previous decade's growth, creating tremendous strain and frustation throughout society. Simultaneously, expectations had risen. Many poorer Brazilians had previously accepted their de facto second-class status within society. But now, upon ascending into the lower strata of the middle class, millions (rightly) believed they had the same right to quality healthcare, education, and transportation as anyone else. It was no longer enough to have a job, people also wanted a government that provided them with quality infrastructure and services. However, this new generation of demands from society was not being met. In retrospect, Brazil was much more of a power keg than its politicians or pundits believed. And the spark would come during the first week of June, from a group of university students in the country's biggest city. The flames spread slowly at first. The initial protests against bus fare hikes occurred in late May in mid-sized cities such as Natal and Goiânia. After the bus hike went into effect in SP on June 2, a group known as Movimento Passe Livre (MPL) organized a demonstration. The MPL was widely seen as a fringe movement with unrealistic goals, and was unknown to most Brazilians. As such, the first protest gathered only a few dozen people, and was also mostly ignored by mainstream media. The night that changed everything was June 13. The march began peacefully, but police began firing tear gas and rubber bullets to stop demonstrators from reaching Avenida Paulista. Battles between police and demonstrators erupted. 130 people were arrested and about 105 were wounded. The peak of the protests would prove to be the night of June 20, when an estimated 1.2 million Brazilians took the streets in more than 100 cities.  In Rio, turnout surpassed 300,000.  In some ways, it was surprising that Roussef would suffer the harshest short and long-term consequences of the protests. Unlike authoritarian leaders facing similar protests in Venezuela, Turkey and Russia, for example, she welcomed them in her public comments with a degree of pragmatism and even accomodation, praising them as reflective of brazil's democratic values. If politicians were eager to forget the lessons of the 2013 protests, the public was not. Approval ratings for Roussef and other politicians would never come close to their previous lofty heights. Faced with an increasing public demand for change, but unable or unwilling to deliver it, Roussef adopted a strategy that would prove disastrous, touting the need for change without actually doing enough about it. The 2013 protests were a powerful example of how a single event can cause an entire nation to take "another look" at reality, and draw a very different conclusion. In the course of a month, during June of that year, a third of the population changed its view of their government and economy. The reality did not change overnight. But the popular mentality did, and especially in the age of social media, Brazilians saw that their friends had begun telling a different story about Brazil's fate. It was as if millions of people simultaneously said: Things are not great after all. Indeed, Brazil's experience of 2013 shows how popular perceptions can lag reality, but when truth does catch up (as it inevitably will), the disruptive effects can arguably be even greater and more traumatic than otherwise. In light of this experience, Brazil shows how it is ultimately preferable for leaders to be as honest as possible about a country's present and future reality. The final major lesson is more familiar one to students of political science: the danger of hubris. The Workers' Party, and Brazil's political class in general, had become supremely confindent after the triumphs of the mid-2000s. That period did, indeed, see a run of success. But the time Roussef took office in 2011, the policies that had yielded positive results had run their course, and a new wave of reforms was necessary. Instead of changing her approach, Roussef doubled down on her interventionist economic policies, while embracing, the call for change. Her failure to reconcile her own beliefs with the demands of 2013 would ultimately lead to her demise.

              No one could have predicted the wave of protests that shook Brazil in June 2013. The protests were marked by a dizzying diversity of causes for dissatisfaction: not only bus fares and the right to mobility, but World Cup, political corruption, poor public education, access to quality public health, and a host of other issues. Even socially conservative made their presence felt, protesting in favor of the reduction of criminal age. Shortly after the protests of June 17th, when several cities besides SP were mobilized, it was clear that what was at stake was no longer just fares. President Roussef proposed five "pacts", including a call for a referendum on political reform. The point of view of the federal government seemed to be that the demonstrations signaled a huge democratic deficit, in which politicians lacked legitimacy and the population did not feel respected. Disappointment mounted among activists and alarm among analysts. Gabriel Cohn warned, in an interview, that Brazilians were creating a system of "perverse selection": "the more you say that politicians are worthless, the more you scare those who have democratic attitudes and beliefs. This discourages them to enter the political game. You destroy the institutions from the inside." Marcos Nobre assumed there were two possible consequences of the demonstrations. One would be a radical reform of the political system to accomodate demands, and the other would be an ever more closed political system based on " low intensity democracy." The demands included not only the reform of the electoral system, but also a series of tweaks to representative democracy, trying to address decision-making in society as a whole. This generated a platform relying on several pillars: the strengthening of mechanisms of direct democracy (such as plebiscites), the strengthening of participatory/deliberative democracy, the improvement of representative democracy, the democratization of a more transparent judiciary. Within this platform there were specific proposals like the importance of protecting campaign financing. A final legacy has been to renew the interest in political reform. In the civil society, there are two ongoing, complementary initiatives. On the one hand, a popular initiative has been collecting signatures. And another plenary of social movement is organizing a plebiscite for an constituent assembly to reform the system. But we may wonder whether political reforms go far enough. The proposed changes are certainly important. It is undeniably critical to curb the influence of economic power over the electoral process, as well as to introduce mechanisms to improve access to the electoral system. But the demonstrations also lead us to reflect on other absences. Is what missing in Brazil more participation, more debate, more voices in decision-making? Or is it also missing a political project going beyond class compromisse in trying to recover the utopian legacy of participation?           

The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age

                This post is a summary of four articles. The first was published with the title above at  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx. The second was published in November of 2014 at  http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/MassSurveillance.aspx. The third was published at   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21321&LangID=E. The fourth was published at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/SR2017ReporttoHRC.aspx

           Advances in information communication technology are dramatically improving real-time communication and information-sharing. By improving access to information and facilitating global debate, they foster democratic participation. By amplifying the voices of human rights defenders and helping to expose abuses, these powerful technologies offer the promise of improved enjoyment of human rights. But at the same time it has become clear that these new technologies are vulnerable to surveillance and interception. Recent discoveries have revealed how new tech are being developed covertly, often to facilitate these practices, with chilling efficiency. Such surveillance threatens individual rights, including right to privacy and right to freedom of expression and association, and inhibits the free functioning of a vibrant civil society. In December 2013, the U.N.  General Assembly adopted resolution 68/167, which expressed deep concern at the negative impact that surveillance and interception of communication may have on human rights, The General Assembly affirmed that the rights held by people offline must also be protected online, and it called upon all States to respect and protect the right to privacy in digital communication. The General Assembly called on all States to review their procedures, practices and legislation related to communications surveillance, interception and collection of personal data and emphasized the need for States to ensure the full and effective implementation of their obligations under international human rights law. As General Assembly resolution recalled, international human rights law provides the universal framework against which any interference in individual privacy must be assessed. Other international human rights instruments contain similar provisions. While the right to privacy under international human rights law is not absolute, any instance of interference must be subject to a careful and critical assessment of its necessity, legitimacy and proportionality. Through the adoption of resolution 68/167, the General Assembly requested that the High Commissioner for Human Rights prepare a report on the right to privacy in the digital age. In the words of the resolution, the report was to examine: "The protection and promotion of the right to privacy in the context of domestic and extraterritorial surveillance and/or interception of digital communications and collection of personal data, including on a mass scale."

             The digital communications revolution has led to "perhaps the greatest liberation movement the world has ever known," the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Flavia Pansieri suggests. Addressing a special discussion at the Human rights Council in Geneva, Pansieri used as an example the online dialogue held as a precursor to the negotiation of the post 2015 sustainable development goals, a dialogue in which more than a million people participated. Yet these digital communications platform are not only vulnerable to surveillance, interception and data collection, they may actually facilitate such practices, putting at risk a range of human rights. Noting the particularly serious impact on the right to freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and association, the right to family life and to health, also may be at risk. "Information collected through digital surveillance has been used to target dissidents. There are also credible reports suggesting that digital tech have been used to gather information that has then led to torture and other forms of ill-treatment," Pansieri said. The High Commissioner expresses concern that "overt and covert digital surveillance in jurisdictions around the world have proliferated, with governmental mass surveillance emerging as a dangerous habit rather than an exceptional measure." The report highlights examples of digital surveillance, including instances where governments have threatened to ban the services of telecommunications companies unless given access to traffic on their networks; used surveillance to target political opponents, or dissidents; and required companies systematically to disclose bulk information on customers and employees. Pansieri said that States must demonstrate that any interference with an individual's privacy is both necessary and proportionate to address the specific identified security risk. "Mandatory third-party data retention, where telephone companies and internet service providers are required to store metadata about communications by their customers, for subsequent access by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, appears neither necessary nor proportionate," she said. The report observes that States are obliged to ensure that individuals' privacy is protected by law against unlawful or arbitrary interference. Laws protecting privacy must be clear and publicly accessible: secret rules and secret interpretations of the law, even if issued by judges, are not legally adequate. Neither are laws or rules that give excessive discretion to executive authorities such as security and intelligence services.

             The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joseph Cannataci. has presented his report to the Human Rights Council, denouncing current surveillance legislation and calling to States to respect privacy as a universal right in the digital age. He said, "The issue of governmental surveillance deserves more attention than ever. I am deeply concerned that the right to privacy will simply not experience a full transition to the digital age. In general, laws have been drafted and rushed through the legislative process of States with clear political majorities to legitimize practices that should never have been implemented." The U.N. expert further emphasized that he did not support current legislation aimed at regulating surveillance: "There is little or no evidence to persuade me of either the efficacy or the proportionality of some of the extremely intrusive measures that have been introduced by new surveillance laws in france, the U.K. and the U.S." He believed that such measures amounted, in part, to "gesture politics" by politicians who wished to seen to be doing something, even if the laws did not really work in practice. Mr. Cannataci went on to criticize the manipulation of fear of terrorism by policy-makers, urging them to: " Desist from playing the fear card, and improve security through proportionate and effective measures, not with unduly disproportionate privacy-intrusive laws." Citing Cardinal Vincent Nichols he said: "I do not believe that any form of leadership is best exercised by using fear. True political leadership does not play the fear card." The Special Rapporteur stressed the universal nature of the privacy saying: "States should prepare themselves to ensure that both domestically and internationally, privacy is respected as a truly universal right."

            Threats to digital expression and internet freedom are more pronounced than ever. Internet shutdowns have emerged as a popular means of information control. Government surveillance continues to intensify worldwide, jeopardizing the privacy and security of millions. Net neutrality, the long-held premise that all internet data should ve treated equally and without undue interference, has come under attack. In this increasingly hostile environment, what are the human rights responsibilities of the ICT sector, particularly those actors that facilitate the provision of internet access, and serve as gatekeepers of the digital infrastructure? To address this question, the Special Rapporteur first examines the role of States in undermining freedom of expression online, and what their obligation to protect this fundamental right entails. The Special rapporteur subsequently evaluates the role of digital access providers, which have become synonymous with digital access. 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 laws, 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. It is also critical for the Council and States to draw the connections between privacy interference and freedom of expression. The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about reports of threats and intimidation of companies and their employees and their equipment and infrastructure. 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. For years now, individuals and companies have understood that they play an essential role in the vast expansionof access to ICT services. they are a business in which the model for success should involve diversity and transparency. they should take the principles identified in this report as tools to strengthen their own roles in advancing users' rights.

The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders

                    This post is a summary of the resolution adopted by the  U.N. General Assembly on the report of the Third Committee in the fifty-third session and published in 1998 at. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Defenders/Declaration/declaration.pdf. This text contain all twenty articles summarized. This document has the title above.

                  The General Assembly, reaffirming the inportance of the observance of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the U.N. for the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons in all countries of the world. Taking note of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/7 in which the Commission approved the text of the draft declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. Invites governments, agencies and organizations of the U.N. system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to intensify their efforts to disseminate the Declaration and to promote universal respect and understanding. Stressing that all members of the international community shall fulfil, jointly and separately, their solemn obligation to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind, and reaffirming the particular importance of acieving international cooperation to fulfil this obligation according to the Charter. Acknowledging the important role of international cooperation for, and the valuable work of individuals, groups and associations in contributing to, the effective elimination of all violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including in relation to mass, flagrant or systematic violations such as those resulting from apartheid, colonialism, foreign domination or occupation, aggression or threats  to national sovereignty and from the refusal to recognize the right of peoples to self-determination and the right of every people to exercise full sovereignity over its wealth and natural resources. Recognizing the relationship between international peace and security and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and mindful that the absence of international peace and security does not excuse non-compliance. reiterating that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner, without prejudice to the implementation of each of those rights and freedoms. Stressing that the prime responsibility and duty to promote and protect human rights and freedoms lie with the state: ARTICLE 1 - Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamentsal freedoms at the national and international levels. ARTICLE 2 - Each state has a prime responsibility and duty to protect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political, and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice. ARTICLE 3 - Domestic law consistent with the Charter of the U.N. and other international obligations of the state in the field of human rights is the juridical framework within which human rights and fundamental freedoms should be implemented and enjoyed. ARTICLE 4 - Nothing in the present Declaration shall be construed as impairing or contradicting the purposes and principles of the charter of the U.N. or as restricting or derogating from the provisions of the U.D.H.R, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other international instruments applicable in this field. ARTICLE 5 - For the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, at the national and international levels: a) to meet or assembly peacefully. b) to form, join and participate in non-governmental organizations. c) to communicate with non-governmental or intergovernmental organizations. ARTICLE 6 - Everyone has the right: a) to know, seek, obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to how those rights and freedoms are given effect in domestic legislative and judicial systems. b) as provided for in human rights and other applicable international instruments, freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others. c) to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, through these to draw public attention to those matters. ARTICLE 7 - Everyone has the right,  to develop and discuss new human rights ideas and principles and to advocate their acceptance. ARTICLE 8 - Everyone has the right, to have effective access, on a non-discriminatory basis, to participation in the government of his  or her country and in the conduct of public affairs. ARTICLE 9 - Everyone has the right to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected in the event of the violation of those right. To this end, everyone whose rights are violated, has the right to complaint to and have that complaint promptly reviewed in a public hearing before an independent and competent judicial authority  to obtain a decison providing redress, including any compensation due, as well as enforcement of the eventual decision and award, all without undue delay. ARTICLE 10 - No one shall participate, by act or by failure to act where required, in violation human rights, and no one shall be subjected to punishment or adverse action of any  kind for refusing to do so. ARTICLE 11 - Everyone has the right to the lawful exercise of his or her occupation or profession. ARTICLE 12 - Everyone has the right to participate in peaceful activities against violations of human rights. The state shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by authorities against any violence, threats, retaliation, discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of legitimate exercise of the rights referred in this declaration. In this connection, everyone is entitled to be protected effectively under national law. ARTICLE 13 - Everyone has the right to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights. ARTICLE 14 - The state has the responsibility to take legislative, judicial, administrative or other appropriate measures to promote the understanding by all persons under its jurisdiction of their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. ARTICLE 15 - The state has the responsibility to promote and facilitate the teaching of human rights and fundamental freedoms at all levelsof education and to ensure that all those responsible for training lawyers, law enforcement officers, armed forces, and public officials include human rights teaching in their training. ARTICLE 16 - Individuals, NGOs and relevant institutions have an important role to play in contributing to making the public more aware of questions relating to all human rights and fundamental freedoms. ARTICLE 17 - In the exercise of the rights and freedoms referred to in the present declaration, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are in accordance with applicable international obligations and are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due respect for the rights and freedoms of others. ARTICLE 18 - Everyone has duties towards and within the community, in which alone the free and full development of personality is possible. Individuals, groups, institutions and NGOs have an important role to play and a responsibility in safeguarding democracy, promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. ARTICLE 19 - Nothing in the present declaration shall be interpreted as implying for any individual or any state the right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms referred to in the declaration. ARTICLE 20 - Nothing in this declaration shall be interpreted as permitting states to support and promote activities contrary to the provisions of the U.N.