The Pro-Free Speech Way to Fight Fake News

              This post is a summary of two articles. The first with the title above was published at              https://pen.org/press-clip/pro-free-speech-way-fight-fake-news/ The second was published at  https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/freedom-of-expression/

               The rise of fraudulent news and the related erosion of public trust in mainstream journalism pose a looming crisis for free expression. The championing of free speech must not privilege any immutable notion of the truth to the exclusion of others. But this doesn't mean that free speech proponents should be indifferent to the quest for truth, or to attempts to deliberately undermine the public's ability to distinguish fact from falsehood. The power of free speech is inextricably tied to the opportunity to be heard and believed. Fake news undermines precisely these. If public discourse becomes so flooded with disinformation that listeners can no longer distinguish signal from noise. They purvey falsehoods to mislead, confuse and to instill a sense of the futility of speech that saps the will to cry foul, protest, or resist. On social media, the problem is not one of control, but of chaos. The ferocious pace with which false information can spread can make defending the truth or correcting seem like mission impossible. The problem of fraudulent news now is compounded by political divisions that undercut the traditional ways in which truth prevails. A significant portion of the population distrust a wide array of sources they perceive as politically hostile. The debate over solutions to fraudulent news has centered on what the government, news outlet, social media platforms, and civil society actors like fact-checking groups can do. Each has an role to play, but they also must respect sharp limits to their interventions. The constitution forbids the government from adjudicating which news is true and which is false. Google and Facebook, as private platforms should monitor their sites to make sure that dangerous conspiracy theories don't go viral, but if they over-police what appears on their pages, they'll create new impairments for edgy speech. Certainly, news outlets should strive to uphold professional and ethical standards, but they alone can't convince cynical readers to trust them. The proliferation of overly partisan media, lower barriers to entry into public discourse, and information flooding across the web and cable news, consumers need new tools to sort through choices and make informed decisions about where to invest their attention. The fight against fake news will hinge not on inculcating trust in specific sources but on instilling skepticism, curiosity and a sense of agency among consumers, who are the best bulwark against the merchants of deceit. A news consumers' movement should include several prongs, it should include an advocacy arm to prod newsrooms, internet platforms, and social media giants into being transparent about their decisions as to what is elevated and how it is marked. It should develop an investigative research arm to expose, name, and shame the purveyors of fraudulent news and their financial backers. And it might provide periodic ranking of, and reporting on, newsrooms and other outlets to hold them accountable to their audiences. Recognizing fake news as a threat to free expression can't be grounds to justify a cure, in the form of new restrictions on free speech, that may end up being worse than the disease. Unscrupulous may never cease in their efforts to infect the information flow to serve their purposes. The best prescription is to inoculate consumers by building up their ability to defend themselves.

              Your voice matters. You have the right to say what you think, share information and demand a better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests. Exercising these rights, without fear or unlawful interference, is central to living in an open and fair society, one in which people can access justice and enjoy their human rights. Yet governments around the world routinely imprison people for speaking out, even though almost every country's constitution refers to the value of  free speech. Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech but many abuse their authority to silence peaceful dissent by passing laws criminalising freedom of expression. How governments tolerate unfavourable views or critical voice is often a good indication of how they treat human rights generally. We consider anyone put in prison solely for exercising their right to free speech peacefully to be a prisoner of conscience and call for their immediate and unconditional release. Defending freedom of expression is vital in holding the powerful to account. Freedom of expression also underpins other human rights such as the rifgrfreedom of thought, conscience and religion, and allows them to flourish. It is also closely linked to freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly. However, these very freedoms come under attack by governments that want to stifle criticism. For example, in Egypt it is currently dangerous to criticize the government. Over the course of 2018, the authorities arrested at least 113 individuals citing a host of absurd reasons including satire, tweeting, denouncing sexual harassment, editing movies and giving interviews. Detained without trial for months, those who eventually faced trial were sentenced by military courts. A free press reporting on the issues that interest us and shape our lives is a key building block of any rights-respecting society. Yet in Azerbaijan, Turkey and Venezuela to name just a few countries, journalists face repression and attacks. In July 2019, the libel trial began in the Philippines against Maria Ressa, the executive editor of online news outlet Rappler. Ressa, a prominent critic of President Rodrigo Duterte, was arrested in February 2019 on trumped up libel charges after Rappler published detailed investigations into some of the thousands of extrajudicial executions committed by police and unknown armed persons, with Duterte's explicit encouragement. Her case is widely seen as an attack by the government on press freedom. Freedom of expression, applies to ideas of all kinds, including those that may be offensive. While international law protects free speech, there are instances where speech can be restricted under the same law, such as when it violates the rights of others, or advocates hatred and incites discrimination or violence. The digital world gives many more of us access to the information we need, including to challenge governments and corporations. Information is power and the internet has the potential to significantly empower the people. Increasingly, some states try to build firewalls around digital communications, or in the case of Egypt, Sudan and Zimbabwe among others, respond to mass street protests with an internet shutdown. Iran, China and Vietnam have all tried to develop systems that enable them to control access to digital information. In India's Kashmir region, mobile internet and communications are suspended in response to any unrest. Governments are also using dangerous and sophisticated tech to read activists and journalists' private emails. In Poland, since 2016, tens of thousands of people have protested against repressive legislation aimed at curbing women's rights and undermining the independence of the judiciary. Protesters have routinely been met with a show of force and restrictive measures that infringe their right to be seen and heard. In parallel with tightening the laws affecting the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the government has expanded the surveillance powers with evidence that these powers have been used against people engaged in participating in protests.

Privacy and Human Rights - Part II

                This summary is from the same report from last week and published at http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

               Privacy can be defined as a fundamental human right. The law of privacy can be traced as far as 1361, when the Justices of the Peace Act in England provided for the arrest of peeping toms and eavesdroppers. In 1765. British Lord Camden, striking down a warrant to enter a house and seize papers wrote, "We can safely say there is no law in this country to justify the defendants in what they have done; if there was, it would destroy all the conforts of society, for papers are often the dearest property any man can have." Parliamentarian William Pitt wrote, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow though it; the rain may enter - but the king of England can't enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." various countries developed specific protections for privacy in the centuries that followed. In 1776, the Swedish Parliament enacted the "Access to Public Records Act" which required that all government-held information be used for legitimate purposes. In 1792, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen declared that private property is inviolable and sacred. France prohibited the publication of private facts and set stiff fines in 1858. The modern privacy benchmark at an international level can be found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which specifically protected territorial and communications privacy. Article 12 states: "No one should be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interferences or attacks." Numerous international human rights covenants give specific reference to privacy as a right. For numerous Anglo-Saxon and French authors, the right to respect private life is the right to privacy, the right to live, as far as one wishes. However, the right to respect for private life doesn't end there. It comprises also, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings, especially in the emotional field. Interest in the right of privacy increased in the 1960s and 1970s  with the advent of information technology (IT). The surveillance potential of powerful computer systems prompted demands for specific rules governing the collection and handling of personal information. The genesis of modern legislation in this area can be traced to the first data protection law in the world enacted in Germany in 1970. This was followed by national laws in Sweden (1973), U.S. (1974), and France (1978). In the past three years, the European Union has enacted two directives which will provide citizens with a wider range of protections over abuses. The directives set a baseline common level of privacy which not only reinforces current data protection law, but which extends it to establish a range of new rights. The Data Protection Directive sets a benchmark for national law which will harmonize law throughout the European Union. The Telecommunications Directive establishes specific protections covering telephone, digital TV, mobile networks and other telecommunications systems. The regulatory model adopted by Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc is that of a public official who enforces data protection law. This official, known variously as a Commissioner, Ombudsman or Registrar, monitors compliance with the law and conducts investigations into alleged breaches. The official is also responsible for public education and international liaison in data protection and data transfer. However, the powers of the commission vary greatly and many report a serious lack of resources to adequately enforce the laws. Some countries such as the U.S. have avoided general data protection rules in favor of specific sectoral laws governing, for example, financial privacy. In such cases, enforcement is achieved through a range of mechanisms. The problem with this approach is that it requires that new legislation be introduced with each new tech so protection frequently lag behind. Data protection can also be achieved, at least in theory, through various forms of self regulation, in which companies and industry bodies establish codes of practice. However, the record of these efforts has been disappointing, with little or no evidence that the aims of the codes are regularly fulfilled. Adequacy and enforcement are the major problem with these approaches. Over the past decade the internet has become an important tool for communication and research. The tech is growing at an exponential rate, with millions of new users going on line each year. The internet is also used increasingly as a tool for commercial transactions. But this fluid structure has not protected the internet from interception and control. Human rights groups demand that email interception should not be treated differently than telephone interception. In recent years, the use of video surveillance cameras (also called Closed Circuit Television) CCTV throughout the world has grown to unprecedented levels. These systems involve sophisticated tech. Features include night vision, computer assited operaton, and motion detection which allow the operator to instruct the system to go on red alert when anything moves in view of the cameras. The tech will ultimately converge with software programs that are capable of automated recognition of faces, crowd behavior analysis, and intimate scanning of the area between skin surface and clothes. The power and capabilities of cameras will increase, while the cost and size will decrease. It is reasonable to assume that covert visual surveillance will in some environment be ubiquitous. 

Privacy and Human Rights

             This post is a summary of the report published with the title above at   http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html

             Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important issues of the modern age. Nearly every country in the world recognize a right of privacy in their constitution. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicity in their constitution, such as the U.S., Ireland and India, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In the early 1970s, countries began adopting broad laws intended to protect individual privacy. Most of these laws are based on the models introduced by the O.E.C.D. and the Council of Europe. In 1995, conscious both of the shortcomings of law, and the many differences in the level of protection in each of its states, the E.U. passed a Europe-wide directive which will provide citizens with a wider range of protections over abuses. There are three major reasons for the movement towards comprehensive privacy and data protection laws. Many countries are adopting these laws for one or more reasons. - To remedy past injustices. - To promote electronic commerce. - To ensure laws are consistent with Pan-European laws. Even with the adoption of legal and other protections, violations of privacy remain a concern. In many countries, laws have not kept up with the technology, leaving gaps in protections. And in the absence of adequate oversight, the mere presence of a law may not provide adequate protection. The increasing sophistication of information technology with its capacity to collect, analyze and disseminate information on individuals has introduced a sense of urgency to the demand of legislation. Computers linked by high speed networks with rpocessing systems can create dossiers on any person. According to opinion polls, concern over privacy violations is now greater than at any time in recent history. Human rights groups are concerned that much of the tech exported to developing countries which lack adequate protections. Currently, there are few barriers to the trade in surveillance tech. Beyond obvious aspects of capacity and cost, there are a number of important trends that contribute to privacy invasion. 1- Globalisation removes geographical limitations to the flow of data. 2- Convergence is leading to the elimination of tech barriers between systems. Modern information systems are increasingly interoperable with other systems, and can mutually exchange and process different forms of data. 3 - Multi-media fuses many forms of transmission of data and images. Governments of developing nations rely on developed countries to supply them with tech of surveillance such as digital wiretapping equipment, deciphering equipment, scanners, bugs, tracking equipment and computer intercept systems. The transfer of surveillance tech is now a lucrative sideline for the arms industry. According to the report, "Assessing the Technologies of Political Control," commissioned by the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, much of this tech is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, trade union leaders, and political opponents. The report concludes that such technologies can exert a powerful 'chill effect' on those who "might wish to take a dissenting view. The internet will revolutionize access to basic information on government services. However, these initiatives will require forward looking legislative framework. Whether governments can deliver this framework will depend on their willingness to listen to the pulse of the emerging global digital economy and to recognize the need for strong protection of privacy. Of all the human rights, privacy is perhaps the most difficulr to define and circumscribe. Privacy has roots deep in history. The Bible has numerous references to privacy. There was also protection of privacy in early Hebrew culture, Classical Greece and ancient China. Definitions of privacy vary widely according to context and environment. In many countries, the concept has been fused with data protection, which interprets privacy in terms of management of personal information. Outside this rather strict context, privacy protection is frequently seen as a way of drawing the line at how far society can intrude into a personal's affairs. It can be divided into the following facets: 1) Information Privacy - which involves the establishment  of rules governing the collection and handling of personal data such as credit information and medical records.  2) Bodily Privacy - which concerns the protection of people's physical selves against invasive procedures.  3) Privacy of Communication - which covers the security and privacy of mail, telephones, email and other forms of communication.  4) Territorial Privacy - which concerns the setting of limits on intrusion into the domestic and other environment such as the workplace or public space. The lack of a single definition should not imply that the issue lacks importance. As one writer observed, "in one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy." Alan Westin, author of the seminal 1967 work "Privacy and Freedom,"  defined privacy as the desire of people to choose freely under what circumstances and to what extent they will expose themselves, their attitude and their behavior to others. According to Edward Bloustein, privacy is an interest of the human personality. It protects the inviolate personality, the individual's independence, dignity and integrity. The Calcutt Committee in the U.K. adopted this definition in its first report on privacy. "The right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information." 

From Impunity to Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Latin America

            We, human rights defenders in Latin America, I think I can say for all, we all really appreciate all the works that are done by researchers in Europe and North America. Besides courageous journalists at home and abroad, the researchers in the human rights field are trying to search for possible solutions for human rights violations that happened and are happening very far away from their homes. I'd like to thank all support that is felt by us here in Latin America and say that I hope to have good news for you all in October. And let's keep the good fight for democracy, justice and dignity. This post is a summary of the two articles. The first with the incomplete title above was written by researchers at Christian Michelsen Institute, from Bergen, Norway. It was published at https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/5034-from-impunity-to-accountability-for-human-rights.pdf. The second was written by Mike Allison, Professor in the political science department at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania, U.S. It was published at  https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201219818067139.html

            Why have some countries in Latin America over the last two decades shifted from widespread impunity for human rights violation to the implementation of various forms of specific accountability measures, while others have not? This chapter lays out the analytical and methodological framework subsequently applied to the nine Latin American case studies in this volume. The main focus of the framework is twofold: 1) provide a tool for documenting the shift from impunity to accountability in the respective countries; 2) provide a tool for assessing the relative achievement in accountability across countries. Over the 1990s schorlarly debate shifted toward problematizing early heuristic definitions of key concepts such as 'truth' and 'justice' and examining more carefully the mix of short and medium-term aims and claims assigned to particular mechanisms. In this volume, we distinguish between individual and state accountability. Individual accountability is achieved through free and fair trials in either domestic courts, or foreign courts. A state can also be held accountable for violations committed by state agents. The Inter-American Courts of Human Rights have played an increasingly central role in holding states in the region to account for human rights violations. As such, the regional justice system may also contribute to enhancing accountability at the country level. Reparations to those who suffer wrongs or damage are part of any domestic justice system. Reparation can result from civil trials, or they can be part of the sentences in a criminal trial, where the perpetrator is required to pay reparations to the victims who has suffered damage. In a transitional justice context, reparations play a important role in terms of holding the state accountable for violations committed against its citizens. Forms of reparations vary widely but generally fall into one of two categories. Economic reparations consist of payments and health services designed to ameliorate or reverse harm caused to individuals. Symbolic reparations, which often take the form of official memorials, or the like, are designed to restore the social standing of victims as well as to emphasise current societal rejection and repudiation of abuses. Where the state has been the principal perpetrator it is accordingly the state, rather than the victim, which needs to prove itself newly fit to exercise its proper place in society.

                Time Magazine named 'The Protester' as its person of the year 2011. If were to confine the choice to Latin America, I would have to support the human rights defender. While there have been previous successes, 2011 seems to have been a watershed in which nearly every country has made some progtess in bringing those responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses to justice. Human rights groups emerged during the 1980s throughout Latin America in an effort to prevent the continuation of human rights abuses, as well as to hold leaders accountable for what they had already done. As the military returned to the barracks in South America in the mid-1980s and the civil wars in Central America ended in the 1990s, these human rights organisations continued to work for justice. In Guatemala, U.N. and Catholic Church human rights investigations also found that the Guatemala state's security forces committed the majority of crimes that occurred during 36-year conflict. In recent months, the government has moved to arrest several high ranking officials for their participation in the earky 1980s scorched-earth programme, including retired general Hector Lopez and former president Oscar Mejia, who ruled from 1983-1986. Like Uruguay (180 murdered, the Brazilian military (475 murdered or disappeared) is not known for having killed large numbers of subversives during its 21-year rule. However, 50,000 Brazilians were imprisoned. Manuela Picq has written in response to the Brazilian Truth Commission that it is "equipped solely to unveil crimes, shedding light on what really happened during those years. Its purpose is to construct memory. It is an effort to establish an official history, not to punish". Various groups are now mobilising to undermine the progress that human rights defenders have accomplished in Latin America. They are trying to stymie their work in the courts through a variety of legal challenges. They are threatening to bring countercharges against sympathisers in order to obscure the responsibility of the state for human rights violations. And human rights defenders continue to be threatened and killed at an alarming rate.

World Press Freedom Day 2020

             Today all the world is celebrating the importance of an independent and courageous media, and like many other around the world are doing today, this post is a tribute to all journalists that died, or are risking their lives in order to tell us the truth.  This post is a summary of four articles. The first was published at ttps://blog.wan-ifra.org/2020/04/24/journalism-without-fear-or-favour. The second was published at   https://en.unesco.org/commemorations/worldpressfreedomday. The third was published at   https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-foreign-affairs/events/unesco-world-press-freedom-conference-2020. The fourth was published at  https://www.republicworld.com/lifestyle/festivals/world-press-freedom-day-2020-theme.html

             Good journalism is made for times such as these. Good journalism have ensured our leaders remain accountable, their policies are scrutinised, and their promises will be kept in check as we navigate the coming months and a cautious return to optimism. To mark this World Press Freedom Day, we must celebrate this, recognise the sacrifices of media professionals who ensure the daily free flow of information, and hope that independent media can survive to help lead us into better times. During a crisis, journalism is arguably more vital than ever. The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly placed independent media front and centre in providing verified, accurate information. But to say we need journalism now more than ever marks a reality worth reiterating loud and clear. Independent journalism is vital, day in, day out, for everyone. Media's public interest role is essential to how we understand our world and make decisions in it. The measures taken in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic have accentuated the financial precarity of media worldwide, risking the survival of independent journalism. Despite the painful, inevitable turmoil this will bring, we must embrace the opportunities that arise, the new ways of working, doing business, and our relationship with the world and people around us. But one thing is certain to prevail. The very soul of our profession, our ability to conduct journalism without fear or favour.

               At a time when we are mired in worry and uncertainty because of the coronavirus pandemic, free information is essential to helping us face, understand, think about and overcome this crisis. This is why the U.N. family to fight the "infodemic" of rumours and disinformation which is exacerbating the pandemic and putting lives at risk. To help put an end to the problem, we have joined forces to promote two major social-media campaigns,"Together for Facts, Science and Solidarity" and "Don't Go Viral". To bolster the effectiveness of these initiatives, UNESCO has also created a COVID-19 resource centre for the media. This online platform aims to help journalists track false information regarding the pandemic and report on the crisis reliably and effectively, as encouraged by the theme of World Press Freedom Day 2020, "Journalism Without Fear or Favour". This theme is a timely celebration of the work of those who stand up for freedom of information and for an independent press which examines and states the facts. Too often, we see interference with freedom of the press. Whether this interference involves political, ideological or economic control, defamatory attacks intended to discredit their target, or harassment, too often, it aims to silence journalists. This is why the U.N. system , together with new coalitions formed by media, governments, and actors from the spheres of law, academia and civil society worldwide, is supporting journalists and their fight for independence and the truth. Today, at this crucial moment and for our future, we need a free press, and journalists need to be able to count on all of us.

              The Netherlands and UNESCO will host the World Press Freedom Conference 2020 in the Hague on October 18-20. World Press Freedom Day is observed every year on 3 May. The aim is to celebrate principles of press freedom, evaluate press freedom around the world, defend the media from attacks on their independence, and pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

             Each year this special day is observed to celebrate the spirit of journalism and pay gratitude to those journalists who lost their lives in order to bring us honest and real news about happenings in the nation, city or state. The freedom of expression of the media helps in creating awareness amongst the general population. On Sunday, May 3, several campaigns, online debates, webinars, and workshops will be launched in order to commemorate World Press Freedom Day 2020 in accordance with its theme. Apart from the theme of this year, there are also certain sub-themes this year which include. 1) Safety of journalists and media workers.  2) Independent journalism free from political and commercial influence.  3) Gender equality in all aspect of the media.