Connecting All People and Safeguarding Human Rights

Theme

The UN Secretary-General’s proposed Global Digital Compact (GDC) has as its first principle to “Connect all people to the Internet, including all schools.” This recognizes that Internet connectivity and access have become prerequisites for ensuring the livelihoods, safety and education of people all around the world – and that Internet in schools provides crucial points of access, makes informational resources available to all students, and builds digital literacy from the earliest stages of life.  Yet 2.7 billion people remain unconnected today, with those in least developed countries and rural communities most disadvantaged.

Meaningful access reaches beyond mere connectivity and is inextricable from the safeguarding of human rights online.  Access that contributes to the wellbeing of societies must have human rights at its centre.  This includes, among many others, the ability for users to express themselves freely, for the unfettered exercise of democratic and political participation, for persons of all backgrounds to experience the Internet without fear of harassment or discrimination, and for children to enjoy the same rights and protections online as they do offline. The Internet is both an enabler of rights and must seamlessly incorporate established human rights, as we increase our digital dependence for routine functions, and as boundaries between life “online” and “offline” are becoming less significant.

Messages

Digital Divides

• The digital divides between different countries and types of country remain powerful factors affecting national and international development, including progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  These are much more than connectivity divides.  Meaningful access includes issues of accessibility, affordability, content, services, digital literacy and other capabilities as well as connectivity.  Affordability is a particular problem for many people, especially in the Global South. 
• The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the Internet’s role in enabling individual and economic resilience, but also illustrated the extent to which those who lack connectivity or meaningful access are disadvantaged, potentially exacerbating other inequalities.  It will take time to understand the full impact and implications of COVID-related interventions concerning access, use and human rights.
• Some groups within all societies experience deeper digital divides or have less meaningful access than others.  Women in many societies are less connected than men and make less use of connectivity.  Digital disadvantage is greater among vulnerable groups such as older people, those with disabilities and refugees.  Targeted initiatives can help to improve the access rates for less-connected social groups, but need to be accompanied by measures to address other deficiencies in meaningful access and should be associated with other measures to address disadvantage and discrimination.
• Resilient digital infrastructure is crucial for digital inclusion.  Governments should protect and promote required infrastructure, including grid and off-grid power as well as communications networks.  In parts of Africa and other continents, large distances between rural communities make last-mile connectivity commercially unattractive to the private sector.  It will take time and investment to improve the capacity of infrastructure and address regional imbalances, especially in rural areas. 
• Governments, and multistakeholder partners, should address constraints posed by market concentration, support the establishment and work of effective regulatory agencies and frameworks and encourage innovative approaches to connectivity including community networks, appropriate spectrum allocation and the availability of local content, including content in local languages.

The Gender Digital Divide and women’s rights

• Men are significantly more likely to be online or have mobile connectivity than women.  The gender digital gap is particularly high in Least Developed Countries.  SDG target 9c, which seeks to achieve universal, affordable Internet access, cannot be met until this gap is closed.

• The threat of violence and harassment is a deterrent to women’s online participation.  Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access, leading to some women leaving online spaces.  The role of technology services and platforms in propagating gender-based violence should be acknowledged and addressed.  Women should be supported by guidance to resist online gender-based violence, including through community-led helplines.  Resources, community guidelines and reporting on platforms should be made available in local languages.
• Concepts of gender equality, inclusion, and women’s rights and protection must be incorporated into the Global Digital Compact (GDC), as proposed by UN Women.

Human Rights and digital development

• Universal access should include digital rights, to ensure the Internet is both accessible and safe for all.  Digital rights include freedom of expression and association, the right to privacy and other civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights set out in international rights agreements.  One way of achieving this is by embedding human and digital rights in Internet governance structures and in the design of digital technologies. 
• Transparency, accountability and due diligence regarding human rights are the responsibilities of both governments and technology companies.  This will require alignment of business practices with digital rights and cooperation between stakeholders to address issues such as disinformation, discrimination and hate speech, especially at times of political unrest, elections and transfers of power.

• Access to the Internet provides a crucial opportunity for access to information and expression.  Governments should avoid recourse to Internet shutdowns because of their negative impact on both human rights and economic welfare.  Social media and technology companies should support citizens in their advocacy efforts concerning shutdowns.

• It is important to improve the monitoring and implementation of digital rights.  A number of suggestions have been made to establish international monitoring arrangements within the UN system, with multistakeholder engagement.  These could complement and build on existing mechanisms, including both those concerned with digital development and rights and those in other spheres such as climate change.  

• The internet provides opportunities for enhancing rights to education, as part of broader policies for educational improvement.  The quality of education in the Global South, particularly during the pandemic, has suffered due to a lack of connectivity.  While ICTs can enable meaningful access for students, differences in global and local adoption rates have exacerbated pre-pandemic inequalities.  Experience during the pandemic can be used to improve the use of digital resources in the future.
• Efforts should be made to help smaller and local businesses take maximum advantage of the Internet.  Use of digital tools by small and medium-sized enterprises has increased greatly since 2020, but micro-enterprises still face significant challenges in their ability to digitalise their businesses. 
• Labour market changes built around online platforms present both opportunities and challenges for job creation and job quality, especially for women who play a greater part than men in the informal sector in most countries.  Lack of training remains a barrier for many people in maximising their employment potential. 
• Digital competencies must be improved, and adaptations in teaching, learning and training methodologies are needed to adapt to new paradigms in both education and employment.

Avoiding Internet Fragmentation

Theme

The maintenance of a global, open and interoperable Internet is a core value of the IGF.  This implies that the entirety of the Internet’s content is open and accessible, and that common technical standards and protocols continue to be deployed to achieve a network of interconnected networks across countries and regions.  The call for this – applying a framework to the Internet that prioritises the rights and freedoms of users as well as, and through, infrastructural, end-to-end coherence – has been echoed in plans for the GDC.

The risk of fragmentation is real and mounting.  While technical and commercial fragmentation – where the functioning of the Internet is impacted by a mix of voluntary and involuntary conditions and business practices – needs to be addressed, fragmentation by government policy that limits uses of the Internet or affects the open and interoperable character of the Internet is also of concern.

Messages

Understanding the issues

• The Global Digital Compact provides an opportunity to reassert the value of an open interconnected internet for the realisation of the UN Charter, achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and exercise of human rights.   There is widespread agreement within the Internet community about the value of a global, unfragmented Internet as a platform for human activity. 
• The issues raised in discussions of Internet fragmentation are multi-layered, and different stakeholders give a variety of meanings and interpretations to the term.  Some are most concerned with technical and infrastructural aspects of the Internet, while others focus on public policy issues including access, rights and impacts on user experience.  Respect and understanding for different people’s perceptions and experience of fragmentation is essential if we are to reach effective and coordinated responses.
• A wide range of political, economic, and technical factors can potentially drive fragmentation.  However, diversity and decentralisation should not be mistaken for fragmentation.  These are fundamentally positive aspects of the Internet’s architecture and operations.

Addressing the risk of fragmentation

• Effective multistakeholder governance mechanisms are essential for the governance of a global unfragmented Internet.  There is a need to reinforce trust in these mechanisms, to ensure that they are robust and sustainable, and to foster coherence across governance structures as they evolve to meet new challenges.
• There is a need for vigilance concerning new or developing risks of fragmentation.  Global cooperation and coordination will be essential in identifying early warning signs, mapping the impact of policies and other developments, and preparing to address the implications of these changes.  A multistakeholder approach is best suited to assess, evaluate and monitor the potential unintended consequences of measures that affect the Internet and to suggest effective alternatives that avoid or mitigate the risks of fragmentation.  The IGF Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation is a positive example of this approach.
• Internet openness is instrumental in fostering the enjoyment of Internet users' human rights, promoting competition and equality of opportunity, and safeguarding the generative peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.  Debates about net neutrality and non-discriminatory traffic management are only part of broader discussions in this context.  Net neutrality is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee Internet openness.  It is also necessary to promote and preserve infrastructural and data interoperability, and device neutrality.
• While legal, regulatory and policy approaches will differ around the world, active coordination across international boundaries is vital to ensuring that fragmented approaches do not threaten the global reach and interoperability of the Internet.  Maintaining the integrity of the global network requires international regulatory collaboration and consensus on basic principles.
• Many different factors affect the experience of the Internet in different jurisdictions, including different social, demographic, economic, cultural and political contexts as well as technical and infrastructure issues.  The pursuit of some forms of digital sovereignty can increase the risk of fragmentation at the technical level of the Internet.  However, regulatory frameworks must also consider different requirements in different contexts and keep pace with rapid change in technology and services.
• There is a need for greater knowledge- and information-sharing among stakeholders, to further discussion of cyber-diplomacy as an evolving phenomenon, and to consider the scope for appropriate interventions.  Standard-making bodies should continue to improve outreach and engagement with stakeholders and to improve understanding between policy and technical communities.

Governing Data and Protecting Privacy
 

Theme

Data are the key resource of the globalised digital age.  The movement of data drives economies, while data analysis, including big data analytics, has been the basis for remarkable innovations across disciplines, from finance, to health and law enforcement. 

But the widespread use, routine flow across borders and fungibility of data remain sensitive and unresolved topics.  As a transnational, commercial asset, data flows operate in a largely unregulated environment in which there is little consistency between national legal regimes.  The privacy of personal data is too often sacrificed over the course of data exchanges, from the point of collection to application and storage, with deep consequences for trust and security.

To harness the significant promise of data, economically and for research purposes, discussions need to be relaunched around governance, integrity and the protection of peoples’ privacy.

Messages

The centrality of data

• Data have become a critical resource in an increasingly digital age.  Data flows are crucial to international cooperation in many fields including scientific research, law enforcement, and national and global security.  The effective use and sharing of data on a global scale can help overcome shared challenges and the threats posed by cascading crises such as pandemics and climate change.
• Data can generate both profit and significant social value.  The benefits of the data-driven economy, however, have so far been unevenly distributed.  Many in developing countries are concerned that they may become primarily providers of data rather than beneficiaries.
• The relationship between those who generate and those who use data is important.  Data poverty is a significant problem, especially in local communities and among vulnerable segments of populations.  Lack of data privacy and inadequate data protection undermine trust in data management.  It is important to build data literacy and data capacities across levels of government, in educational curricula and for the general public. 
• Data management and governance are complex issues in both national and international governance. Developments in data – including big data analytics, innovations in artificial intelligence and machine learning, and innovations across public policy dimensions and the SDGs – demonstrate the need for appropriate consideration of political, economic and social impacts and for nuanced policy interventions.  Government and regulatory institutions need the infrastructure and capacity required to implement effective, integrated national data governance frameworks.  Application developers have a responsibility to ensure ethical and safe design.

Data privacy and data justice

• Data privacy is not a matter of convenience or good practice but of human rights.  As well as the rights to privacy, equal treatment and non-discrimination it affects access to other human rights such as those to healthcare, education and public services, as well as democratic rights such as free expression and association.  Privacy laws should be substantial, evidence-based and capable of clear enforcement.  Those affected by them should be able to understand their implications clearly. 
• Data flows and data exchange should take place without compromising data privacy.  The privacy of personal data has often been sacrificed in the processes of data exchange, between the gathering of information and its application, with intentional and unintentional risks to trust and security.  This should be avoided. 
• Policies should reach beyond data protection to data justice in which people have choices over how personal data are used and where they can share the returns and benefits of innovation brought by datasets derived from their data.  Privacy protections should thereby contribute to a safer and more prosperous digital economy.
• Governments and regulators should ensure that personal data are protected, identifying the differentiated responsibilities of different stakeholders and without imposing undue burdens or responsibilities on individual users.  Data governance policies should be developed with multistakeholder input to ensure that implementation challenges are understood. 
• Privacy and data protection are particularly significant for the governance of artificial intelligence and machine learning.  All stakeholders in the AI supply chain have a role to play in upholding privacy rights.  
• There is a need for independent oversight bodies equipped with appropriate resources.  Data protection offices should have a mandate to manage data registration, provide guidance, implement investigations and resolve complaints from data subjects.

Data governance

• Issues concerning data governance should not be treated in silos or in isolation from their impacts.  The current data governance landscape is a fragmented patchwork of national, regional, and international rules involving responsibilities for national governments, private sector businesses and individuals.  Existing legislation and frameworks at national, regional, and international levels are often insufficient and fail to keep up with the pace of change in technology and applications.  Greater coherence is needed on a global level to achieve a balanced approach in which data work for people and the planet.
• Different contexts and challenges, histories, cultures, legal traditions, and regulatory structures mean that there cannot be one rigid set of rules for all.   Different individuals and organisations also interpret broadly similar approaches in different ways.  However, while countries and regions must develop their own tailored approaches to data governance there should be consistency and interoperability to facilitate data flows and ensure a level playing field.
• Transparency, participation and accountability are important aspects of good data governance.  Important considerations in governing data include (but are not limited to): data standards and classification; data sharing, exchange and interoperability; data security and data privacy; data infrastructure; data and digital identity; data justice and fairness; data traceability, transparency and explicability; data minimization and data limitation; data accuracy and quality; data bias, marginalization and discrimination; the data life cycle, specificity and  retention of data use; data accountability and data ethics; data harms, data security and data protection
• Many stakeholders have roles within this context and should exercise their power and influence to promote effective data governance, including regulators, researchers, standards organizations, consumer organisations and end users.  Policies for data governance should be developed with input from this multistakeholder community which has expertise in both legal debates around privacy and the “real world” challenges of implementing effective data privacy solutions.
• Developing economies need to enhance their institutional capacities to govern, use and manage data in a comprehensive, objective and evidence-based manner, including through regional and global cooperation. This requires improved understanding of the institutional capacities of government officials and stakeholders.

Cross-border data flows

• Cross-border data flows are essential to many aspects of e-commerce and digital trade.  Efficient intra-regional trade and supply chain management relies on the smooth flow of data as well as goods, services and capital.  However, all of these require complex cross-cutting considerations for regulatory convergence, harmonization of legal frameworks, Internet governance, information and communications technology policy reform and strategic regional infrastructure implementation.
• Current multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements are insufficient for current and future cross-border data flows.   These operate in a largely unregulated environment with little consistency between national legal regimes.  Approaches differ and are contextual, generating barriers to trade, while many countries do not currently have adequate legislation or enforcement capacity.  There is a growing need to develop and harmonise measures to manage cross-border flows that facilitate development and economic value generation, in different contexts, while respecting national sovereignty.

Enabling Safety, Security and Accountability

Theme

The security of the Internet is under threat in several ways.  Traditional cybersecurity deals with the protection of networks, devices and data from unauthorised access or criminal use.  This encompasses the ongoing problem of cyber-attacks, whether they are perpetrated by individuals or state-sanctioned, and whether the targets are civic, commercial or governmental.  It has so far has been constrained by the absence of broad and binding cybersecurity agreements.  Insufficiently secure networks also contribute to lost opportunities to capitalise fully on the economic benefits of digital technologies, particularly for developing countries.

Our understanding of safety and security should be broadened to include persistent challenge of online misinformation and disinformation.  In recent years, these have been factors in aggravating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as posing significant risks to electoral processes around the world.  This has emphasised the need for accountability and clear criteria for misleading content. 

The concept of ‘safety’ may be further widened to include environmental safety, considering efforts to ‘green’ the Internet and reduce carbon emissions associated with digital consumption. 

Messages

The role of policymakers

• Cybersecurity should be seen as a central challenge for Internet policy.  Considerations of trust and security should be integral to the development of safe, secure access, including respect for human rights, openness and transparency in policymaking, and a multistakeholder approach that serves the interests of end-users.
• Ensuring cybersecurity and preventing cybercrime are both important areas of policy that require serious attention and the development of expertise.  They differ in purpose, however, and the approach required for each is different.  An approach that is effective in one will not be effective in the other without adaptation and reformulation.
• Cybersecurity and cybercrime issues have cross-organisational and cross-border dimensions.  Tackling these requires:

1. whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches that include strong partnerships and coordinated efforts, involving parliaments, relevant government authorities and agencies, the private sector, the technical community, academia, and civil society; and
2. efficient and effective regional and international cooperation that is intergovernmental, multilateral and multistakeholder.

• Governments should take care to avoid adopting cybercrime laws that negatively affect the work of cybersecurity defenders.  They should invite all stakeholders to engage in policy development and facilitate interaction and sharing of experience and expertise between their different communities.
• Civil society should participate in both cybercrime and cybersecurity discussions.  To do so effectively, civil society stakeholders should educate themselves on the different approaches and issues involved, and work with other stakeholders to gather the information and resources required to participate fully in making policy.

Cybersecurity

• The international community should explore practical ways to mainstream cybersecurity capacity-building into broader digital development efforts.  Tensions between the desire to advance digital transformation and the need to enable effective cybersecurity pose challenges in enabling a safe, secure online environment and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.  While doing more to increase the resilience of digital infrastructure is necessary, it is not sufficient.  Translating existing international agreements into feasible actions is long overdue.
• Modern standards that enable cybersecurity are essential for an open, secure and resilient Internet that enables social progress and economic growth, and are particularly important in protecting those who are not yet connected.  Such standards have been developed, but their use needs to grow significantly to make them fully effective.  The United Nations could help accelerate the global adoption of key standards by including their promotion in the Global Digital Compact, by supporting advocacy and capacity building and by encouraging initiatives to test and monitor deployment.  Early awareness raising and capacity building on standards should not be forgotten as priorities in areas where many still have to get connected and the internet is growing. 

• More needs to be done to improve national policymakers’ and other stakeholders’ awareness of the challenges of cybersecurity and of international norms and principles.  This should include awareness and capacity-building concerning the links between sustainable development and cybersecurity, bringing diverse stakeholders together to mobilise effective, sustainable and inclusive stewardship of international cooperation for cyber-resilience.  A number of international initiatives have been established to support this.  Opportunities to finance cyber resilience also need to be addressed by funding agencies and other stakeholders.
• Cybersecurity norms must make a difference to the personal experiences of Internet users past, present and future.  Listening to the experiences of individual and organisational victims of cybersecurity attacks, and those of first responders, is important in this context, particularly when developing new norms.

Cybercrime

• Cybercrime poses an increasing threat to many Internet users.  Regulations countering cybercrime should be sensitive to the size, capacity and resources of platforms.  Legal obligations should consider the diversity of the technical sector, and acknowledge the needs and circumstances of smaller businesses in adhering to their legal obligations, for instance in countering terrorist and violent extremist exploitation of their services.
• Governments and policymakers should ensure that legal responses to criminal and terrorist use of the Internet safeguard both the rule of law and human rights, taking freedom of expression fully into account and ensuring encouraging transparency and accountability in the implementation of measures against cybercrime.

Content and disinformation

• Disinformation can and should be addressed through mechanisms that address the risks faced by individuals and societies while protecting freedom of expression, pluralism and democratic process.  Support for professional journalism and media plays an important part in efforts to address disinformation, including commitment to established journalistic norms.
• Media and digital literacy skills empower citizens to take a more critical view of the content or information they encounter, helping to identify disinformation and misinformation and strengthen democratic participation.  Digital literacy education can help to increase online safety awareness, especially for more vulnerable individuals and communities.   Initiatives need to be sensitive to the needs and risks associated with different demographic groups.  Different approaches for young people and older generations, for example, must respond to different usage patterns. 
• Educational curricula should include digital literacy skills that help children to be safe online.  Initiatives should involve parents, teachers and guardians.  Lawmakers and digital platforms should take responsibility to ensure children’s safety within a framework of children’s rights online such as that in General Comment 25 to the Children’s Rights Convention.
• The domain name system has limited technical capacity in this context.  Continued stakeholder dialogue should clarify when and how it may be used to remedy specific content problems, and should strengthen due-process norms.   Encryption helps users to achieve safety, privacy and freedom of speech, and also plays an important role in building an open, safe and democratic Internet.
• Translation issues present significant barriers that can inhibit end-users’ meaningful engagement with platforms’ community standards and guidelines.  Key terms are sometimes poorly translated, resulting in ambiguous interpretations.  Engagement with different language communities to improve the accuracy and relevance of translation, including the communication of concepts without direct equivalents in different languages, is an important part of enabling platforms and users to understand what is expected of them.

Addressing Advanced Technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Theme

Advanced digital technologies increasingly shape our economy and society, including artificial intelligence (AI) systems which guide our online experiences, power smart devices, and influence our own decisions as well as those that others take about us, as well as robotics and Internet of Things applications that are deployed in areas as diverse as manufacturing, healthcare, and agriculture.  Beyond their promises, these technologies come with pitfalls.  Algorithmic decision-making, for instance, can result in bias, discrimination, stereotyping and wider social inequality, while AI-based systems can pose risks to human safety and human rights.  Internet of Things devices come with privacy and cybersecurity challenges. Augmented and virtual reality raises issues of public safety, data protection, and consumer protection.

Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by advanced technologies, while addressing related challenges and risks is a task that no one actor can take up on its own.  Multistakeholder dialogue and cooperation – involving governments, intergovernmental organisations, technology companies, civil society, and others stakeholders – are required to ensure that these technologies are developed and deployed in a manner that is human-centred and respectful of human rights.

Messages

Governance

• Advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence, should be designed in a way that respects the rule of law, human rights, democratic values and diversity, and includes appropriate safeguards.  They should benefit people and the planet by driving inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being.  Oversight and enforcement mechanisms should follow principles and rules, with AI actors being held accountable for any damage caused. 
• The assumption that technology necessarily enhances equality is flawed.  Those who design machine learning technologies and the data used to train AI applications are often unrepresentative of their societies.  Technologies can amplify inequalities and cause harm to gender and sexual minorities, people with disabilities, and people from marginalised communities. 

• Societies need to adjust to the transformation that AI will bring about through changes to their cooperation framework and governance model.  Building a human-centred intelligent society requires the full cooperation of government, enterprises, social organisations and academia.  Ongoing human control remains essential, to ensure that algorithms do not lead to outcomes that are undesired or uncontrolled.  Breaking down silos between engineers and policy experts is critical to achieving this.

• Global agreement on AI norms cannot be achieved in one straightforward process.  While there are some existing norms, these are mostly soft laws rather than binding principles.   The development of meaningful global standards will require effective participation from the Global South and inputs from regional initiatives as well as the engagement of all stakeholders.

• Capacity-building is important in efforts to address advanced technologies.  Policies for AI literacy, skills development and language resources for minority languages are needed in order to formulate a truly global approach to advanced technologies.

Trust, security and privacy

• Regulatory frameworks should include principles to help social media and other platforms fulfil due diligence obligations for the management of content that could damage democracy and human rights.  Frameworks should contribute to the global conversation on online content moderation to empower users, including the most vulnerable groups and users of minority languages.  Emerging technologies such as affective computing, which consider how computers may recognise, interpret and simulate human emotions, require substantive ethical assessment.
• Transparency in the operation and reporting of algorithmic systems is essential for human rights.  AI facilitates the constant observation and analysis of data to personalise and target content and advertising.  The resulting personalised online experiences run the risk of disaggregating online information spaces and limiting individuals’ exposure to diversity of information.  Lack of information pluralism can foster manipulation and deception – furthering inequalities, undermining democratic debates, and potentially enabling digital authoritarianism, hatred, and violence.
• Stakeholders from technical and non-technical communities need to exchange expertise and work together to develop general principles that are sufficiently flexible for application in diverse contexts and which foster trust in AI systems.
• It is important to recognise and respect the different institutional and cultural backgrounds of diverse countries and communities, as well as promoting inclusivity and enabling international cooperation in AI. 

Rights and content moderation

• It is essential that policies for content governance by online platforms, and their enforcement, are in line with international human rights standards.  Artificial intelligence and machine-learning technologies are already being used to decide whether content should be posted or removed, what content is prioritised and to whom it is disseminated.  These tools play a significant role in shaping political and public discourse in ways that affect both individual and collective human rights, including social, economic and cultural rights and those to global peace and security.  They are often deployed with little or no transparency, accountability, or public oversight.  This should be rectified.
• The same technologies that can be used to promote human rights can also be used for surveillance, to promote violent agendas and in other ways that infringe those rights.  Unintended consequences of automated content moderation can be particularly detrimental in times of conflict or crisis when they may silence critical voices at a time when they are most crucial. 
• Technical standards cover a wide range of digital technologies and related infrastructures, services, protocols, applications, and devices that may have powerful impacts on human rights.  Yet the technical standard-setting processes within standards development organisations do not take human rights concerns fully into consideration.  These processes are often opaque, complex, and resource-heavy for civil society and other stakeholders to access and follow systematically.  This should be addressed.

Below are the key areas being developed by the BPF Gender & Digital Rights in its 2022 report. Comments can be added below each section by clicking on ''View and Add Comments for Paragraph''.

Deadline to post comments is 11 November 2022.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

How regulatory practices undermine gender-diverse rights

Human rights must be observed in all aspects of one’s life – personal and professional, online and offline. On the Internet, both women and gender-diverse communities have found safe spaces to freely express themselves. Similarly, journalists and human rights activists were able to exercise their right to freedom of expression without being targeted as if they were using traditional media.

Notwithstanding, censorship based on sex and gender still happen; persecution of dissident voices, likewise. The tool that promotes civic spaces and global outreach is the same that amplifies discrimination. In some countries, legal instruments provide the regulatory base to suppress the rights of marginalized communities in different spheres. Once pushed away from societal life, these marginalized communities are now leaving the online space as a means to protect their privacy and safety.

This BPF Gender & Digital Rights report presents a collection of regulatory practices which can lead to gendered censorship, classified under three topics: Reproductive Privacy and Surveillance; Freedom of Expression/Gendered Disinformation; and Freedom of Association and Religion. Curbing rights or misinterpreting legislation can have disastrous effects on women and LGBTQIA+ communities, undermining their agency and removing their constitutional rights.

Each of the topics above-mentioned is accompanied by support case studies. Under reproductive privacy, the report brings examples of gendered and social surveillance. Gendered disinformation, the BPF Gender & Digital Rights’ work theme in 2021, is put under the spotlight once more for its connections with freedom of expression – and legislation which tries to curb it. Additionally, this second focus area discusses discriminatory laws and hate speech, and sexual and cultural expressions as freedom of expression. Freedom of Association and Religion explores cases of legally imposed restrictions to civil society organizations. All examples presented here are country-based, yet they paint a global picture of the issues faced by women and gender-diverse communities both in the online and offline environments.

Lastly, this document collates a few recommendations with regard to the protection of human rights and the enactment of regulation that ensures a fair and equal treatment to all.

The BPF Gender & Digital Rights welcomes referrals of cases related to the area below, as well as comments on the issues already included in the report, as follows. Particular interest lies on the area of reproductive privacy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Focus Area 1: Privacy and surveillance / Reproductive privacy

• APC’s Global Survey on Sexuality, Rights, and Internet Regulation shows that surveillance has  the goal of control
• Female journalists make for particularly apt subjects for research on social and gendered surveillance given their unique and visible position in public discourse in both online and offline spaces (https://feminisminindia.com/2017/02/07/gendered-surveillance-female-jou…)
• Blasphemy laws can lead to increased social surveillance and thus gendered surveillance 
• Cybercrime acts' chilling effect: https://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/HBS-Report-2021-U.pdf 
• Ensuring that privacy regulations and digital data provisions include non-discrimination:https://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PDPB-2021-Submission-by-DRF.pdf 
• New regulatory initiatives aiming at weakening encryption (e.g. in the context of child sexual abuse material or terrorist content online) could be addressed here, as they typically lead to more surveillance and have a severe gendered impact (apart from the even more evident need of women to have access to robust encryption technologies).

The BPF Gender & Digital Rights welcomes referrals of cases related to the area below, as well as comments on the issues already included in the report, as follows. The section is still work in progress.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Focus Area 2: Freedom of expression / Gendered disinformation

Background

In 2022, the free speech mandate holders (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information) launched a Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Gender Justice.

The Joint Declaration addresses gender justice as a precondition for the universal right to freedom of expression: women – and others who experience discrimination and marginalization – face structural barriers to the enjoyment of their rights, online and offline. Restricted access to information, gender-based harassment and abuse, the digital divide, as well as biased technologies or discriminatory deployment of technology limit women’s ability to exercise their right to freedom of expression. Free speech challenges are greater for women in the public sphere or executing scrutiny, such as women journalists, as well as those with intersecting identities. It is also possible to draw a clear link to authoritarian trends and the overall backsliding of human rights and civic space.

The Joint Declaration’s recommendations provide guidance on eliminating discrimination and prejudice; ensuring access to information; averting gender-specific restrictions on expression; addressing online sexual and gender-based violence; and on human rights due diligence. Thereby, the Declaration recognizes the gender impact of regulation inevitably has and historically regularly led to marginalizing women’s expression.

Below there is a collection of examples of regulatory efforts that, despite allegedly seeking varied objectives, including many related to the protection of human rights, had the effect of (or have the potential to) curtail non-binary persons’ freedom of expression . 

Sexual expression and cultural expression as freedom of expression

One of the main impacts of looking at freedom of expression from a gender justice lens is the realization that the very meaning of freedom of expression is something different for women and gender-diverse people, if compared with the traditional view based on the lived experiences of cis, and mainly white, men. This is particularly evident when reviewing cases on violations of gender and sexual expression, and of cultural expression. 

While a liberal approach to freedom of expression is centered mainly on the expression of opinions and ideas, as well as on the issue of speech and press freedom, a gender justice approach to freedom of expression highlights other forms of expression that should be equally protected under law. These embodiments are at the core of the notion of identity, both individual and collective.

As explained by the former Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, 

“[i]Individual identities promote characteristics that distinguish one person from another, while collective identities privilege similarities among the individual members of a group. However, each individual is the bearer of a multiple and complex identity, making her or him a unique human being and, at the same time, enabling her or him to be part of communities of shared culture (...) Collective identity plays a central role in concepts and processes of inclusion/exclusion that define who we are and who we are not; who the other(s) is/are; what we can do and what we cannot do. Belonging does not confer equality, however, and every ‘collective identity’ is in a constant state of flux, being defined and redefined in response to external factors and internal reflection. Collective identity thus entails contestations over meanings and definitions, and is always linked to the underlying structures and dynamics of power related to accessing and exercising control over economic, political and cultural resources.”

Collective identities, therefore, are built and reinforced according to power relations within a group and “cultural rights must be understood as also relating to who in the community holds the power to define its collective identity.” When individual and collective identities clash, individuals’ ability to express their individual identifies may be put at risk and censored, lead to discrimination, and even violence. 

The most common manifestation of this scenario is the weaponization of religion and public morals to restrict freedom of expression. Examples of such are blasphemy laws, legislation criminalizing homosexuality or protecting family values, as well as the removal of content considered indecent or obscene.  

a. United States of America: the gag rule in the US school system

In the first nine months of 2021, PEN America identified 54 bills characterized as “educational gag orders” which were introduced or pre-filed in 24 states of the United States of America. The bills referred to ‘prohibited’ or ‘divisive’ concepts that mostly referred to discussions pertaining race, gender, and American history. An example is a bill introduced in Tennessee that sought to ban curricular materials that “promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.”

In the same year, Texas state representative Matt Krause wrote a letter to the Texas Education Agency's Deputy Commissioner of School Programs and School Superintendents, announcing an inquiry into the school books offered by the districts. According to National Public Radio (NPR), “Krause attached a 16-page list of roughly 850 book titles, most of which appear to be related to gender identity, sexuality, race, and sexual health. They were published between the 1960s and this year, and several have won awards. An analysis from The Dallas Morning News found that ‘of the first 100 titles listed, 97 were written by women, people of color or LGBTQ authors’." This trend continued in 2022, according to the American Library Association (ALA). 

b. India: the Information Technology Act (2000)

Section 67 of the Indian IT Act refers to punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. The norm provides that:

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

Gendered disinformation 

a. The Philippines: Maria Ressa

Verify report below to build the case

Maria Ressa: Fighting an Onslaught of Online Violence | International Center for Journalists (icfj.org)

Discriminatory and hate speech

a. Brazil: ban on the practice of content moderation 

In 2021, President Jair Bolsonaro issued a Provisional Executive Order that intended to forbid the practice of content moderation - except for ‘justified’ cases - under the pretense of allowing ample freedom of expression, communication, and expression of thought. Among the exceptions, that is, content authorized to be excluded or blocked, were the “practice, support, promotion or incitement of acts of threat or violence, including for reasons of discrimination or prejudice of race, color, sex, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation”. Although it established exceptions, by determining as a general rule the prohibition of content removal with sanctions for non-compliance, the regulation could have created an online environment prone to the circulation of harmful speech, particularly distorted speech of political gender violence, hate speech, and misinformation targeting women and LGBTQIA+ people. The uncertainties and broad interpretation loopholes on the exceptions’ interpretive space raised the cost of improperly excluding content.

It is also noteworthy that there is no mention of gender-based violence among the listed bypass possibilities, which opens a gap for the maintenance of this type of discourse on social networks. Additionally, the regulation reinforces the legal and State marginalization of gender-diverse people by establishing a biological attribute to a specific form of discrimination when referring to sex-based prejudice. Thus, when the norm excludes that community from its scope, it denies the existence of such forms of discrimination or, at least, denies that particular discourses represent violence against them and so they deserve to be suppressed from the public debate. In this sense, the very discriminatory nature of the law becomes clear, which deprives of any value the existence of some groups in the digital public space.

On 14 September 2021, the president of the Senate summarily rejected the Executive Order.

Reporting on gender-based violence 

a. Ecuador: regulation against digital sexual violence and computer crimes

On May 2021, the National Assembly approved the Law to Prevent and Combat Digital Sexual Violence and Strengthen the Fight against Computer Crimes, which proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to prevent and tackle online sexual violence. While the objective seems legitimate, the norm brings potential risks on targeting journalists and human rights defenders who try to report sexual and gender abuses. The chilling effect of such regulation could precisely silence those it seeks to protect given the fear of being criminalized - restricting the free flow of information on issues of public interest.

President Guillerme Lasso has vetoed parts of the bill. The article below was vetoed in its entirety:

Art. 11 (art. 179 of the Criminal Code): The person who, without legal consent or authorization, accesses, intercepts, examines, records, reveals, disseminates, publishes or gives any improper or unauthorized treatment to third-party content, personal data and documents, data messages, voice, audio and video, personal photos, postal objects, information contained in computer media, digital content or private or reserved communications, by any means or through any of the information and communication technologies, will be sanctioned with a custodial sentence of one to three years.

Defamation laws 

An ongoing OSCE study on online abuse and harassment against women journalists in Central Asia indicates that defamation laws or legislation on countering disinformation have been misused to silence women journalists.

Verify reports below to build the case

Misogyny and Misinformation: An analysis of gendered disinformation tactics during the COVID-19 pandemic - EU DisinfoLab

#ShePersisted - Research and Thought Leadership (she-persisted.org)

Child protection laws 

a. Hungary: legal amendments that criminalize gender diversity

Over the past decades, the Hungarian government has issued a series of Act amendments to ensure child protection. However, the norms actually started to criminalize gender diversity. Below are some examples.

 Amendment to Act XXXI of 1997 on the protection of children and guardianship administration:

Section 6/A: For ensuring the fulfilment of the objectives set out in this Act and the implementation of the rights of the child, it is forbidden to make accessible to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen years content that is pornographic or that depicts sexuality in a gratuitous manner or that propagates or portrays divergence from self-identity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality.

Amendment to Act XLVIII of 2008 on the basic conditions of and certain restrictions on economic advertising activities:

In section 8 of Act XLVIII of 2008 on the basic conditions of and certain restrictions on economic advertising activities, the following paragraph (1a) shall be added:

(1a) It shall be forbidden to make accessible to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen years advertisement that depicts sexuality in a gratuitous manner or that propagates or portrays divergence from self-identity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality.

Amendment to Act CLXXXV of 2010 on media services and mass communication: 

In Section 9 (1) of Act CLXXXV of 2010 on media services and mass communication (hereinafter the “Mttv.”) shall be replaced by the following provision: 

“(1) With the exception of news programmes, political information programmes, sports programmes, programme previews, political advertisements, teleshopping, community facility advertisements, and public service announcements, media service providers offering linear media services shall classify all programmes they wish to broadcast into one of the categories under paragraphs (2) to (7).”

(2) Section 9 (6) of the Mttv. shall be replaced by the following provision:

“(6) Programmes shall be classified into category V if they are capable of exerting negative influence on the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular as a result of having as their central element violence, propagation or portrayal of divergence from selfidentity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality or direct, naturalistic or gratuitous depiction of sexuality. These programmes shall be rated as follows: not appropriate for audiences under the age of eighteen.” 

(3) In section 32 of the Mttv., the following paragraph (4a) shall be added: 

“(4a) Programmes shall not qualify as public service announcements and community facility advertisements if they are capable of exerting negative influence on the appropriate physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular as a result of having as their central element gratuitous depiction of sexuality, pornography, propagation or portrayal of divergence from self-identity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality.”

Amendment to Act CXC of 2011 on national public upbringing Section 11: 

(1) In section 9 of Act CXC of 2011 on national public upbringing (hereinafter the “Nktv.”), the following paragraph (12) shall be added: 

“(12) In the conduct of activities concerning sexual culture, sex, sexual orientation and sexual development, special attention shall be paid to the provisions of Article XVI (1) of the Fundamental Law. Such activities cannot be aimed at the propagation of divergence from self-identity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality.” 

(2) In subtitle 7 of the Nktv., the following section 9/A shall be added: “Section 9/A (1) A person or organisation other than an employee employed as a teacher by an educational and upbringing institution, a professional providing school health services in such an institution and a state organ party to a cooperation agreement concluded with such an institution may conduct an activity in class or organised otherwise for students relating to sexual culture, sex, sexual orientation, sexual development, the adverse effects of drug consumption, the dangers of the Internet, and any form of physical or mental health development (for the purposes of this section, hereinafter the “programme”) only if he is registered by the organ designated by law. (2) Data in the register under paragraph (1) shall qualify as data accessible on public interest grounds that shall be published on the website of the organ designated by law to keep the register under paragraph (1). (3) The register under paragraph (1) shall contain the following:

 a) title of the programme,

b) contact data and b) name of a natural person programme owner or bb) name and seat of an organisation programme owner, 

c) specification of the type of public upbringing institution in which the programme is to be implemented, 

d) date of registration and period (school year) during which the registered programme may be carried out in a public upbringing institution, and 

e) topic of the programme.

The BPF Gender & Digital Rights welcomes referrals of cases related to the area below, as well as comments on the issues already included in the report, as follows. The BPF is particularly interested in collating more cases for this focus area. The section is still work in progress.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Focus Area 3: Freedom of association and religion

a. Guatemala

In May 2021, the Constitutional Court of Guatemala revoked an injunction that suspended the implementation of the Decree 4-2020. The norm amended the Law of Non-Governmental Organizations for Development and the Civil Code in Guatemala to restrict the activities of civil society organizations and amplify state control over them. The State held that the amendment aimed at improving ‘the development of Guatemala by establishing mechanisms that allow transparency in the actions of national or international Non-Governmental Organizations’. It establishes a set of legally disproportionate requirements for the constitution, registration, regulation, operation, and supervision of national and international NGOs, in addition to allowing arbitrary restrictions. 

Concerning provisions include: 

• An obligation to inscribe and register non-governmental organizations established abroad
• A numerus clausus of types of organizations that are non-governmental, excluding any other institution from this characterization 
• A prohibition on the existence of organizations with similar denominations, indicating that the NGO registration will be canceled if it falls under this case 
• Articles 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12 impose mandatory registration in various State dependencies, as well as the creation of a centralized registry, which violates international standards on freedom of association. Any NGO which does not update its registration details will be dissolved
• Article 13 criminalizes foreign funding for “activities that alter public order in national territory.” The vagueness of ‘activities that alter public order’ offers large discretion to judges to criminalize NGOs’ activities that report state abuses and express criticism or dissent against government 
• The law authorizes state authorities to request the closure of any NGO that violates the law without offering due process guarantees. 

The regulation came into force in a context of increasing harassment and discrimination against women, indigenous journalists and human rights defenders in the country. Frontline Defenders pointed out that women human rights defenders who work on the protection of the land and of sexual diversity are particularly in risk. The organization expresses that drug trafficking and the pandemic have been used as an excuse to enhance state persecution.

In this political and social environment, the Network of Ancestral Healers of Territorial Community Feminism has denounced being under constant risk of political persecution and state surveillance. It is also worth mentioning the recent case of Anastasia Mejía Tiriquiz, indigenous journalist and director of the broadcasting radio and TV station Xol Abaj. She was arrested in September 2020 by the Specialized Criminal Investigation Division of the National Civil Police for the crimes of sedition and attack with specific aggravations. 

b. Malaysia: Sisters in Islam (Sis)

In Malaysia, state religious authorities have targeted a feminist Muslim women’s rights group named Sisters in Islam (Sis) as a deviant organization through a fatwa which called for any ‘liberal and plural’ publications or content to be banned and seized. Internet regulators have also actively blocked online content and initiated investigations against individuals who were accused of spreading anti-islam content through social media. On cases involving gender and religion, “the critical issue, from the human rights perspective, is not whether and how religion, culture and tradition prevail over women’s human rights, but how to arrive at a point at which women own both their culture (and religion and tradition) and their human rights.”

Recommendations

Recommendations to the issues presented in the report will be developed after cases' analysis is completed. The BPF welcomes further considerations from the IGF Community to be added to the section.

Below are the key areas being developed by the Policy Network in Meaningful Access (PNMA) in its 2022 report. Comments can be added below each section by clicking on ''View and Add Comments for Paragraph''.

Deadline to post comments is 11 November 2022.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

About meaningful access

The concept of meaningful access has emerged in response to the growing body of evidence that even when people have connectivity, they might not have been fully benefiting from the Internet. How one gets connected to the Internet is an equally important challenge to the experience that person will have once they are online. While access to infrastructure is critical, without this access being inclusive, useful, sustainable, affordable, and linked to human capacity development and  relevant content that can make it so, it will not achieve its full, positive potential. Many of the efforts on access, unfortunately, are only focusing on bringing connections to final users and treating them as consumers, without taking into consideration the potential of the Internet as a way to create, communicate and produce contents and services locally and in local languages - acknowledging users as citizens with their own online civic spaces.

Focus Area 1 - Connectivity
Derived from the 2022 call of inputs, the PNMA selected cases as good practices on implementing or pushing for better meaningful access. For each focus area, the practices were evaluated following standard assessments, derived from the chosen methodology for this year’s process.

The PNMA welcomes examples in the area of connectivity. Please provide your comment following the categories and guidelines below:
 

(name of the project)

• Location:
  • (country, city/region if available)
• Funding:
  • (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)
• Responsible institutions / partners / people:
• What is the problem(s)?
  • Set up the context
  • Describe the problem
• Specifics:
  • Rural / Urban setting?
  • Is there a gender focus?
  • What were the services provided, subsidies used?
  • Etc (anything particular worth sharing)
• Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)?
• Results / Impact / Lessons learned (what worked / remaining challenges)
  • Results:
  • Impact:
  • Lessons learned:

Focus Area 2 - Digital inclusion
Derived from the 2022 call of inputs, the PNMA selected cases as good practices on implementing or pushing for better meaningful access. For each focus area, the practices were evaluated following standard assessments, derived from the chosen methodology for this year’s process.

The PNMA welcomes examples in the area of digital inclusion. Please provide your comment following the categories and guidelines below:

(name of the project)

• Location:
  • (country, city/region if available)
• Funding:
  • (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)
• Responsible institutions / partners / people:
• What is the problem(s)?
  • Set up the context
  • Describe the problem
• Specifics:
  • Rural / Urban setting?
  • Is there a gender focus?
  • What were the services provided, subsidies used?
  • Etc (anything particular worth sharing)
• Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)?
• Results / Impact / Lessons learned (what worked / remaining challenges)
  • Results:
  • Impact:
  • Lessons learned:

Focus Area 3 - Capacity development
The PNMA is looking for stories, case studies, local experiences, and implemented practices under the broad area of capacity development. The policy network is particularly interested in receiving cases in this area of study, either successful or challenging ones.

Please provide your comment following the categories and guidelines below:

(name of the project)

• Location:
  • (country, city/region if available)
• Funding:
  • (funder, figure, for how long, n/a)
• Responsible institutions / partners / people:
• What is the problem(s)?
  • Set up the context
  • Describe the problem
• Specifics:
  • Rural / Urban setting?
  • Is there a gender focus?
  • What were the services provided, subsidies used?
  • Etc (anything particular worth sharing)
• Which were the actions taken to address the problem(s)?
• Results / Impact / Lessons learned (what worked / remaining challenges)
  • Results:
  • Impact:
  • Lessons learned:

Issues for IGF consideration and action

This section of the report will gather considerations drawn from the cases' analysis, as well as replies from the community sent via the call of inputs. The PNMA invites you to answer these questions and contribute to the analysis:

• In your experience, what is missing? What policy and/or regulation needs to be in place to support expansion of access to rural/marginalised communities in the Global South?
• Please share general observations on the topic, provide feedback to our work, or suggest ways forward for the Policy Network on Meaningful Access.