Conflict of rights and interests

“In this briefing, ARTICLE 19 builds on [its previous] work and examines how three dominant social media companies – Facebook, Twitter and Youtube – have responded to calls to address various forms of gender-based harassment and abuse in their community guidelines and practices. However, ARTICLE 19 is very mindful of the wider context of the problem of online gender-based harassment and abuse and the role of other players in the wider Internet ecosystem, such as private messaging services. The briefing first examines what are the responsibilities of the major/ dominant social media companies under human rights standards and how they implement their responsibilities in their community guidelines and practices. The briefing highlights the positive and negative aspects of these tools and approaches, and provides recommendations for improvement.”

"This scoping paper focuses on applications of ‘artificial narrow intelligence’: in particular, machine learning and its implications for human rights. The aim of the paper is fourfold: 1) Present key technical definitions to clarify the debate; 2) Examine key ways in which AI impacts the rights to freedom of expression and privacy and outline key challenges; 3) Review the current landscape of AI governance, including various existing legal, technical, and corporate frameworks and industry-led AI initiatives that are relevant to freedom of expression and privacy; and 4) Provide initial suggestions for rights-based solutions which can be pursued by civil society organisations and other stakeholders in AI advocacy activities.

The report “examines the crucial challenges of balancing the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression, and the related value of transparency, in an online context. Through an exploration of their boundaries and of the various modalities of reconciling and aligning these rights and values, the study analyzes the legal frameworks at play, specific cases, and interactions between multiple players. Built on the findings, it provides policy recommendations for key stakeholders.”

“Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications are now a critical part of the information environment – they are found in every corner of the internet, on digital devices and in technical systems, in search engines, social media platforms, messaging applications, and public information mechanisms. In this report, the Special Rapporteur examines the impact AI on the information environment, and proposes a human rights framework for the design and use of technologies comprising AI by states and private actors. [In particular], it tries to do three things: define key terms essential to a human rights discussion about AI; identify the human rights legal framework relevant to AI; and present some preliminary recommendations to ensure that, as the technologies comprising AI evolve, human rights considerations are baked into that process. The report should be read as a companion to my most recent report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/38/35), in which a human rights approach to online content moderation was presented.”

The report (A/HRC/29/32) “addresses the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications. Drawing from research on international and national norms and jurisprudence, and the input of States and civil society, the report concludes that encryption and anonymity enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve strong protection.” 

“In this report, the Special Rapporteur addresses two linked questions: First, do the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression protect secure online communication, specifically by encryption or anonymity? And second, assuming an affirmative answer, to what extent may governments, consistent with human rights law, impose restrictions on encryption and anonymity? The report seeks to answer these questions, review examples of State practice, and propose recommendations. Drawing from research on international and national norms and jurisprudence, and the input of States and civil society, the report concludes that encryption and anonymity enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve strong protection.”

The UN resolution acknowledges that some new and emerging technologies may not be compatible with international human rights law. Evidence shows that emotion recognition technologies are fundamentally incompatible with human rights, and future resolutions should ban these technologies. The resolution also introduces stronger language on remote biometric surveillance systems, such as facial recognition, which raises concerns about their proportionality. The increasing use of biometric technologies has chilling effects on freedom of expression and behaviour, deterring people from participating in public assemblies or expressing their ideas or religious beliefs. Governments are called to prohibit remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces and mass surveillance. However, the core group failed to address new challenges for privacy, such as social media monitoring. The resolution is urged to include strong recommendations to ensure social media intelligence collection, analysis, and sharing strictly conforms with human rights standards and data protection frameworks.

Resolution 68/167 on the right to privacy in the digital age.

“This unofficial document is meant to accompany the June 2015 report to the Human Rights Council of the Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. The report explores how encryption and anonymity facilitate the exercise of the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression and proposes a legal framework to govern the individual use and government restriction of encryption and anonymity technologies. The report itself provides citations to numerous sources for the report’s conclusions. However, because of space requirements attached to a report to the Human Rights Council, this companion reference document was prepared to highlight a limited set of additional technical and legal resources that interested readers may wish to investigate. All of these documents informed, in one way or another, the report itself.”

In this policy brief, ARTICLE 19 examines the compliance of dominant social media platforms – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google) – with international freedom of expression standards; and gives practical recommendations on what companies should do to demonstrate their commitment to protecting of freedom of expression.