Opening: Carl Bildt, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs
Broadband and mobile phones have implied a revolution. And the word revolution is intended and literal. The way we live, the way the economy works, have changed forever and radically. Soon 85% of the whole world population will be covered with mobile broadband.
Of course, such a revolutionary power wants to be captured by many countries, so they aim at controlling the Internet. So, we have to stop these governments from controlling the tool for freedom that the Internet is.
The right to freedom of opinion & expression, (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 19) should apply online as well as offline. If there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of gathering, no freedom of access to information, there is no freedom at all.
Thus, we have to help those living in totalitarian countries in their fight for freedom of the Net.
And we have to be not threatened by lack of security because of gains in freedom. Security and freedom are the two sides of the same coin: they do not exclude one another, but they complement each other. Free societies are safe societies, open societies.
Moderator: Emily Taylor, Consultant, Non-executive Director Oxford Information Labs Ltd, Member of Multistakeholder Advisory Group at UN Internet Governance Forum.
Panelists: Carl Bildt, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs; Moez Chakchouk, CEO of the Tunisian Internet Agency; Shahzad Ahmad, Country Director at Bytes for All, Pakistan; Ebele Okobi, Global Director, Human Rights, Yahoo!; Susan Morgan, Executive Director, Global Network Initiative.
Does the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution on Internet and Human Rights implies any step forward?
The HR convention is a part of a broader pressure for establishing the importance of the issue. Even if it is not binding, it does set a precedent at the world level and is a very good tool for advocacy.
UN resolution on net freedom still needs to translate on the ground, to exit the aisles in Geneva and be put into practice.
How can the resolution be used to enhance connectivity, digital development? What is the connection between freedom and development?
Entrepreneurship is trying to do new things, things that have never been done before; entrepreneurship is about innovation and development comes from it. If there is no freedom to try things, then that is a huge barrier for innovation and entrepreneurship and, hence, development.
Aren’t there more debates around threats, security, barriers, and not on the opportunities of the Internet? Or instead of on the Internet (as something that is broken) why not more debate on those “usual suspects” that are the ones that raise threats and issues on security and barriers to freedom?
What about the role of companies and their responsibility to respect human rights on the Internet? How morally acceptable is e.g. Gamma International selling FinFisher surveillance software to repressive regimes?
Are we really better off in a world where laws are replaced with terms of service and courts are replaced with abuse departments?
There are times when censorship may be a good option for defending (other) Human Rights: e.g. Child Online Protection. But who should exert this “right to censorship”? Should elected governments the ones that should do it or or profit driven companies?
Not only some totalitarian governments limit freedom of expression on the Internet. In many places in Latin America is organized crime the one that limits it by threatening journalists, politicians and activists.
Surveillance does not limit freedom of speech because it is discreet. But, in the long term, surveillance easily leads to self-censorship and therefore can be just as inhibiting as actual Internet limitations.
The fight against surveillance is the fact for freedom from suspicion.
- Sweden Pushing For Human Rights Online, press release by the Government of Sweden.
- Stockholm Internet Forum: Balancing rights and security, by Kirsty Hughes.