HUMAN RIGHTS &

TECHNOLOGY

Mathias Klang

TECHNOLOGY & RIGHTS?Why & What

TECHNOLOGY IS NOT ABOUT DEMOCRACYTechnology = Communication = Society = Democracy

CommunicationCommunication

OrganizationOrganization

ProtestProtest AccessAccess

ReligionReligion

PrivacyPrivacyCultureCulture

EducationEducation

PressPress

THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ONLINE

LIFE IS ORGANIZED AROUND TECHNOLOGY……and it always has been….

BY CONTROLLING TECHNOLOGY WE CONTROL SOCIETY

Regulation of technology is the regulation of democracy

SO WHAT?

SO WHAT?

DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGYThe disruption occurs when the technology, which is introduced effects the social arrangements around which we build our lives

IMPULSE: CONTROL

ANTIDOTE?Free Software

REGULATIONFrom Command and Control to Fuller & Lessig

WHAT’S WRONG WITH COMMAND AND CONTROL?It relies to heavily upon coercion and cooperation.

ONLINE OFFLINE

“We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.” (Barlow 1996)

Regulatory Metaphor

Law

Social RulesContextual & programed

Architecture

Lessig (1999)

CASES

SPEECH & CENSORSHIPCase 1:

Censorship

Information Control

• Local– Client based (software4parents, matewatcher)

• Organizational– Server based

• National– Backbone/gateway based

Censorship

Filtering methods

• Inclusion - whitelist• Exclusion - blacklist• Content analysis

Censorship

Privatizing Censorship

• Non-technical/self censorship– “Public Pledge of Self-Regulation & Professional

Ethics for China Internet Industry”

• Responsibility on the signatories:– Inspect & monitor foreign & domestic sites– Block harmful information

Censorship

SURVEILLANCECase 2:

Surveillance

Integrity

• That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection.

• Brandeis & Warren 1890

Surveillance

• Louis Brandeis & Samuel Warren "The Right to Privacy," 4 Harvard Law Review 193-220 (1890-91)

Surveillance

Technology 1888

• 1888 - Kodak nr 1 • First mass produced box • Simple and portable• Shot exposure

Surveillance

Paparazzi (1898)Surveillance

Reklam (1902)

• Robertson v. Rochester Folding Box Co (1902)

• The court did not accept Brandeis & Warrens argument of a “common law” right

Surveillance

Hidden camera 1928

• Execution of Ruth Snyder 1928

Surveillance

SurveillanceSurveillance

Little brothers

A must for anyone who needs to protect their loved ones, home or business!

Surveillance

TARGETING TECHNOLOGYCase 3: The Lufthansa Case

DoS

Denial of Service - examples• 1998 DoS attack against the Mexican president’s

website.• 8,000 hacktivists participated to show their support for

the Zapatistas. • In 2003 the electrohippies antiwar protest disrupted the

PM’s webpage (www.number-10.gov.uk/) causing it to be unavailable on several occasions.

DoS

• Three way handshake (Gibson: www.grc.com)

Denial of Service - technologyDoS

Denial of Service - the players

• The Electrohippies – Practitioners – Now on walkabout

• The Cult of the Dead Cow– Claim the name Hacktivism

DoS

• Accountability: “…we do not try bury our identities from law enforcement authorities any authority could, if it chose to, track us down in a few hours.”

• Popular participation: If people don't vote with their modems (rather than voting with their feet) the action would be an abject failure”

• Symbolism rather than damage

The Arguments: ElectohippiesDoS

The Arguments 2: Dead Cow

• “No rationale, even in the service of the highest ideals, makes them anything other than what they are -- illegal, unethical, and uncivil” (Ruffin 2000).

DoS

SOLIDARITYCase 4: Green Twitter, Location Tehran, Facebook for Monks

Arik Fraimovich (@arikfr)set up helpiranelection.com & seeks support for the protesters in Iran. Support by “greening” the Twitter avatar

ORGANISATION

HSBCFRA & the Bloggquake (bloggbävning)

COMMUNICATIONCase 6

Thank you!