Error message

  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_timezone_set() expects parameter 1 to be DateTime, boolean given in format_date() (line 2040 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).
  • Warning: date_format() expects parameter 1 to be DateTimeInterface, boolean given in format_date() (line 2050 of /home/globalne/public_html/includes/common.inc).

Issues

The Global Network Initiative publishes statements and resources on a regular basis to highlight trends and issues of concern for all stakeholders in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector. As a multi-stakeholder initiative, GNI draws on the collective expertise of our members and on our cumulative experience in the global implementation of the GNI Principles. 

GNI Statement on Google’s New Approach to China

Date: 
Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 16:00

In reaction to Google's decision to take a new approach to its business operations in China, the Global Network Initiative issued the following statement:
 

Google’s decision to reconsider its business in China is an indication of the tough choices information and communications technology (ICT) companies face around the world where respect for human rights is at risk. The Global Network Initiative (GNI) provides principles, guidelines and support to help companies think through these choices and make decisions that protect freedom of expression and privacy for hundreds of millions of Internet users around the world.
 
It is essential that the global ICT industry and its stakeholders make a public and shared commitment to respect user rights in the face of increased threats to freedom of expression and privacy.  The ICT industry is diverse, and different companies may make different decisions about entering or exiting a market based on specific circumstances such as timing, location, relationships and the nature of a particular product, service or business. There is no “one size fits all” approach to corporate responsibility, nor a single right course of action or script for all to follow.  We invite all ICT companies to participate in the GNI and draw upon the guidance and insights provided by the GNI's principles and guidelines in creating a responsible approach to business decisions.

ICT companies worldwide can use the GNI’s principles, guidelines and tools to assess human rights risk when entering or leaving a market or when designing and introducing new technologies, products or services. By participating in the GNI and working together with human rights groups, investors and academics, ICT companies can benefit from valuable collaboration, accountability, confidential input and collective action. These resources can help companies manage these challenges, maintain credibility and support the privacy and freedom of expression rights of their users.


The GNI’s guidelines indicate that companies should:

  • Establish human rights risk assessment procedures and integrate the findings into business decision-making
  • Require that governments follow established domestic legal processes when they are seeking to restrict freedom of expression and privacy
  • Provide users with clear, prominent and timely notice when access to specific content has been removed or blocked
  • Encourage governments, international organizations and entities to call attention to the worst cases of infringement on the human rights of freedom of expression and privacy
  • Utilize independent assessments of company implementation of the GNI’s principles


About GNI: http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org
Press inquiries: press@globalnetworkinitiative.org

Join us:
General inquiries: info@globalnetworkinitiative.org
Announcements list: http://list.globalnetworkinitiative.org

 

Global Network Initiative Statement on Internet Shutdown in Egypt

Date: 
Friday, January 28, 2011 - 17:12

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is deeply concerned that the people of Egypt have been denied access to Internet and telecommunications services.  This almost unprecedented step has enormous implications for human rights.  

The GNI acknowledges the difficult situation faced by companies that provide Internet and telecommunications services.  We urge companies to take action to protect freedom of expression and privacy, and preserve a free and open Internet.  We urge the Egyptian government to respect its international human rights commitments.

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) companies have a primary role in the operation of global communications networks that enable the free flow of information.  All over the world, companies face the challenge of government laws and practices that violate international human rights norms.  Companies can find themselves under duress from governments to operate in ways that go beyond legally accountable law enforcement activities.  In these circumstances, a valuable first step for companies is to be transparent and have human rights principles in place to govern their response.  

GNI can help companies develop strategies to operate in a manner that protects and advances human rights.


GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics, who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector.  GNI provides resources for ICT companies to help them address difficult issues related to freedom of expression and privacy that they may face anywhere in the world.  GNI has created a framework of principles and a confidential, collaborative approach to working through challenges of corporate responsibility in the ICT sector.

Press inquiries to press@globalnetworkinitiative.org  

GNI commissioned report on the freedom of expression and privacy risks across the ICT sector is published

Date: 
Monday, February 14, 2011 - 15:00

Today sees the publication of a GNI commissioned report, written by BSR "Protecting Human Rights in the Digital Age".  The report describes the evolving freedom of expression and privacy risks faced by information and communications technology (ICT) companies and how these risks can be more effectively mitigated by the industry.  It focuses on the issues for telecommunications services; cell phones and mobile devices; internet services; enterprise software, data storage and IT services, semiconductors and chips, network equipment, consumer electronics and security software.

Read the full report here (pdf).

Statement on WikiLeaks and the Implications for Companies

Date: 
Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 16:00

Recent decisions by some technology companies to restrict access to or sever ties with WikiLeaks highlight the difficulties companies face when governments attempt to restrict controversial information.

The Global Network Initiative does not take a position on WikiLeaks decision to publish these materials or on their content, but is concerned about the implications for freedom of expression and privacy online. As citizens increasingly depend on digital communications in their daily lives, including for political discourse, GNI believes that freedom of expression and human rights must be protected in the following ways:

  • Governments have an obligation to safeguard freedom of expression and must carefully weigh the implications of restricting controversial information—including in cases in which there are concerns of threats to national security or the safety of individuals.  In all cases, such decisions should respect the rule of law and due process. We urge the US government and other governments affected by the WikiLeaks disclosures to adhere to this standard.
  • Companies are, and should be, free to adopt and administer Terms of Use (ToU) policies for the use of the services they provide. Application of these ToU should be transparent and consistent with freedom of expression and privacy implications.
  • Governments have internationally recognized obligations regarding the rights of privacy and freedom of expression of their citizens. ICT companies have the responsibility to protect their customers and ensure that governments respect those rights when they try to restrict expression or provide information on users. When faced with a government request, an ICT company should: (i) determine whether a government action is consistent with the government’s legal and other obligations to their citizens, and, (ii) based on that analysis, implement a decision-making process that protects the freedom of expression and privacy rights of the company’s customers.  
  • Companies need to be transparent with their customers and other users about how they respond to government pressure or demands.  Where possible, companies should notify customers about government requests with sufficient opportunity for them to take steps to protect themselves from or respond to governmental action.


GNI believes that the WikiLeaks document release and the complex issues it has raised about freedom of expression for a wide variety of companies underscores the need for companies to adopt effective policies and procedures to safeguard freedom of expression and privacy.

GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics, who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector.  GNI provides resources for ICT companies to help them address difficult issues related to freedom of expression and privacy that they may face anywhere in the world.  GNI has created a framework of principles and a confidential, collaborative approach to working through challenges of corporate responsibility in the ICT sector.  

 

Pages

GNI Statement on Communications Surveillance

Date: 
Wednesday, June 12, 2013 - 09:31

Recent statements by U.S. government officials about communications surveillance programs highlight the need for thoughtful public debate on the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and privacy on the one hand, and legitimate law enforcement and national security precautions, on the other. This is not just about the United States. Communications surveillance by any government raises questions about the clarity, necessity, and proportionality of measures taken and their impact on human rights, including privacy and freedom of expression.

International human rights law and standards provide obligations and guidance as governments, companies, and civil society grapple with the impact of new technology on matters of security and privacy. Just last week, Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights implications of government surveillance in which he stated: “In order to meet their human rights obligations, States must ensure that rights to freedom of expression and privacy are at the heart of their communications surveillance frameworks.” International human rights law sets standards that protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of users regardless of citizenship.

The Global Network Initiative urges governments, in the United States and around the world, to strive for greater transparency about their laws, regulations and actions in this sphere. Increased transparency will help inform public debate. As governments continue to grapple with the impact of new surveillance technologies and capabilities, the GNI urges officials to include representatives of the public, private and civil society sectors in their policy deliberations. Free expression and privacy will only be protected if all viewpoints are heard.

GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics, who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector. GNI provides resources for ICT companies to help them address difficult issues related to freedom of expression and privacy that they may face anywhere in the world. GNI has created a framework of principles and a confidential, collaborative approach to working through challenges of corporate responsibility in the ICT sector. 

 

A Plan for Rights-Respecting Telecoms


GNI Policy and Communications Director David Sullivan joins a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan. 

Protecting Human Rights in the Digital Age

Date: 
Friday, February 4, 2011 - 16:49

 

On February 14th, 2011 we announced the publication of a GNI-commissioned report, written by BSR, titled "Protecting Human Rights in the Digital Age". The report describes the evolving freedom of expression and privacy risks faced by information and communications technology (ICT) companies and how these risks can be more effectively mitigated by the industry. It focuses on the issues for telecommunications services; cell phones and mobile devices; internet services; enterprise software, data storage and IT services, semiconductors and chips, network equipment, consumer electronics and security software.

Read the full report here (pdf).

Digital Freedoms in International Law

Date: 
Thursday, June 14, 2012 - 12:30


On June 14th, 2012, GNI released the report “Digital Freedoms in International Law: Practical Steps to Protect Human Rights Online” by Dr. Ian Brown and Professor Douwe Korff. The report examines the challenges facing governments and technology companies as they balance rights to expression and privacy with law enforcement and national security responsibilities. The report draws from extensive research conducted by co-authors Dr. Brown and Professor Korff, including multi-stakeholder consultations held in London, Washington, and New Delhi.

To download the executive summary, click here

To download the full report, click here

 

GNI Hosts Online Debate on the UK Communications Data Bill

Date: 
Monday, December 17, 2012 - 16:49

Susan Morgan hosts a Google Big Tent Hangout discussing the UK draft Communications Data Bill, featuring Lord Paul Strasburger, member of the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee, and Jamie Bartlett from Demos.

Read the GNI statement on the report of the UK Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill. 

GNI Welcomes Report on UK Draft Communications Data Bill

Date: 
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 08:49

The Global Network Initiative welcomes the report of the UK Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill and the Prime Minister’s commitment to rewrite the legislation. “The UK government has an important responsibility to protect the public, but the proposed bill does not strike the right balance with privacy rights,” says GNI Executive Director Susan Morgan. “The report of the Scrutiny Committee, which reflects evidence submitted by a wide range of experts, points the way to a thorough reconsideration of how the government should approach this issue.”

The Joint Committee appointed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords has been examining the draft bill, which proposes to update UK legislation that details the conditions under which law enforcement agencies access communications data. The report concludes that “the current draft Bill is too sweeping, and goes further than it need or should,” and that more consultation is necessary before redrafted legislation is introduced.

“The UK government has an opportunity to develop an approach that would serve as a model for the rest of the world, but the draft bill does not succeed in this respect,” says Morgan. “The government should consider the wider international context and narrow the focus of the legislation as it rethinks its approach.”

In evidence submitted to the Committee, GNI identified specific concerns regarding how the Bill would broaden the collection and retention of new data on anyone in the UK using communications services, and its troublesome assertions of jurisdiction over non-UK based communications services. GNI is also particularly concerned with the possible unintended consequences of the legislation that could undermine the UK’s ability to support and further freedom of expression and privacy rights internationally. It is not in the broader interests of the UK to initiate legislation that could give authoritarian regimes justification for their approach to communications data.

 

Event: The Communications Data Bill: ‘Snoopers’ charter’, or safeguarding our security?

Date: 
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 09:56

Date: Thursday October 18, 10.30am – 12pm
Venue: Free Word Centre, London
Tickets: By invitation only. Please email eve@indexoncensorship.org to request a place.

Index on Censorship and the Global Network Initiative will be hosting this on-the-record panel discussion considering the government’s planned legislation around our communications online. John Kampfner will chair a panel featuring Emma Ascroft (Director, Public Policy, Yahoo! Europe), Jeremy Browne MP (Home Office, tbc), Dr Ian Brown (Associate Director, Cyber Security Centre, and Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute) and Kirsty Hughes (Chief Executive, Index on Censorship).

Key questions to be covered:

  • Do we need the Communications Data Bill to ensure as good online protection against criminal and terrorist behaviour as offline?
  • Can we protect privacy and free expression, while ensuring good security protection?
  • How will the government ensure protection against misuse of the vast amounts of data collected across all of the public, and across all types of communications activity?

The invited audience will be made up of influential policy, media, corporate, civil society and government representatives. This a key opportunity for frank discussion on the questions that arise in balancing free expression, privacy and security. It will be on the record.

GNI Comments on UK Draft Communications Data Bill

Date: 
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 - 09:39

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) submitted the following written evidence to the Joint Committee of Parliament currently considering the UK Government's proposed Draft Communications Data Bill (C8359). Our submission has been published on the Committee website alongside other submissions. 

Global Network Initiative
Written Evidence to the Communications Data Bill Joint Scrutiny Committee
Author: Susan Morgan, Executive Director, Global Network Initiative

Date: 23 August 2012

1. The Global Network Initiative (GNI) welcomes the opportunity to provide written evidence to the Communications Data Bill Joint Scrutiny Committee. We have three specific concerns that we detail in our submission:

a)    Broadening the collection and retention of new data on anyone in the UK using communications services;

b)    The assertion of jurisdiction over non-UK based communications service providers when services are accessed in the UK;

c)    A reserve power that would empower the Home Secretary to require UK providers to capture and retain data (specifically and only for law enforcement purposes) if requirements to capture and retain data cannot be directly imposed on a non-UK provider.

2. GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics, who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the Information Communications and Technology (ICT) sector. GNI has developed a set of Principles and Implementation Guidelines to guide responsible company action when facing requests from governments around the world that could impact on the freedom of expression and privacy rights of users. These Principles and Implementation Guidelines are based on international human rights standards and are attached to this written evidence in Appendix A. Appendix B has a full list of participants and observers of GNI. 

3. It is the duty of governments to respect, protect, promote and fulfil human rights, including to ensure that national laws, regulations and policies are consistent with international human rights laws standards. GNI acknowledges the duty of a government to protect its citizens and public safety. It is right that governments consider how the changing communications landscape impacts policing operations and efforts to protect national security. However, the approach taken must reflect the few and limited circumstances within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that provide for the limitation of these rights. Finding the right approach is not easy, particularly in the global, complex, and constantly evolving ICT sector.  

4. No other democratic nation has proposed the approach set out in this Bill. The UK plays an important leadership role in the development of international legal standards and has far reaching influences on policy thinking generally. This includes the development of policy and legal frameworks relating to communications technology and the protection of human rights. For example, the UK used its convening power to assemble government, industry and civil society representatives to the London Conference on Cyberspace in October 2011, the first gathering of its kind that brought together the cyber-security community with the human rights community.[1] The UK also engaged early to help form an international coalition of governments now working together on freedom of expression on the Internet.[2]  

 5. There are very active debates internationally on the future of Internet governance.  Several proposals, including one at the UN General Assembly for a code of conduct on information security are indicative of efforts by repressive regimes to exert a greater degree of control over the Internet.  This could include placing greater requirements on companies.[3]
 

6. Whilst these broader issues are outside the direct scope of the UK Communications Data Bill, they demonstrate the wider international context within which the draft Bill sits. We urge the Committee to consider the global context in its scrutiny of the draft Bill and be mindful of possible unintended consequences that could undermine the UK’s ability to support and further freedom of expression and privacy rights internationally.  We would suggest it is not in the broader interests of the UK to initiate legislation that could give authoritarian regimes justification for their approach.
 

Specific comments on the Communications Data Bill
 

7. The Bill broadens the collection and retention of new data on anyone in the UK using communications services. This includes requirements to generate data—not required for business purposes and not routinely collected by providers—specifically and only for the purpose of law enforcement access. This provision goes beyond the existing requirements under the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and the EU’s Data Retention Directive. 
 

8. This aspect of the Bill could set a powerful precedent for repressive regimes to follow when seeking to justify surveillance on their own populations.  Regimes attempt to claim legitimacy for their actions when they are able to point to similar requirements, even if only in the form of policy statements or draft legislation, in leading democratic nations. An example of exactly this type of reaction came from China in response to statements made in Parliament by the Prime Minister David Cameron in the days following the riots in 2011 around the need to consider placing limits on social networks and allowing greater government access to user communications in certain circumstances.[4]
 

9. This is an enabling Bill that would require secondary legislation or Notices/Orders to be fully implemented. It is not clear whether secondary legislation or Orders, including those that would specify the data sets to be collected, would be made public. These details should be made available so that stakeholders and Parliament can make proper assessments about proportionality and the impact of the Government’s proposals. 
 

10. Technological advances are also blurring the distinction between communications data and content that is at the heart of this Bill. For example, the URL for a web address can provide considerable access to information about the type of content the user is viewing. Stakeholders must be reassured that communications data could be reliably extracted without also disclosing content. Taken alongside the expanded scope of data collection for anyone using communications services in the UK this must be considered when assessing the proportionality of the proposals.
 

11. The assertion of jurisdiction over non-UK-based communications service providers when services are accessed in the UK is problematic. Companies considering the provision of services in markets where free expression and privacy rights may be at risk may consider ways to manage and operate their services to mitigate human rights risks. This is one of the requirements in GNI’s Principles. It is also consistent within the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy framework and Guiding Principles.[5]  We have seen worrying trends in legislative proposals in a range of countries that hold intermediaries liable for the activities of their users in ways that could have serious implications for free speech. One example is the draft Internet decree by the Government of Vietnam that places requirements on foreign providers not located in Vietnam to collaborate with the government in the filtering of a wide variety of information such as that which could “undermine the fine customs and traditions of the nation”. Whilst filtering requirements and retention of communications data are not analogous, assertions of jurisdiction are. The draft Bill could provide unintended justification for actions by other governments. The UK Government should consider these consequences, including the impact of laws enacted in other jurisdictions on the privacy rights of UK citizens as it prepares this legislation.
 

12. Even if other jurisdictions do not enact similar or contrary laws, UK citizens’ data could still be at jeopardy. Once other governments become aware of the storage of this additional communications data, law enforcement entities in other jurisdictions will seek to obtain it as well. If ICT companies are required to obtain and retain communications data for UK residents law enforcement entities in other jurisdictions could have a legitimate claim to seek access to it. Non-UK law enforcement entities may either try to obtain it through UK law enforcement or by exerting pressure on companies to release the data without UK cooperation.
 

13. A reserve power proposed in the Bill would empower the Home Secretary to require UK providers to capture and retain data (again, specifically and only for law enforcement purposes) if requirements cannot be directly imposed on a non-UK provider. Setting aside the technical challenges of whether this can be done, there are two specific problems. First, this requirement could have the effect of increasing pressure on non-UK providers to cooperate with law enforcement in informal, voluntary agreements. In contrast, GNI’s Implementation Guidelines commit companies to encourage governments to be “specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws, and regulations” they issue. Secondly, although we understand the challenge that law enforcement faces in regard to accessing communications data in a timely fashion, proposals to address this issue should begin with existing processes. If processes such as mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) are insufficiently fleet of foot, then government should initiate a concerted effort to review and improve them. This would be a far more proportionate response to the legitimate concern that data may not be available by the time a lawful request is served on a provider. In June 2012 a GNI commissioned report recommended that access to data through the MLAT process needs to be made more efficient, with safeguards in place.[6] 
 

Conclusion 

14. As it considers this legislation, the committee has an opportunity to guide government on how the legitimate needs of law enforcement can be consistent with international human rights standards. It has the opportunity to develop an approach that would serve as a worthy model for other countries. The draft Bill does not succeed in this respect. We recommend that more time be taken and revisions considered to ensure that the rights of individuals are respected, so as to shape a regime that the UK would be comfortable having copied by other governments.




[2] See “Freedom Online: Joint Action for Free Expression on the Internet”, The Hague, 9 December 2011, available at http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/content/assets/minbuza/en/the_ministry/declaration-final-v-14dec.pdf.

[3] “International Code of Conduct for Information Security” presented to UN General Assembly 12 September 2011, http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/09/13/china-russia-security-code-of-conduct.

[4] Global Times, “Riots lead to rethink of Internet freedom”, 13 August 2011, available at http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/670718/Riots-lead-to-rethink-of-Internet-freedom.aspx.

5 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework", available at http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework/GuidingPrinciples.

[6] Ian Brown and Douwe Korff, “Digital Freedoms in International Law: Practical Steps to Protect Human Rights Online”, June 2012, available at http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/new-report-outlines-recommendations-governments-companies-and-others-how-protect-free

New Report Outlines Recommendations for Governments, Companies and Others on How to Protect Free Expression and Privacy Rights Online

Date: 
Thursday, June 14, 2012 - 07:03

Governments, companies, and other stakeholders can collaborate to protect rights to freedom of expression and privacy online, according to the authors of “Digital Freedoms in International Law: Practical Steps to Protect Human Rights Online” released today. The report, co-authored by Dr. Ian Brown and Professor Douwe Korff, examines the challenges facing governments and technology companies as they balance rights to expression and privacy with law enforcement and national security responsibilities. 

"We hope this report will help governments and companies protect human rights and public safety online, especially in countries where the Internet is playing a key role in political debate and activism," said Dr. Brown. 

The report draws from extensive research conducted by co-authors Dr. Brown and Professor Korff, including multi-stakeholder consultations held in London, Washington, and New Delhi. 

"The new global-digital environment poses challenges to the application of traditional human rights standards, for states, companies and NGOs,” said Professor Korff. “In our report, we have tried to identify those challenges and formulate tentative recommendations on how to meet them.  We hope this will lead to a wide debate, involving all stakeholders.'"

“GNI commissioned this report in order to engage on some of the most difficult and complicated questions about how to protect freedom of expression and privacy rights,” said GNI Executive Director Susan Morgan. “We hope it provokes a dialogue and debate that, over time, leads to practical steps that make a positive difference in how governments, companies, and other stakeholders address these issues.”

To download the executive summary, click here

To download the full report, click here

GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics, who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector. GNI provides resources for ICT companies to help them address difficult issues related to freedom of expression and privacy that they may face anywhere in the world. GNI has created a framework of principles and a confidential, collaborative approach to working through challenges of corporate responsibility in the ICT sector.

 

Global Network Initiative 2012 Learning Forum

Date: 
Friday, June 15, 2012 - 11:35

GNI's inaugural Learning Forum brought to Washington, D.C. an exciting lineup of international speakers on cutting-edge issues relating to freedom of expression and privacy rights online:

Digital Freedoms in International Law: Practical Steps to Protect Human Rights Online

GNI presents a new report authored by Ian Brown of the Oxford Cyber Security Centre and Douwe Korff of London Metropolitan University. The report is based on extensive research, including consultations held in Washington, London, and New Delhi during the past year. Key issues and recommendations from the report will be presented with a focus on the practical steps that companies, governments and civil society organizations can take in response to challenges and dilemmas.
 
Policy Engagement on Business and Human Rights in the ICT Sector

With a focus on emerging challenges to an open Internet around the world, a diverse panel will reflect on the role of companies and other stakeholders on policy issues, including intermediary liability, censorship, and the relationships between governments and companies around the world.
 
Concluding Reflections

 
SPEAKERS
  • Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society (via videoconference)
  • Dan Baer, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State
  • Bob Boorstin, Director, Public Policy, Google 
  • Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative
  • Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute
  • Emily Butselaar, Online Editor, Index on Censorship (via videoconference)
  • Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments 
  • Leslie Harris, President & CEO, Center for Democracy & Technology
  • Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
  • Mike Newman, Chief Financial Officer, Websense
  • Sara Nordbrand, Sustainable Investment – Corporate Engagement, Church of Sweden
  • Ebele Okobi, Director, Business and Human Rights Program, Yahoo!
  • Meg Roggensack, Senior Advisor, Business & Human Rights, Human Rights First
  • Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation
 
Moderator
John Kampfner, GNI European Advisor and former Chief Executive, Index on Censorship
 
 
For more information, contact us at info@globalnetworkinitiative.org

Pages