Several provisions of the proposed "Law of Freedom, Responsibility, and Transparency on the Internet” in Brazil would be counterproductive to the stated intent of the bill and pose risks for freedom of expression and privacy. Brazil’s legislature should heed calls from international experts and civil society and take care to respect the rights enshrined in Marco Civil by rejecting the bill and engaging in meaningful and transparent multi-stakeholder consultation to find a truly rights-respecting way forward.
Content Regulation and Human Rights: Report on a GNI Multistakeholder Roundtable on the Digital Services Act
On June 4, 2020, GNI hosted a multistakeholder roundtable discussion to examine key provisions of the anticipated European Union Digital Services Act through the lens of international human rights law. Held under Chatham House Rule, the online event was attended by nearly 70 guests, including EU policymakers and experts from academia, civil society, and ICT companies. Read more in the event report.
The risks of government-mandated network disruptions for human rights, media freedom, economic activity and development, and security are more acute during the ongoing pandemic. To lessen the negative impacts of the novel coronavirus, ensure the public’s access to information, and facilitate the development and application of new, constructive, and inclusive solutions, it is important to understand how government-mandated network disruptions intentional degradation of access can undermine these goals.
The Citizens Protection (Rules Against Online Harm) 2020, approved by the Government of Pakistan on 21 January 2020, creates significant risks for the privacy and free expression rights of ICT users both within and outside of Pakistan.
Two recent rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union — Google vs. CNIL and Glawischnig-Piesczek vs. Facebook — fail to sufficiently consider freedom of expression and privacy risks when EU countries' domestic authorities assert global authority and jurisdiction over online content. Greater efforts at intergovernmental and multistakeholder deliberation are needed to determine the appropriate scope of application for domestic legal orders on global internet companies.
GNI wrote to the Australian INLSM, Dr. James Renwick, to underscore critical considerations for fit-for-purpose, human rights-oriented oversight mechanisms and maxium transparency and accountability in the Assistance and Access Bill. The letter followed a recent consultation with Dr. Renwick and GNI non-company members and other partners, informing the INSLM's legislative review.
We are concerned that the approach outlined in the White Paper is both too broad and unnecessarily vague. We ask the government to take the time necessary to narrow and flesh-out its approach in more detail, in broad consultation with all stakeholders and before moving forward with legislation, in order to protect freedom of expression online, promote innovation and competition, and provide the coherence and certainty that the government seeks to deliver.
GNI shares the concerns expressed by a number of our members who have spoken publicly about the serious human rights consequences of recent actions by the Sudanese Transitional Military Council.
GNI Expresses Concern About the Freedom of Expression and Privacy Implications of Australia’s “Sharing of Violent Abhorrent Material” Bill
At a time when states around the world are considering various approaches to regulating Internet content, GNI is concerned that the government of Australia’s efforts to rush through the "Sharing of Violent Abhorrent Material" Bill could have significant negative impacts on freedom of expression and privacy for Internet users in Australia and beyond.
GNI is concerned the amendments, as drafted, would place significant pressure on a wide range of ICT companies to monitor Indian users’ activities, remove content, and hand over data in ways that could unnecessarily and inappropriately impact users’ freedom of expression and privacy.