Information Policy

'Slow progress' on Government ICT Strategy

Slow progress has been made in implementing the Government ICT Strategy and Whitehall must pick up the pace, an IT analyst firm has warned.

In their progress review of Francis Maude's March ICT strategy, TechMarketView said the government had made achievements in increasing centralised control of IT projects, simplifying the ICT procurement process and adopting a presumption against "large unwieldy projects".

But the analyst firm warned the government was "struggling to move onto the next phase". It said Whitehall had to agree on technology and data standards, that current large IT deals still posed an issue and that government needed to address the rationalisation of existing datacentres.

"We question whether UK government has the capacity to accelerate the implementation of the ICT strategy into the all-important transformational phase," said TechMarketView director Georgina O'Toole.

"CIOs continue to work against the backdrop of a relatively unchanging political landscape where political, cultural, legal and economic barriers to change remain.

"Bureaucracy remains a feature, the nature of politics means that short-termism often dictates (but that means projects with longer timescales are left on the back-burner), and 'horizontal government' (as opposed to the existing vertical silos) requires a significant step-change in culture."

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17404

Zambia: Computer Aid holds sessions on used computers

By Charles Mgbolu

Computer Aid International, the world’s largest and most experienced not-for-profit (NFP) provider of professionally refurbished PCs will be holding series of information sessions in Kaduna, Abuja, and Ile-Ife as part of the bid to increase awareness on PC usage and improve IT capacity of Nigerians through affordable PCs.

EU: Stronger Rules On Personal Data Protection Needed

Children using social networks must be protected by EU data privacy rules, and all EU citizens should have the right to know what information is being stored on them and for what purpose, urged the EP Civil Liberties Committee on Wednesday.

People must be able to have their data easily deleted, corrected or blocked and be informed about any misuse or lapses in data protection, argues a draft resolution prepared by Axel Voss (EPP, DE) which is designed to influence the revision of the existing EU Data Protection Directive due to be launched by the European Commission after the summer.

Is Internet Access a Human Right?

By William Fenton

In the face of government crackdowns on the free flow of information, Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, has released a report stressing that Internet access ought to be an essential right for all citizens.

Freedom of Expression on the Internet Cross-regional Statement

by Carl Bildt

Det talade ordet gäller.

Mr President,
I have the honor of addressing the Human Rights Council on behalf of

Austria, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Lithuania, fmr Yugoslav Rep of Macedonia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palestine, Peru, Poland, Senegal, South Africa, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United States, Uruguay

Mr President,
The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action asserted that all human rights are interdependent and interrelated. The positive potential in that statement has been amply demonstrated by the incredible spread and use of modern communication technologies. As was stated also in this general debate in the Human Rights Council one year ago, these technologies have enabled ordinary citizens in all corners of the world, to disseminate their views and to communicate with others on a scale that was quite unimaginable not long ago. Internet, social media, and mobile phone technology have played, and should continue to play, a crucial role as instruments for participation, transparency and engagement in socio-economic, cultural and political development.

For us, one principle is very basic: The same rights that people have offline - freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek information, freedom of assembly and association, amongst others - must also be protected online.

Continue reading "Freedom of Expression on the Internet Cross-regional Statement " »

The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur  on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of
the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,
 
Having discussed these issues together with the assistance of ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for
Free Expression and the Centre for Law and Democracy;
 
Recalling and reaffirming our Joint Declarations of 26 November 1999, 30 November 2000, 20
November 2001, 10 December 2002, 18 December 2003, 6 December 2004, 21 December 2005, 19
December 2006, 12 December 2007, 10 December 2008, 15 May 2009 and 3 February 2010;
 
Emphasising, once again, the fundamental importance of freedom of expression – including the
principles of independence and diversity – both in  its own right and as an essential tool for the
defence of all other rights, as a core element of democracy and for advancing development goals;
 
Stressing  the transformative nature of the Internet in terms of giving voice to billions of people
around the world, of significantly enhancing their ability to access  information and of enhancing
pluralism and reporting;
 
Cognisant  of the power of the Internet to promote the realisation of other rights and public
participation, as well as to facilitate access to goods and services;
 
Welcoming the dramatic growth in access to the Internet in almost all countries and regions of the
world, while noting that billions still lack access or have second class forms of access; 
 
Noting that some governments have taken action or put in place measures with the specific intention
of unduly restricting freedom of expression on the Internet, contrary to international law;
 
Recognising that the exercise of freedom of expression may be subject to limited restrictions which
are prescribed by law and are necessary, for example for the prevention of crime and the protection
of the fundamental rights of others, including children, but stressing that any such restrictions must
be balanced and comply with international law on the right to freedom of expression;
 
Concerned that, even when done in good faith, many of the efforts by governments to respond to
the need noted above fail to take into account the special characteristics of the Internet, with the
result that they unduly restrict freedom of expression;
 
Noting the mechanisms of the multi-stakeholder approach of the UN Internet Governance Forum;
 
Aware of the vast range of actors who act as intermediaries for the Internet – providing services
such as access and interconnection to the Internet, transmission, processing and routing of Internet
traffic, hosting and providing access to material posted by others, searching, referencing or finding
materials on the Internet, enabling financial transactions and facilitating social networking – and of
attempts by some States to deputise responsibility for harmful or illegal content to these actors;
 
Adopt, on 1 June 2011, the following Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet:
   
 
1.  General Principles
 
a.  Freedom of expression applies to the Internet, as it does to all means of
communication. Restrictions on freedom of  expression on the Internet are only
acceptable if they comply with established international standards, including that
they are provided for by law, and that they are necessary to protect an interest which
is recognised under international law (the ‘three-part’ test).
 
b.  When assessing the proportionality of a restriction on freedom of expression on the
Internet, the impact of that restriction on the ability of the Internet to deliver positive
freedom of expression outcomes must be weighed against  its benefits in terms of
protecting other interests.
 
c.  Approaches to regulation developed for other means of communication – such as
telephony or broadcasting – cannot simply be transferred to the Internet but, rather,
need to be specifically designed for it. 
 
d.  Greater attention should be given to developing alternative, tailored approaches,
which are adapted to the unique characteristics of the  Internet, for  responding to
illegal content, while recognising that no  special content restrictions should be
established for material disseminated over the Internet.
 
e.  Self-regulation can be an effective tool in redressing harmful speech, and should be
promoted. 
 
f.  Awareness raising and educational efforts  to promote the ability of everyone to
engage in autonomous, self-driven and responsible use of the Internet should be
fostered (‘Internet literacy’). 
 
2.  Intermediary Liability
 
a.  No one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or
searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content
generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do
not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove
that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).
 
b.  Consideration should be given to insulating fully other  intermediaries, including
those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under
the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not
be required to monitor user-generated  content and should not be subject to
extrajudicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for
freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’
rules currently being applied). 
 
3.  Filtering and Blocking
 
a.  Mandatory blocking of entire websites, IP  addresses, ports, network protocols or
types of uses (such as social networking) is an extreme measure – analogous to
banning a newspaper or broadcaster – which can only be justified in accordance with
   
international standards, for example where necessary to protect children against
sexual abuse.
 
b.  Content filtering systems which are imposed by a government or commercial service
provider and which are not end-user controlled are a form of prior censorship and are
not justifiable as a restriction on freedom of expression.
 
c.  Products designed to facilitate end-user  filtering should be required to be
accompanied by clear information to end-users about how they work and their
potential pitfalls in terms of over-inclusive filtering.
 
4.  Criminal and Civil Liability
 
a.  Jurisdiction in legal cases relating to Internet content should be restricted to States to
which those cases have a real and substantial connection, normally because the
author is established there, the content  is uploaded there and/or the content is
specifically directed at that State. Private parties should only be able to bring a case
in a given jurisdiction where they can establish that they have suffered substantial
harm in that jurisdiction (rule against ‘libel tourism’).
 
b.  Standards of liability, including defences in civil cases, should take into account the
overall public interest in protecting both the expression and the forum in which it is
made (i.e. the need to preserve the ‘public square’ aspect of the Internet).
 
c.  For content that was uploaded in substantially the same form and at the same place,
limitation periods for bringing legal cases should start to run from the first time the
content was uploaded and only one action  for damages should be allowed to be
brought in respect of that content, where appropriate by  allowing for damages
suffered in all jurisdictions to be recovered at one time (the ‘single publication’ rule). 
 
5.  Network Neutrality
 
a.  There should be no discrimination in the treatment of Internet data and traffic, based
on the device, content, author, origin and/or destination of the content, service or
application.
 
b.  Internet intermediaries should be required to be transparent about any traffic or
information management practices they employ, and relevant information on such
practices should be made available in a form that is accessible to all stakeholders.
 
6.  Access to the Internet
 
a.  Giving effect to the right to freedom of expression imposes an obligation on States to
promote universal access to the Internet. Access to the Internet is also necessary to
promote respect for other rights, such as the rights to education, health care and
work, the right to assembly and association, and the right to free elections.
 
b.  Cutting off access to the Internet, or parts of the Internet, for whole populations or
segments of the public (shutting down the Internet) can never be justified, including
on public order or national security grounds. The same applies to slow-downs
imposed on the Internet or parts of the Internet. 
 
   
 
c.  Denying individuals the right  to access the Internet as a punishment is an extreme
measure, which could be justified only where less restrictive measures are not
available and where ordered by a court,  taking into account the impact of this
measure on the enjoyment of human rights.
 
d.  Other measures which limit access to the Internet, such as imposing registration or
other requirements on service providers, are not legitimate unless they conform to
the test for restrictions on freedom of expression under international law.
 
e.  States are under a positive obligation to facilitate universal access to the Internet. At
a minimum, States should:
i.  Put in place regulatory mechanisms – which could include pricing regimes,
universal service requirements and licensing agreements – that foster greater
access to the Internet, including for the poor and in ‘last mile’ rural areas.
ii.  Provide direct support to facilitate access, including by establishing
community-based ICT centres and other public access points.
iii.  Promote adequate awareness about both how to use the Internet and the
benefits it can bring, especially among the poor, children and the elderly, and
isolated rural populations.
iv.  Put in place special measures to ensure equitable access to the Internet for the
disabled and for disadvantaged persons.
 
f.  To implement the above, States should adopt detailed multi-year action plans for
increasing access to the Internet which include clear and specific targets, as well as
standards of transparency, public reporting and monitoring systems.
 
 
 
Frank LaRue
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression      
 
 
 
Dunja Mijatović
OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
 
 
 
Catalina Botero Marino
OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
 
 
 
Faith Pansy Tlakula
ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information

http://www.osce.org/fom/78309

by Abolhassan Banisadr

As the recent movements in Tunisia and Egypt unfolded, two questions pressed upon the public mind: why were these revolutions happening, and what might be to come? So too it was in 1979, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. While these three revolutions are in many ways very different, by considering them together five common factors emerge.

One is that the founding political projects of each state had become depleted, leaving dictatorial regimes with little legitimacy and governments reliant on corruption and violence for their survival. Another is that dominant belief systems had been recently transformed, and specifically that there was a turn away from traditionalist interpretations of Islam, a rise of new religious forms that are compatible with democracy, and a powerful demand for autonomy from religious and political leaders alike. A third feature is that the population of each of these societies was young, and the young were politicised. A fourth is the presence of pro-democracy sentiments in international politics (such as the ‘Carter factor’ in Iran or the ‘Obama factor’ in Egypt). Finally, faced with this array of challenges, each state attempted to neutralise or destroy the force motrice of social and political change by either repressing people or making life within the country so otherwise intolerable that they were compelled to emigrate. A phase of protest may begin when a politicised and active population realises that a regime dominates without purpose or legitimacy, and when people realise they have no further future within it. When their readings of the world also change, and if this happens at a time when the regime’s international legitimacy becomes weak, then protests may be transformed into full blown revolutionary processes.

In Tunisia, the Islamic party Ennahdha (Renaissance), and in Egypt the Ekhvan-al-Moslemin (Muslim Brotherhood), have also both been talking about democracy, human rights, and the abolition of gender discrimination. Here, too, we observe a similar process of transforming systems of belief. We have yet to see whether this transformation is authentic. If it is not, then like Khomeini they may attempt to capture the state to enforce their duty-bound and power-based versions of Islam. If there is a real transformation, however, they may seek to redefine their goals and instead of aiming for political power, orient towards freedom. In this case they would not aim to control the state and operate from within it, but to move into society and advocate Islam as a discourse of freedom. In any case, such an apparent move toward democratic values demonstrates that these parties are aware they will have to reinvent themselves if they want to play a future role in politics. In each case, when the aim of any group of people is to secure their freedom and independence, their goals can only ever be compatible with a liberation Islam and never with Islam as a discourse of power. Before our eyes, therefore, we have four kinds of Islam: that of velayat-e faqih, that of Al-Qaeda, various forms which are compatible with democracy, and Islam as a discourse of freedom. The common denominator of the first two is violence, and of the second two, democracy.The presence or the absence of viable alternatives for rebuilding a rights-oriented state and society is felt all during a revolution, but becomes acutely felt after it is won. It is thus a decisive factor, for when revolutionary alternatives are not forthcoming and the other factors above are not themselves transformed, then dictatorship will be able to reconsolidate. Such power always, of course, quickly becomes devoid of any purpose but self-preservation, and hence will move continually towards exhaustion and death. But even in such circumstances, if the process of revolution is continued and initial defeats lead to determined perseverance rather than regret and desperation, then the hopes of freedom and democracy have a real chance of being fulfilled.

http://hir.harvard.edu/what-makes-a-revolution?page=0,0

On 27 May the Council adopted conclusions on the European eGovernment action plan for the period 2011-2015. The aim of the action plan is to promote the take-up of eGovernment (electronic government) services at local, regional and EU level, in order to make them more accessible and available for citizens and businesses throughout the EU regardless of their country of origin.

The action plan sets out specific practical measures aimed at ensuring that, by 2015, among other things it will be much easier for people to apply for and access social security and health benefits, transfer pension rights from one EU state to another or study anywhere in the Europe.

Moreover, inclusive and accessible electronic government services will help people with disabilities and other groups at risk of exclusion to be more self-reliant and able to use self-service solutions through digital interaction with public administration.

For businesses, seamless cross-border eGovernment services will make it easier to open a branch or subsidiary in another EU member state or to provide their services or goods anywhere in Europe.

Under the action plan, users will participate in shaping online public services in order to ensure that those facilities are best suited to their needs.

In addition, joint action on eGovernment by member states will contribute to a more efficient use of public resources and to reducing public expenditure. It will also reduce administrative burdens by simplifying procedures and communication, and improve organisational processes by using innovative technologies such as electronic services for the ageing society.

Another positive consequence of using eGovernment services is that it will reduce public administrations' carbon footprint.

The action plan aims to increase the use of eGovernment services to 50 % of EU citizens and 80 % of EU businesses by 2015.

To achieve this, the member states are being asked to undertake specific practical tasks such as raising awareness of and building trust in eGovernment services among EU citizens, encouraging the use of social networking and collaborative tools to facilitate more fluid communication between public administration and citizens, enhancing the security and privacy of eGovernment services and increasing citizens' trust and confidence in them.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showFocus.aspx?id=1&focusid=608&lang=en

Digital infrastructure is increasingly the backbone of prosperous economies, vigorous research com- munities, strong militaries, transparent governments, and free societies As never before, information technology is fostering transnational dialogue and facilitating the global flow of goods and services These social and trade links have become indispensable to our daily lives Critical life-sustaining infrastructures that deliver electricity and water, control air traffic, and support our financial system all depend on networked information systems Governments are now able to streamline the provision of essential services through eGovernment initiatives Social and political movements rely on the Internet to enable new and more expansive forms of organization and action The reach of networked technol- ogy is pervasive and global For all nations, the underlying digital infrastructure is or will soon become a national asset

To realize fully the benefits that networked technology promises the world, these systems must func- tion reliably and securely People must have confidence that data will travel to its destination without disruption Assuring the free flow of information, the security and privacy of data, and the integrity of the interconnected networks themselves are all essential to American and global economic prosperity, security, and the promotion of universal rights

Almost a third of the world’s population uses the Internet and countless more are touched by it in their daily lives There are more than four billion digital wireless devices in the world today Scarcely a half- century ago, that number was zero We live in a rare historical moment with an opportunity to build on cyberspace’s successes and help secure its future for U S citizens and the global community

For these technologies to continue to empower individuals, enrich societies, and foster the research, development, and innovation essential to building modern economies, it must retain the openness and interoperability that have characterized its explosive growth Underlying these are technical principles and effective governance structures that demand our support At the same time, our networks must be secure and reliable; they must retain the trust of individuals, businesses and governments, and should be resilient to arbitrary or malicious disruption

The world must collectively recognize the challenges posed by malevolent actors’ entry into cyberspace, and update and strengthen our national and international policies accordingly Activities undertaken in cyberspace have consequences for our lives in physical space, and we must work towards building the rule of law, to prevent the risks of logging on from outweighing its benefits The future of an open, interoperable, secure and reliable cyberspace depends on nations recognizing and safeguarding that which should endure, while confronting those who would destabilize or undermine our increasingly networked world

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf

STOCKHOLM -- The Networked Society City Index – established through a joint study conducted by Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) and management consultancy Arthur D. Little and presented on May 10 at Ericsson’s Business Innovation Forum in Silicon Valley in the US – shows that cities with a high level of ICT maturity are better able to manage issues such as environmental management, infrastructure, public security, health-care quality and education.

Erik Almqvist, Director at Arthur D. Little Nordic, says: "Building a Networked Society is one of our time’s great challenges for mankind. Although this analysis should be seen as a humble starting point to explore the link between ICT investments and sustainable development, it is our joint hope and intention that this report can serve as inspiration for cities that do not settle for the status quo."

The best-performing cities presented in the index – Singapore, Stockholm, Seoul and London – have successfully met many social, economic and environmental targets by making extensive investments in ICT. Singapore, for example, is aggressively driving innovation in e-health, and is a pioneer in traffic-congestion management. Stockholm sees ICT as a major enabler for research collaboration and knowledge transfer, while Seoul is using ICT to realize green high-tech initiatives.

The index also suggests actions for low-ranking cities, which are encouraged to provide digital access and ICT training for the underprivileged parts of their populations to reduce the digital divide.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=207773

International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression

The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur  on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of
the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information,
 
Having discussed these issues together with the assistance of ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for
Free Expression and the Centre for Law and Democracy;
 
Recalling and reaffirming our Joint Declarations of 26 November 1999, 30 November 2000, 20
November 2001, 10 December 2002, 18 December 2003, 6 December 2004, 21 December 2005, 19
December 2006, 12 December 2007, 10 December 2008, 15 May 2009 and 3 February 2010;
 
Emphasising, once again, the fundamental importance of freedom of expression – including the
principles of independence and diversity – both in  its own right and as an essential tool for the
defence of all other rights, as a core element of democracy and for advancing development goals;
 
Stressing  the transformative nature of the Internet in terms of giving voice to billions of people
around the world, of significantly enhancing their ability to access  information and of enhancing
pluralism and reporting;
 
Cognisant  of the power of the Internet to promote the realisation of other rights and public
participation, as well as to facilitate access to goods and services;
 
Welcoming the dramatic growth in access to the Internet in almost all countries and regions of the
world, while noting that billions still lack access or have second class forms of access; 
 
Noting that some governments have taken action or put in place measures with the specific intention
of unduly restricting freedom of expression on the Internet, contrary to international law;
 
Recognising that the exercise of freedom of expression may be subject to limited restrictions which
are prescribed by law and are necessary, for example for the prevention of crime and the protection
of the fundamental rights of others, including children, but stressing that any such restrictions must
be balanced and comply with international law on the right to freedom of expression;
 
Concerned that, even when done in good faith, many of the efforts by governments to respond to
the need noted above fail to take into account the special characteristics of the Internet, with the
result that they unduly restrict freedom of expression;
 
Noting the mechanisms of the multi-stakeholder approach of the UN Internet Governance Forum;
 
Aware of the vast range of actors who act as intermediaries for the Internet – providing services
such as access and interconnection to the Internet, transmission, processing and routing of Internet
traffic, hosting and providing access to material posted by others, searching, referencing or finding
materials on the Internet, enabling financial transactions and facilitating social networking – and of
attempts by some States to deputise responsibility for harmful or illegal content to these actors;
 
Adopt, on 1 June 2011, the following Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet:
   
 
1.  General Principles
 
a.  Freedom of expression applies to the Internet, as it does to all means of
communication. Restrictions on freedom of  expression on the Internet are only
acceptable if they comply with established international standards, including that
they are provided for by law, and that they are necessary to protect an interest which
is recognised under international law (the ‘three-part’ test).
 
b.  When assessing the proportionality of a restriction on freedom of expression on the
Internet, the impact of that restriction on the ability of the Internet to deliver positive
freedom of expression outcomes must be weighed against  its benefits in terms of
protecting other interests.
 
c.  Approaches to regulation developed for other means of communication – such as
telephony or broadcasting – cannot simply be transferred to the Internet but, rather,
need to be specifically designed for it. 
 
d.  Greater attention should be given to developing alternative, tailored approaches,
which are adapted to the unique characteristics of the  Internet, for  responding to
illegal content, while recognising that no  special content restrictions should be
established for material disseminated over the Internet.
 
e.  Self-regulation can be an effective tool in redressing harmful speech, and should be
promoted. 
 
f.  Awareness raising and educational efforts  to promote the ability of everyone to
engage in autonomous, self-driven and responsible use of the Internet should be
fostered (‘Internet literacy’). 
 
2.  Intermediary Liability
 
a.  No one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or
searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content
generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do
not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove
that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).
 
b.  Consideration should be given to insulating fully other  intermediaries, including
those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under
the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not
be required to monitor user-generated  content and should not be subject to
extrajudicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for
freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’
rules currently being applied). 
 
3.  Filtering and Blocking
 
a.  Mandatory blocking of entire websites, IP  addresses, ports, network protocols or
types of uses (such as social networking) is an extreme measure – analogous to
banning a newspaper or broadcaster – which can only be justified in accordance with
   
international standards, for example where necessary to protect children against
sexual abuse.
 
b.  Content filtering systems which are imposed by a government or commercial service
provider and which are not end-user controlled are a form of prior censorship and are
not justifiable as a restriction on freedom of expression.
 
c.  Products designed to facilitate end-user  filtering should be required to be
accompanied by clear information to end-users about how they work and their
potential pitfalls in terms of over-inclusive filtering.
 
4.  Criminal and Civil Liability
 
a.  Jurisdiction in legal cases relating to Internet content should be restricted to States to
which those cases have a real and substantial connection, normally because the
author is established there, the content  is uploaded there and/or the content is
specifically directed at that State. Private parties should only be able to bring a case
in a given jurisdiction where they can establish that they have suffered substantial
harm in that jurisdiction (rule against ‘libel tourism’).
 
b.  Standards of liability, including defences in civil cases, should take into account the
overall public interest in protecting both the expression and the forum in which it is
made (i.e. the need to preserve the ‘public square’ aspect of the Internet).
 
c.  For content that was uploaded in substantially the same form and at the same place,
limitation periods for bringing legal cases should start to run from the first time the
content was uploaded and only one action  for damages should be allowed to be
brought in respect of that content, where appropriate by  allowing for damages
suffered in all jurisdictions to be recovered at one time (the ‘single publication’ rule). 
 
5.  Network Neutrality
 
a.  There should be no discrimination in the treatment of Internet data and traffic, based
on the device, content, author, origin and/or destination of the content, service or
application.
 
b.  Internet intermediaries should be required to be transparent about any traffic or
information management practices they employ, and relevant information on such
practices should be made available in a form that is accessible to all stakeholders.
 
6.  Access to the Internet
 
a.  Giving effect to the right to freedom of expression imposes an obligation on States to
promote universal access to the Internet. Access to the Internet is also necessary to
promote respect for other rights, such as the rights to education, health care and
work, the right to assembly and association, and the right to free elections.
 
b.  Cutting off access to the Internet, or parts of the Internet, for whole populations or
segments of the public (shutting down the Internet) can never be justified, including
on public order or national security grounds. The same applies to slow-downs
imposed on the Internet or parts of the Internet. 
 
   
 
c.  Denying individuals the right  to access the Internet as a punishment is an extreme
measure, which could be justified only where less restrictive measures are not
available and where ordered by a court,  taking into account the impact of this
measure on the enjoyment of human rights.
 
d.  Other measures which limit access to the Internet, such as imposing registration or
other requirements on service providers, are not legitimate unless they conform to
the test for restrictions on freedom of expression under international law.
 
e.  States are under a positive obligation to facilitate universal access to the Internet. At
a minimum, States should:
i.  Put in place regulatory mechanisms – which could include pricing regimes,
universal service requirements and licensing agreements – that foster greater
access to the Internet, including for the poor and in ‘last mile’ rural areas.
ii.  Provide direct support to facilitate access, including by establishing
community-based ICT centres and other public access points.
iii.  Promote adequate awareness about both how to use the Internet and the
benefits it can bring, especially among the poor, children and the elderly, and
isolated rural populations.
iv.  Put in place special measures to ensure equitable access to the Internet for the
disabled and for disadvantaged persons.
 
f.  To implement the above, States should adopt detailed multi-year action plans for
increasing access to the Internet which include clear and specific targets, as well as
standards of transparency, public reporting and monitoring systems.
 
 
 
Frank LaRue
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression      
 
 
 
Dunja Mijatović
OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
 
 
 
Catalina Botero Marino
OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
 
 
 
Faith Pansy Tlakula
ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information

http://www.osce.org/fom/78309

What Makes a Revolution?

by Abolhassan Banisadr

As the recent movements in Tunisia and Egypt unfolded, two questions pressed upon the public mind: why were these revolutions happening, and what might be to come? So too it was in 1979, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. While these three revolutions are in many ways very different, by considering them together five common factors emerge.

One is that the founding political projects of each state had become depleted, leaving dictatorial regimes with little legitimacy and governments reliant on corruption and violence for their survival. Another is that dominant belief systems had been recently transformed, and specifically that there was a turn away from traditionalist interpretations of Islam, a rise of new religious forms that are compatible with democracy, and a powerful demand for autonomy from religious and political leaders alike. A third feature is that the population of each of these societies was young, and the young were politicised. A fourth is the presence of pro-democracy sentiments in international politics (such as the ‘Carter factor’ in Iran or the ‘Obama factor’ in Egypt). Finally, faced with this array of challenges, each state attempted to neutralise or destroy the force motrice of social and political change by either repressing people or making life within the country so otherwise intolerable that they were compelled to emigrate. A phase of protest may begin when a politicised and active population realises that a regime dominates without purpose or legitimacy, and when people realise they have no further future within it. When their readings of the world also change, and if this happens at a time when the regime’s international legitimacy becomes weak, then protests may be transformed into full blown revolutionary processes.

In Tunisia, the Islamic party Ennahdha (Renaissance), and in Egypt the Ekhvan-al-Moslemin (Muslim Brotherhood), have also both been talking about democracy, human rights, and the abolition of gender discrimination. Here, too, we observe a similar process of transforming systems of belief. We have yet to see whether this transformation is authentic. If it is not, then like Khomeini they may attempt to capture the state to enforce their duty-bound and power-based versions of Islam. If there is a real transformation, however, they may seek to redefine their goals and instead of aiming for political power, orient towards freedom. In this case they would not aim to control the state and operate from within it, but to move into society and advocate Islam as a discourse of freedom. In any case, such an apparent move toward democratic values demonstrates that these parties are aware they will have to reinvent themselves if they want to play a future role in politics. In each case, when the aim of any group of people is to secure their freedom and independence, their goals can only ever be compatible with a liberation Islam and never with Islam as a discourse of power. Before our eyes, therefore, we have four kinds of Islam: that of velayat-e faqih, that of Al-Qaeda, various forms which are compatible with democracy, and Islam as a discourse of freedom. The common denominator of the first two is violence, and of the second two, democracy.The presence or the absence of viable alternatives for rebuilding a rights-oriented state and society is felt all during a revolution, but becomes acutely felt after it is won. It is thus a decisive factor, for when revolutionary alternatives are not forthcoming and the other factors above are not themselves transformed, then dictatorship will be able to reconsolidate. Such power always, of course, quickly becomes devoid of any purpose but self-preservation, and hence will move continually towards exhaustion and death. But even in such circumstances, if the process of revolution is continued and initial defeats lead to determined perseverance rather than regret and desperation, then the hopes of freedom and democracy have a real chance of being fulfilled.

http://hir.harvard.edu/what-makes-a-revolution?page=0,0

Make eGovernment services more accessible

On 27 May the Council adopted conclusions on the European eGovernment action plan for the period 2011-2015. The aim of the action plan is to promote the take-up of eGovernment (electronic government) services at local, regional and EU level, in order to make them more accessible and available for citizens and businesses throughout the EU regardless of their country of origin.

The action plan sets out specific practical measures aimed at ensuring that, by 2015, among other things it will be much easier for people to apply for and access social security and health benefits, transfer pension rights from one EU state to another or study anywhere in the Europe.

Moreover, inclusive and accessible electronic government services will help people with disabilities and other groups at risk of exclusion to be more self-reliant and able to use self-service solutions through digital interaction with public administration.

For businesses, seamless cross-border eGovernment services will make it easier to open a branch or subsidiary in another EU member state or to provide their services or goods anywhere in Europe.

Under the action plan, users will participate in shaping online public services in order to ensure that those facilities are best suited to their needs.

In addition, joint action on eGovernment by member states will contribute to a more efficient use of public resources and to reducing public expenditure. It will also reduce administrative burdens by simplifying procedures and communication, and improve organisational processes by using innovative technologies such as electronic services for the ageing society.

Another positive consequence of using eGovernment services is that it will reduce public administrations' carbon footprint.

The action plan aims to increase the use of eGovernment services to 50 % of EU citizens and 80 % of EU businesses by 2015.

To achieve this, the member states are being asked to undertake specific practical tasks such as raising awareness of and building trust in eGovernment services among EU citizens, encouraging the use of social networking and collaborative tools to facilitate more fluid communication between public administration and citizens, enhancing the security and privacy of eGovernment services and increasing citizens' trust and confidence in them.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showFocus.aspx?id=1&focusid=608&lang=en

International Strategy for Cyberspace

Digital infrastructure is increasingly the backbone of prosperous economies, vigorous research com- munities, strong militaries, transparent governments, and free societies As never before, information technology is fostering transnational dialogue and facilitating the global flow of goods and services These social and trade links have become indispensable to our daily lives Critical life-sustaining infrastructures that deliver electricity and water, control air traffic, and support our financial system all depend on networked information systems Governments are now able to streamline the provision of essential services through eGovernment initiatives Social and political movements rely on the Internet to enable new and more expansive forms of organization and action The reach of networked technol- ogy is pervasive and global For all nations, the underlying digital infrastructure is or will soon become a national asset

To realize fully the benefits that networked technology promises the world, these systems must func- tion reliably and securely People must have confidence that data will travel to its destination without disruption Assuring the free flow of information, the security and privacy of data, and the integrity of the interconnected networks themselves are all essential to American and global economic prosperity, security, and the promotion of universal rights

Almost a third of the world’s population uses the Internet and countless more are touched by it in their daily lives There are more than four billion digital wireless devices in the world today Scarcely a half- century ago, that number was zero We live in a rare historical moment with an opportunity to build on cyberspace’s successes and help secure its future for U S citizens and the global community

For these technologies to continue to empower individuals, enrich societies, and foster the research, development, and innovation essential to building modern economies, it must retain the openness and interoperability that have characterized its explosive growth Underlying these are technical principles and effective governance structures that demand our support At the same time, our networks must be secure and reliable; they must retain the trust of individuals, businesses and governments, and should be resilient to arbitrary or malicious disruption

The world must collectively recognize the challenges posed by malevolent actors’ entry into cyberspace, and update and strengthen our national and international policies accordingly Activities undertaken in cyberspace have consequences for our lives in physical space, and we must work towards building the rule of law, to prevent the risks of logging on from outweighing its benefits The future of an open, interoperable, secure and reliable cyberspace depends on nations recognizing and safeguarding that which should endure, while confronting those who would destabilize or undermine our increasingly networked world

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf

Networked Society City Index Revealed

STOCKHOLM -- The Networked Society City Index – established through a joint study conducted by Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) and management consultancy Arthur D. Little and presented on May 10 at Ericsson’s Business Innovation Forum in Silicon Valley in the US – shows that cities with a high level of ICT maturity are better able to manage issues such as environmental management, infrastructure, public security, health-care quality and education.

Erik Almqvist, Director at Arthur D. Little Nordic, says: "Building a Networked Society is one of our time’s great challenges for mankind. Although this analysis should be seen as a humble starting point to explore the link between ICT investments and sustainable development, it is our joint hope and intention that this report can serve as inspiration for cities that do not settle for the status quo."

The best-performing cities presented in the index – Singapore, Stockholm, Seoul and London – have successfully met many social, economic and environmental targets by making extensive investments in ICT. Singapore, for example, is aggressively driving innovation in e-health, and is a pioneer in traffic-congestion management. Stockholm sees ICT as a major enabler for research collaboration and knowledge transfer, while Seoul is using ICT to realize green high-tech initiatives.

The index also suggests actions for low-ranking cities, which are encouraged to provide digital access and ICT training for the underprivileged parts of their populations to reduce the digital divide.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=207773