Why Internet Freedom is Key to Understanding Human Rights in the 21st Century

The relationship between internet freedom and human rights have increasingly come to the forefront of debate. Following high-profile cases like that of Edward Snowden and the revelations about mass surveillance, we have become more aware that some rights and freedoms are under threat in the online world. To understand the shifting narrative of human rights in the 21st Century, the current infringements and shortcomings within current laws and practices must first be understood.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

As technology progresses, it can pose serious challenges to norms and conventions developed almost seven decades ago. However, if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are examined, provisions in Article 19 state that freedom of expression extends to “any media”. Moreover, Article 12 of the UDHR enshrines the protections against “interference” with someone’s “privacy, family, home or correspondence”, the first and last being particularly pertinent to internet freedom. Since correspondence delivered online still constitutes a form of correspondence, efforts to eavesdrop on conversations, whether by governments or individual organisations, are a violation of international human rights obligations. Clearly, modern innovations such as social media and internet-based communications are still protected under the UDHR. It is vital, therefore, that we understand the role of these instruments and how they are integral to the protection of our rights and freedoms.

Mass surveillance is already here, yet exists in a legal grey area

But what do they actually mean in practice? Controversies have been created over whistleblowers, famously Edward Snowden, a government contractor who leaked classified material from the US National Security Agency. His case, like many others, is complex; critics denounce him as a traitor, whilst others say he is a hero for exposing the government’s illegal practices. In the UK, a 2015 Bill was criticised for allowing authorities to temporarily avoid judicial oversight if a situation was deemed “urgent” enough. These issues bring to light the legally questionable nature of government mass surveillance; that is, the monitoring of a substantial group of people via a government agency. The legal excuses for mass surveillance is fraught with vague language, like “national security” or “national interest” whose interpretation is basically left to the discretion of the government, meaning that it is impossible to actually have a clear mandate for the laws. This lets government agencies get away with mass surveillance without real accountability.

Cyber-crime laws are being used to stifle dissent

In countries with a robust legal system and well-defined civil protections, these “catch-all” clauses are perhaps not too damaging, although they could constitute a wedge to surreptitiously roll back these protections over time. However, in developing countries with flawed courts and imperfect democracies or even dictatorships, such vague legal language can easily be used as an instrument of state power against political opponents and activists. In countries where defamation or libel laws can result in imprisonment, this vague language allows governments to arrest individuals for “defamation” online, whereas according to the UDHR they are merely practicing their right to freedom of expression. Worse, even a ‘not guilty’ verdict by courts can still paralyze; legal cases require massive sums of money as well as time, and for individuals and small organisations this can render them ineffective. Non-government organisations, especially rights advocates, have been targeted by lawsuits that courts take up despite the complete lack of validity.

Businesses are hurt by a lack of internet freedom

More generally, a lack of internet freedom stifles new businesses and start-ups, which are increasingly dependent on maintaining an online presence. When governments hold them responsible for content posted by individuals on their online premises - say, a Facebook page - small businesses react by complying with removing content that may not necessarily be illegal. In many cases, this leads to oversensitive self-censorship, therefore stifling activity and cutting back on outreach as well as gaining a reputation for being inflexible and obstinate. Since modern start-ups depend heavily on online activity, this internet censorship potentially damages their business badly. Countries where this happens a lot will thus discourage start-ups, harming long-time prosperity: For better or for worse, the economy of the future will be driven increasingly by online communication and data processing.

This goes to show that internet freedom is deeply intertwined with the wellbeing of people and businesses in the Information Age. Whether it be public surveillance or online censorship, suppression of internet freedom by governments is detrimental to  society as a whole. Countries should realise that the UDHR applies to modern methods of expression, and quickly develop proportional and legal responses to the new challenges posed by technology.