Some authorities, such as in Chad, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela, choose to block specific social media or messaging applications or prevent traffic to livestreaming platforms. ![]() Shutdowns draw headlines, but subtler, equally devastating techniques to manipulate the internet deserve attention, too. At the very least, they should publish as much information as they can about the measures they impose in the interest of transparency or interpret requests to cause the least intrusive restrictions. When confronted with state demands to broadly restrict access, internet service providers should consider filing similar suits themselves. After all, the UN Human Rights Council has unequivocally condemned measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online as a violation of international human rights law.Īuthorities often try to justify shutdowns on flimsy legal grounds so it’s no surprise that lawsuits brought by activist lawyers in Sudan, Pakistan and Zimbabwe have successfully challenged blackouts. But providers should heed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the most widely accepted set of rights standards for businesses, and reconsider their blind cooperation. ![]() Companies frequently justify compliance with these requests as a matter of following local law, suggesting that they risk losing their licenses if they don’t. When it blocked access to the internet in Kashmir for months in late 2019, Indian officials justified the action by saying it was necessary to temporarily limit access to the internet during periods of crisis to avoid “permanent loss of life.” Four United Nations special rapporteurs condemned the move, warning that the shutdown in Kashmir was “inconsistent with the norms of necessity and proportionality.” Practically, at least one study, by a researcher at the Stanford Global Digital Policy Incubator, has found that shutdowns are actually counterproductive to deterring violent incidents it tracked a quadrupling of violence when networks were disrupted as compared to cases where the internet stayed on.Īlthough governments dictate blackouts, internet service providers are the ones who implement them. While you might think authoritarian regimes are the ones turning off the internet, India-the world’s largest democracy-is the global leader in shutdowns. When the internet is off, people’s ability to express themselves freely is limited, the economy suffers, journalists struggle to upload photos and videos documenting government overreach and abuse, students are cut off from their lessons, taxes can’t be paid on time, and those needing health care cannot get consistent access. But such sweeping measures are more like collective punishment than a tactical response. Governments are increasingly resorting to shutdowns in times of crisis, arguing they are necessary for public safety or curbing the spread of misinformation. In response, in the past year governments in Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe shut down the internet in all or some parts of their countries-perhaps with the hope that doing so would shut off their problems. ![]() In 2020 you should be watching for… who’s trying to shut down the Internet.įrom Caracas to Khartoum, protesters are leveraging the internet to organize online and stand up for their rights offline.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |