YouTube this week introduced a face-blurring tool to protect activists from being recognised by their online activities. Human rights groups will no doubt welcome the initiative as it comes in response to calls from groups such as Witness. Some web companies demonstrate a commitment to not only reducing the negative human rights impacts of their activities, but also to actively improving the positive impacts that they may have. The uptake of some of the voluntary guidelines on corporate social responsibility and human rights demonstrates a willingness to go beyond the minimum requirements. But what responsibilities do tech companies really owe to users in other countries? Is this solely a question of moral responsibility and ethics, or is there a legal obligation? And should moral responsibility be reflected in a legally-binding regime? Continue reading Going beyond the guidelines – legal and moral responsibilities on ICT companies
Complex and interesting areas of international legal policy can be difficult to navigate. Once an issue gains a profile in policy circles, everyone with an interest in the topic rushes to develop guidelines to help others navigate the area. While the issue of human rights and web companies is still comparatively new, there are guidelines from the field of corporate social responsibility that can be drawn upon. ICT-specific guidelines are also mushrooming at the moment. In light of this, I thought it timely to develop a quick guide to the guidelines.
There is an abundance of material on corporate social responsibility, with some of it approaching human rights more broadly and some creating sector specific guidance. I will outline a couple of the key general CSR guideline initiatives and the guidelines that are specific to the ICT sector. Once you start delving into specific issues such as environmental sustainability, fair trade or bribery or markets with particular vulnerabilities such as conflict zones, you find a whole host of additional stakeholders and reference materials. Some notable examples include the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Weak Governance Zones, the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Continue reading Guide to the guidelines – human rights, business and the ICT sector
When managing mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests on a day-to-day basis, the main complaints from prosecutors and police are incredulity at how long a request may take to process, and frustration at the complexity of the process involved. Depending on the country from which information is being sought, it can also be the case that the country holding the information is not willing or able to obtain it on behalf of another country.
As noted previously, MLA involves many players in multiple steps: police and central authorities in both the requesting and the requested countries as well as sometimes judges, prosecutors and witnesses in the requested country. The steps are generally governed by a combination of domestic laws and international treaties (either bilateral or multilateral). Law enforcement officers are inclined to argue that MLA has too many processes and protections, while civil libertarians tend to argue that there are not enough safeguards in place. There may be some agreement from both sides that there is not sufficient differentiation between the processes or safeguards that are necessary in some circumstances and what may be appropriate in circumstances where the information is less sensitive or the information is being shared with a trusted partner country.
In order to make the MLA system faster and less complicated, governments (and the public that they represent) need to be willing to either reduce the number of steps in the process and/or make each of the steps faster. Many countries, including the US, have omitted the step of requiring an MLA request to be made and received through diplomatic channels. To further reduce the number of players in a meaningful way requires a more fundamental shift in the MLA process.