Internet rights versus restrictions
|No||Name||Affil./Org.||SH-group||Topic and sub-issues||Description||Remarks|
|8||Janne Elvelid||Committee for Digitization, Sweden||Govern. Org.||The unbalance of data -- How our lives are shaped based on data. Unbalance between individuals and governments / businesses in terms of access to and control over personal data.||The digitals aspects of our lives have gone from simple, definable and isolated to become large, important and complex parts integrated to all aspects of our lives. This renders enormous quantities of data that in turn are shaping our lives and the world we meet. Today we have a situation where the power over how this world around us lies in the hands of governments and businesses, not in the hands of individuals. This balance has to be leveled out. We will shape education, media, services and most things of our lives based on data. We need to make sure that individuals have the right and possibility to access and alter data about themselves, to be able to control their own life.|
|14||Susie Hargreaves||Internet Watch Foundation, UK||Civil Society||Self-Regulation and Human Rights -- How do you ensure that self-regulatory bodies are human rights compliant?||What are the challenges, check and balances?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation on the internet?
Can good practice be universally applied?
|22||Xianhong Hu||UNESCO||Intern. Org.||Promote freedom of expression and privacy on Internet -- Role of Internet intermediaries in promoting online human rights such as freedom of expression and privacy||Internet intermediaries play a unique role in linking authors of content and audiences. They may either protect or jeopardize end user rights to free expression, given their role in capturing, storing, searching, sharing, transferring and processing large amount of information, data and user-generated content. It is important to identify principles for good practices and processes that are consistent with international standards for free expression that Internet intermediaries may follow in order to protect the human rights of end users online.|
|33||Mario Oetheimer||EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)||Europ. Org.||Challenges of cyberhate||The internet can easily be used as a platform for hate and harassment. FRA research has shown that online hate crime is of particular concern. Recent FRA surveys (EU LGBT Survey, FRA survey on gender-based violence against women and FRA survey on discrimination and hate crimes against Jews) provide data supporting this. EURODIG should address this issue and provide a platform of discussion and possibly concrete follow-up actions that various stakeholders could agree upon. While FRA could provide a presentation of its survey data, a multi-stakeholder discussion could look into solutions and good practices to reduce the level of hate on the internet.|
|42||Manuel Braga Monteiro||Deutsche Telecom AG||Business||Cybersecurity, Routing, Global Internet Principles, need for multi-lateral rules for the internet must replacing the dominant influence of few actors, protection of human rights, fundamental freedoms.||The Internet has rapidly evolved from being a newly-commercialized resource in the 1990ies to a global network. And it has become a critical infrastructure for our political, economic and social lives. All electronic communication these days is migrating to Internet protocol-based communication networks, raising new challenges in various areas like security, privacy, law enforcement, standardisation and regulation. If we want the internet to keep its open and global nature and prevent fragmentation, we cannot escape from setting globally accepted and binding rules.|
|52||Marianne Franklin||IRP Coalition - UN IGF||Civil society||1) Rights and Responsibilities Online after Snowden: From Principles to Practice -- How to move from broad principles to specific practices for lawmaking & enforcement: for e.g. pursuing criminal activities, commercial 3rd party services, public services such as housing or health.||This theme looks at how international legal principles of balance, necessity and proportionality can be translated into law-making and enforcement scenarious. How and where do real-life law enforcement scenarios limit freedom of expression, association, or privacy? What can different standpoints reveal about proportionate or disproportionate responses? Are there limits to the need to know, to preventative enforcement based on predictive algorithms; when are specific types of data retention for justified, if at all, when pursuing alleged criminal activities online? Are there adequate legal-ethical frameworks to monitor these decisions, and for redress? What are the limits to meta-data and user data retention for commercial and governmental forms of service provision?|
|64||Klaus Birkenbihl||Internet Society German Chapter||Technical community||Net Neutrality -- ISPs seek models to promote their own (or associate) contents and applications by providing goodies by manipulating DNS.||Goodies provided are:
better connectivity for their contents extra (free) bandwidth to access their contents - Is this in the interest of clients? - Is this a threat for a free and open net? In order to maintain and develop the Internet as an free and open infrastructure: - is there a set of minimum requirements in terms of: - fair access to the network - traffic exchange and peering with other networks - not boosting one contents or applications offer on the cost of others that ISPs should have to guarantee? Do we need regulation or will the market fix it?
|74||Lee Hibbard||Council of Europe||Europ. Org.||Hacking for Internet freedom||Self-explaining ;-)|
|77||Lee Hibbard||Council of Europe||Europ. Org.||Rewiring democracy – making Internet an enabler for free speech, assembly and association||See:
|79||Lee Hibbard||Council of Europe||Europ. Org.||How to respond to hate speech online?||How to respond to hate speech online (prevention, reporting systems, legal measures...) See: http://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/|