Talk:Digital Activism and Privacy – quick fix or long term involvement? – PL 02 2014

Discussion about the format

It might also be a possibility to combine two formats. For example, have first Pecha Kucha presentations by selected speakers, followed by a Fish Bowl debate which nicely structures discussions in big groups and enables every participant to contribute. //

Pecha Kucha sounds good for presenting certain ideas or view points; but I think that if we want audience to get involved and being able to participate interactively in the discussion and raise questions, we should go for the open space technology, world coffee and maybe hot chair at as well //

I would like to try Speed Geeking. It sounds very energetic and the presenters are forced to make clear, short statements.

Discussion about suggested speakers

• Kevin Mitnick

• Jacob Appelbaum

Discussion about key questions

Privacy is always linked to transparency what might seem paradoxical at first glance. However, Snowden's act to reveal the "watchers" was aiming at creating transparency in order to, at the same time, protecting our privacy. Governments which lack transparency can only be described as defect democracies. Therefore, I would like to discuss how the public sphere can re-build a culture of transparency and privacy in equal measure and link this to political decision-making. //

I believe contrasting two powerful concepts such as privacy and freedom of expression would encapsulate some current challenges in trying to 'define' the fine line that exists between the two in some cases. What is the balance in order to preserve both?

Discussion about Session Outline

Session outline: There is a need for stronger multi-stakeholder participation in the political processes of Internet Governance concerning privacy-related issues. However is digital activism really creating these opportunities? Digital activism can be defined as the use of ICTs for a range of forms of activism to facilitate communication among citizens and raise awareness for political issues. Recent debate on new EU Data protection reform showed the need to rethink and adapt. Carried out through a closed community of experts in a non-transparent process these important topic elude the average user, which it affects. Digital activism is one of the ways privacy issues are approached and addressed to date. However today's representation of actors and agents of digital activism is very imbalanced, regionally disproportional and creating a gender gap. Moreover participation of civil society on the web in IG, its work and methods are questionable, not institutionalised and often uncoordinated. Hence,the democratic quality of digital activism, characterized by its level of legitimacy, representativeness, accountability, and inclusiveness, needs to be assessed and problems associated in this context, such as the digital divide and a lack of institutionalization should be discussed. What is the added value of digital activism for the young people? Can problems of youth participation in IG be addressed through similar innovative processes of participation, or does it just relieve young people's need to express themselves whilst the decisions are made elsewhere.Can digital activism bridge the gap between classic particiaption and technical community? This panel will look into how digital activism influences privacy issues. Whether it is really working as an instrument to change digital policy debate. What are the mechanisms of digital activism and how relevant is that for young people? Moreover is it an effective way to go to influence European politics on Internet Governance?