This article presents a summary on a report on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression as well as right to privacy. The summary is based on a report that was submitted to the twenty-third session of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly. The summary mainly provides the author’s main points based on what he really wanted to say or demonstrate.
Frank La Rue presented a report to the United Nations General Assembly on the twenty-third session of the Human Rights Council. Though it was a late submission, the report was regarding the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression and opinion. Generally, the main agenda for the report is the promotion and protection of all human rights such as economic, civil, social and cultural, political, and the right to development. It was presented based on resolution 16/4 of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. The focus of the submission is analyses of the impacts of States' surveillance of communications in light of human rights to freedom of opinion and expression and privacy. However, the analyses recognize the impact of major technological developments in communications. The need for further study of new surveillance techniques and to amend national legislation regarding these practices based on human rights standards is also highlighted.
Summary of the Article:
The report begins with recognition of the considerable impact of major technological developments on communications. Technological innovations have enhanced the possibilities for communications, speedy information-sharing and multi-cultural conversations, anonymity in communications, and protections of free expression and opinion (Rue, 2013). While these advances have enhanced communications, they have also created new and increased opportunities for surveillance by the State and interventions into people's private communications. The use of these surveillance techniques has constantly been justified by concerns regarding national and global security and increased criminal activities across borders. Since the inception of the initial form of remote communications, States have developed measures to intercept and supervise private communications between individuals for law enforcement and national security purposes.
One of the major reasons for State surveillance on remote communications is the fact that most personal and intimate information regarding the past and future actions of a person or group are released through communication. Therefore, this channel represents a vital source of evidence through which the State can obtain information that help in preventing and prosecuting crime. Communication is also used as a valuable source for State to deter probable national security threats or emergencies.
In recent years, States have redesigned their networking technologies for monitoring private communications based on the evolution of information and communication technologies. These measures have been geared towards enabling State surveillance through increasing the accessibility and controllability of communication networks. Consequently, States use new means to monitoring communications as well as changing what is monitored. This eventually leads to storage, accessibility, and search of communications data, which is used to support law enforcement and national security investigations. The other recent initiative is the push by States to preserve and retain this data in order to carry out historical surveillance (Rue, 2013). In light of the changing attitudes towards communications surveillance, States have extended their surveillance powers, lowered the threshold, and enhanced justifications for their surveillance initiatives.
However, current legislation and practices have not been redesigned or modified to deal with the challenges and threats of communications inspection in the digital age. For instance, current practices and laws allow access to personal computers and other communication channels based on the conventional concept of access to written correspondence. As a result, the practices do not consider the use of modern communication devices and the impact of the surveillance on an individual's human rights. In addition, global communications monitoring and information-sharing mechanisms have been characterized with lack of necessary regulations, which contributes to ad hoc practices that exceed the examination of any independent authority. While access to communication data by States is carried out through several public agencies and for various reasons, there is lack of independent supervision and judicial approval for such practices. In some cases, States have adopted supervisory mechanisms that seem to have extra-territorial implications.
As States communications surveillance increases without consideration of its effect on human rights, human rights frameworks have been similarly slow to evaluate Internet implications on human rights. These frameworks have also been slow in analyzing the effect of new technologies on access to communications data and supervision. Therefore, there is need to examine the implications of expanding States surveillance powers and practices in light of the freedom of opinion and expression and right to privacy. Together with special procedures mandate holders or human rights bodies, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations needs to comprehensively evaluate the interdependence of these two rights.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.