Mar 28, 2024 | DFF, Reports
In September 2023, APHR organized a fact-finding mission in Timor-Leste focused on the country’s efforts in expanding internet access and protecting digital rights.
This was the third in a series of three missions that are part of the APHR’s commitment to the Internet Freedom Initiative together with Article-19 and its partners.
IFI aims to promote online freedom of expression and access to information, support civil society, influence government policies, and build collaborative networks among diverse stakeholders.
Three parliamentarians from the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand formed the Mission’s delegation and visited Dili for four days to meet with the president, government officials, parliamentarians, civil society organizations, journalists, and experts. The delegates of the mission were Hon. Raoul Daniel Mannuel, Member of Parliament, the Philippines; Hon. Kunthida Rungruengkiat, Former Member of Parliament, Thailand; and Hon. Gooi Hsiao Leung, Member of Penang State Legislative Assembly, Malaysia.
DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT HERE
Oct 3, 2023 | DFF, Statements
DILI – Timor-Leste’s admirable commitment to democratic and human rights principles in its 20 years of independence must be maintained and strengthened as its internet access, and online expression, expands, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) said today at the conclusion of a fact-finding mission to assess the state of internet freedoms in the country.
During the fact-finding mission from 30 September to 2 October, APHR’s delegation, which consisted of current and former lawmakers from Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines met with Timor-Leste President Jose Ramos Horta, the Ombudsman for Human Rights and Justice (PDHJ), the National Press Council, the National Communications Authority (ANC), the National Parliament, as well as with representatives of civil society and media organizations.
“Timor-Leste has consistently punched above its weight when it comes to democracy and human rights, and we are inspired by how far the country and its vibrant civil society has come following its long struggle against colonialism and dictatorship,” said APHR member and Penang State Legislative Assembly member Gooi Hsiao Leung. “While there are issues that need to be addressed, especially in the face of growing internet access and availability, we are confident that Timor-Leste can overcome them if it remains true to the ideals that underlie the country’s foundations.”
Timor-Leste’s fervor to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms is evident in its 2002 Constitution, and is further proven by having the distinction of being the only Southeast Asian country to be categorized as “free” in Freedom House’s Global Freedom Index. Nevertheless, the country also faces challenges that must be attended to in order to maintain its status as the most democratic and rights-respecting country in the region.
Chief among them is the limited information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure in the country, which has resulted in internet connectivity that is among the slowest and yet also the most expensive in the world.
“We applaud the Timorese government’s initiative to expand internet speed and availability through submarine as well as terrestrial fiber optic cables. In this digital age, equitable access to the internet must be a priority , as it also significantly affects basic rights such as access to information and education,” said APHR Member and member of the Philippines House of Representatives Raoul Manuel.
And while freedom of the press in Timor-Leste is highly-rated by global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, journalists and civil society members have raised concerns about looming threats towards freedom of expression online. While so far no journalists or ordinary citizens have faced prison sentences for peaceful expression, some have faced prosecution, as well as intimidation and harassment from law enforcement authorities.
The previous government has also attempted to reintroduce articles criminalizing defamation into Timor-Leste’s Penal Code, and a draft Cybercrime Bill tabled in 2021 included vaguely-worded provisions that could potentially be used to silence political dissent.
“We understand that increased internet availability and online expression may require more regulation and monitoring. However, our experiences in our own countries have shown how such regulations, if not accompanied by the necessary safeguards, can result in abuse of power and repression of critical voices,” said Manuel.
The Communications and Multimedia Act in Malaysia, the Cybercrime Prevention Act in Philippines, and the Cybersecurity Act and Computer-related Crimes Act in Thailand have all been used to criminalize and silence peaceful expressions of political opinions online.
“We therefore call on the Timorese government and parliament to ensure that any legislation that regulates online behaviors does not violate the freedom of expression and freedom of the press that is enshrined in Timor-Leste’s constitution and international human rights law,” said APHR Member and former Thailand member of parliament Kunthida Rungruengkiat.
Apart from legislation, the APHR delegation also noted the importance of promoting digital literacy among both the general public as well as in state institutions and law enforcement agencies.
“While regulations can sometimes be necessary, one of the most effective ways to ensure that the public is protected from the adverse effects of the internet is by building their capacity to recognize and understand the different types of content that can be found online, including fake news and hoaxes,” said Rungruengkiat.
“We also urge all parliamentarians and government officials in Timor-Leste to be open to criticism and to stand up for those who are harassed and prosecuted by state actors for peacefully expressing their political opinions. Though online criticism can at times be unnecessarily harsh, we must recognize that as public figures, our decisions affect the public interest and therefore must be subject to public comment and, at times, public disapproval,” said Gooi Hsiao Leung.
Click hear to read this statement in Tetum.
Sep 5, 2022 | Internet Freedoms, Statements
Presented by 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureates Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov at the Freedom of Expression Conference, Nobel Peace Center, Oslo 2 September 2022
We call for a world in which technology is built in service of humanity and where our global public square protects human rights above profits.
Right now, the huge potential of technology to advance our societies has been undermined by the business model and design of the dominant online platforms. But we remind all those in power that true human progress comes from harnessing technology to advance rights and freedoms for all, not sacrificing them for the wealth and power of a few.
We urge rights-respecting democracies to wake up to the existential threat of information ecosystems being distorted by a Big Tech business model fixated on harvesting people’s data and attention, even as it undermines serious journalism and polarises debate in society and political life.
When facts become optional and trust disappears, we will no longer be able to hold power to account. We need a public sphere where fostering trust with a healthy exchange of ideas is valued more highly than corporate profits and where rigorous journalism can cut through the noise.
Many governments around the world have exploited these platforms’ greed to grab and consolidate power. That is why they also attack and muzzle the free press. Clearly, these governments cannot be trusted to address this crisis. But nor should we put our rights in the hands of technology companies’ intent on sustaining a broken business model that actively promotes disinformation, hate speech and abuse.
The resulting toxic information ecosystem is not inevitable. Those in power must do their part to build a world that puts human rights, dignity, and security first, including by safeguarding scientific and journalistic methods and tested knowledge. To build that world, we must:
Bring an end to the surveillance-for-profit business model
The invisible ‘editors’ of today’s information ecosystem are the opaque algorithms and recommender systems built by tech companies that track and target us. They amplify misogyny, racism, hate, junk science and disinformation – weaponizing every societal fault line with relentless surveillance to maximize “engagement”. This surveillance-for-profit business model is built on the con of our supposed consent. But forcing us to choose between allowing platforms and data brokers to feast on our personal data or being shut out from the benefits of the modern world is simply no choice at all. The vast machinery of corporate surveillance not only abuses our right to privacy, but allows our data to be used against us, undermining our freedoms and enabling discrimination.
This unethical business model must be reined in globally, including by bringing an end to surveillance advertising that people never asked for and of which they are often unaware. Europe has made a start, with the Digital Services and Digital Markets Acts. Now these must be enforced in ways that compel platforms to de-risk their design, detox their algorithms and give users real control. Privacy and data rights, to date largely notional, must also be properly enforced. And advertisers must use their money and influence to protect their customers against a tech industry that is actively harming people.
End tech discrimination and treat people everywhere equally
Global tech companies afford people unequal rights and protection depending on their status, power, nationality, and language. We have seen the painful and destructive consequences of tech companies’ failure to prioritize the safety of all people everywhere equally. Companies must be legally required to rigorously assess human rights risks in every country they seek to expand in, ensuring proportionate language and cultural competency. They must also be forced to bring their closed-door decisions on content moderation and algorithm changes into the light and end all special exemptions for those with the most power and reach. These safety, design, and product choices that affect billions of people cannot be left to corporations to decide. Transparency and accountability rules are an essential first step to reclaiming the internet for the public good.
Rebuild independent journalism as the antidote to tyranny
Big tech platforms have unleashed forces that are devastating independent media by swallowing up online advertising while simultaneously enabling a tech-fueled tsunami of lies and hate that drown out facts. For facts to stand a chance, we must end the amplification of disinformation by tech platforms. But this alone is not enough. Just 13% of the world’s population can currently access a free press. If we are to hold power to account and protect journalists, we need unparalleled investment in a truly independent media persevering in situ or working in exile that ensures its sustainability while incentivizing compliance with ethical norms in journalism.
21st century newsrooms must also forge a new, distinct path, recognizing that to advance justice and rights, they must represent the diversity of the communities they serve. Governments must ensure the safety and independence of journalists who are increasingly being attacked, imprisoned, or killed on the frontlines of this war on facts.
We, as Nobel Laureates, from across the world, send a united message: together we can end this corporate and technological assault on our lives and liberties, but we must act now. It is time to implement the solutions we already have to rebuild journalism and reclaim the technological architecture of global conversation for all humanity.
We call on all rights-respecting democratic governments to:
1. Require tech companies to carry out independent human rights impact assessments that must be made public as well as demand transparency on all aspects of their business – from content moderation to algorithm impacts to data processing to integrity policies.
2. Protect citizens’ right to privacy with robust data protection laws.
3. Publicly condemn abuses against the free press and journalists globally and commit funding and assistance to independent media and journalists under attack.
We call on the EU to:
4. Be ambitious in enforcing the Digital Services and Digital Markets Acts so these laws amount to more than just ‘new paperwork’ for the companies and instead force them to make changes to their business model, such as ending algorithmic amplification that threatens fundamental rights and spreads disinformation and hate, including in cases where the risks originate outside EU borders.
5. Urgently propose legislation to ban surveillance advertising, recognizing this practice is fundamentally incompatible with human rights.
6. Properly enforce the EU General Data Protection Regulation so that people’s data rights are finally made reality.
7. Include strong safeguards for journalists’ safety, media sustainability and democratic guarantees in the digital space in the forthcoming European Media Freedom Act.
8. Protect media freedom by cutting off disinformation upstream. This means there should be no special exemptions or carve-outs for any organisation or individual in any new technology or media legislation. With globalised information flows, this would give a blank check to those governments and non-state actors who produce industrial scale disinformation to harm democracies and polarise societies everywhere.
9. Challenge the extraordinary lobbying machinery, the astroturfing campaigns and recruitment revolving door between big tech companies and European government institutions.
We call on the UN to:
10. Create a special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General focused on the Safety of Journalists (SESJ) who would challenge the current status quo and finally raise the cost of crimes against journalists.
Signed by:
Dmitry Muratov, 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate
Maria Ressa, 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate
Click here to see the full list of signatories.
May 16, 2022 | Internet Freedoms, Statements
We, the following 32 human rights organizations, call on the Cambodian authorities to revoke the Sub-Decree on the Establishment of the National Internet Gateway (NIG). Since passage of the sub-decree on February 16, 2021, the government has yet to address the serious human rights concerns raised by civil society groups and tech companies. At the same time, the government has been wholly non-transparent regarding the infrastructure, implementation, financing, and cooperating companies, agencies, and organizations involved in supporting the NIG.
The NIG sub-decree paves the way for the establishment of a digital gateway to manage all internet traffic into and out of Cambodia. Provisions in the sub-decree allow government-appointed NIG operators to block or disconnect any online connections (article 6), retain traffic data for a year and provide other network information as requested by authorities (article 14), and issue overbroad penalties for non-compliant telecommunications operators (article 16).
The sub-decree states that the purpose of the NIG is to facilitate and manage internet connections to strengthen revenue collection, protect national security, and — in terms that are overbroad, ambiguous, and prone to misuse — to “preserve social order, culture, and national tradition” (article 1).
While the exact technical infrastructure and how it will be operated is still unknown, there is little doubt the NIG’s true purpose is to enable the Cambodian government to tighten the noose on what remains of internet freedom in the country.
In April 2021, three independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council expressed concerns that the sub-decree “poses risks to the fundamental freedoms of individuals, namely the freedoms of expression and opinion and the right to privacy and may expose individuals’ personal information without their consent, which would contravene international human rights instruments and Cambodian laws.” They reiterated this call to the government on February 1 2022, warning that the NIG “will have a serious negative impact on internet freedom, human rights defenders and civil society in the country, further shrinking the already-restrictive civic space in Cambodia.”
Cambodia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 17 of the ICCPR protects the right of every individual against arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy. Article 19 of the ICCPR protects the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the “freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” Any measures the state takes that would interfere with these rights must be provided for by law, be non-discriminatory, and be strictly necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of others, national security, public order or public health or morals.
The government has repeatedly rejected all human rights concerns about the NIG. The government has also refused to explain how the NIG’s restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information are necessary to achieve any of the legitimate aims, and failed to address the lack of proportionality of the measures. Instead, the internet gateway is poised to restrict these rights in an overly broad manner, without any apparent limits. As UN experts, tech company representatives, and human rights advocates have pointed out, the sub-decree lacks procedural safeguards, independent oversight, and data and privacy protections.
There are grave concerns that the gateway will supercharge the government’s censorship capabilities, allowing it to scale up its website blocking. The gateway is also likely to have a chilling effect on online communications and generate self-censorship online among critical voices and independent media outlets who fear increased surveillance, harassment, and reprisals.
The sub-decree poses risks to data protection and data privacy, requiring government gateway operators to retain and share metadata. In the absence of a data protection law in Cambodia that would protect internet users from misuse of their data and provide certainty about where and how long data is retained, and who has access to it, the NIG will facilitate the authorities’ ability to identify users’ internet activities and habits, ultimately risking identifying the users themselves. Data retention without sufficient protection for data security will increase risks to data security from third-party interference, or hackers. Centralizing internet traffic and data under the NIG also creates a vulnerability for malicious acts, without guaranteeing service providers’ capacity to adequately address the resultant increase in data security needs.
In a press statement issued on February 15, 2022, Cambodia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed that it had conducted an “extensive study on infrastructure models from different countries around the world and found that most countries have internet gateways.” No information has been provided to back these sweeping assertions, such as which infrastructure models the authorities considered, what their benefits and disadvantages are, and whether the study was done with reference to Cambodia’s human rights obligations under various international human rights treaties.
In Cambodia, the government’s rushed adoption process of the sub-decree establishing the NIG was plagued by a lack of transparency. The authorities failed to hold any consultations, much less wide and inclusive ones, and did not invite inputs by experts, civil society groups, private actors, business groups, and other interested parties prior to the sub-decree’s adoption. The NIG appears designed to function as an authoritarian tool that will facilitate the government’s efforts to curtail free expression, association and privacy online as well as offline, and facilitate targeting of online expression by members of civil society, independent media, and the political opposition.
On February 15, 2022, the government revealed that implementation of the NIG, set to start the next day, would be delayed. No new date for the NIG implementation has been set. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications told the news outlet Nikkei Asia on February 15 that the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, another ministry spokesperson told the news outlet VOD that technical difficulties in implementing the NIG was the cause of the delay, stating that “we have to prepare to install and order equipment in order to prepare and create the gateway. And we have to give licenses to any company that the government understands that has the ability to create the gateway.”
Cambodia’s internet gateway greatly risks restricting the free flow of information between Cambodia and the rest of the world while establishing a system that will cast a wide net of surveillance across the country. Foreign governments, technology and telecommunications companies, internet service providers, business groups, UN agencies and others concerned should come together to seek to halt this wholesale attempt at information control.
Signatories:
Access Now
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
Asia Democracy Network (ADN)
Association for Progressive Communication (APC)
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
Campaign for Human Rights and Development International (CHRDI)
Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre)
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Civil Rights Defenders
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Digital Reach Asia
Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF)
ELSAM: Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy
Freemuse
Foundation for Media Alternatives
FORUM-ASIA
Japan Computer Access Network (JCA-NET)
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
Manushya Foundation
Open Net Association
PEN America
Ranking Digital Rights
SAFENet – Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network
Thai Netizens Network
WITNESS
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
Mar 9, 2022 | Internet Freedoms, Statements
Eleven human rights organizations call on the Philippine legislature to repeal or substantially amend the fatally flawed SIM Card Registration Act, which is a substantial threat to the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and information, and non-discrimination in the Philippines.
We are concerned about the grave risks that the SIM Card Registration Act poses to the rights to privacy, free expression and information, association and non-discrimination in the Philippines. We are further concerned about the discriminatory impact of the law on transgender and gender diverse individuals, in the absence of legal gender recognition in the country.
The SIM Card Registration Act was ratified by the House of Representatives and Senate on 2 February 2022, and lapsed into law on 4 March 2022. Under the Act, Public Telecommunications Entities (PTEs) must require the registration of SIM cards for collection in a centralized database as a pre-requisite to the sale and activation of SIM cards. Further, all social media account providers must record the real names and phone numbers as part of the registration process upon creation of an account. In effect, these requirements amount to a blanket prohibition on anonymity for telecommunication and social media users. Completed registrations will then be forwarded to a centralized database, without clear limitations on access to or use of personal information. Guidelines for the “proper implementation” of the registration program will be formulated by the National Telecommunications Commission, in consultation with government agencies such as the Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Information and Communications Technology and National Privacy Commission, and PTEs, social media providers, and major consumer groups.
Prohibitions of anonymity interfere with the right to privacy and freedom of expression, protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippines is a party. As noted by the former Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression stated in his 2013 report, restrictions on anonymity “facilitate State communications surveillance” and “have a chilling effect, dissuading the free expression of information and ideas”.
In the Philippines, human rights defenders and those who lawfully exercise their right to criticize the government are frequently targeted and sanctioned for their work, including through the dangerous practice of red-tagging. Human rights defenders in the Philippines have reported that the Philippine police monitor Facebook posts to identify, arrest and interrogate people. The real-name registration requirements exacerbate concerns of surveillance of telecommunications and online activity by the Philippine authorities, and is likely to dissuade individuals from expressing themselves freely without fear of retribution.
Inconsistent with human rights law and principles
Under the ICCPR, where a government action interferes with human rights, it will only be permissible if its terms are defined narrowly and precisely and it is strictly necessary for a legitimate purpose such as protecting national security, public order or public health. The SIM Card Registration Act states that the registration requirements are intended to, among other things, “deter the […] spread of digital disinformation or fake news”. This is a vague and overbroad concept, left undefined in the Act. It is also not a legitimate purpose for the restriction of rights, absent a compelling national security, public health or public order purpose. The prohibition of “fake news” is “not in itself a legitimate aim”. Demands for user information by a “competent authority” may also be issued to PTEs and social media providers if a specific mobile number or social media account was or is being used to spread “digital disinformation” or “fake news”.
Even as the law has been introduced purportedly to combat anonymous crimes and scams, there is a lack of evidence as to how SIM card registration laws can effectively prevent such threats—evident from similar laws brought into force in other jurisdictions, including Kenya, Mexico and Malawi. Industry and technical experts have raised these concerns with respect to the current Philippine law. Without clear limitations on the type and quantity of user information collected; provisions to securely store and handle such information; and clauses limiting data storage to strictly legal and necessary purposes, the law will in fact increase the risk of data breach or information misuse and violate data protection and privacy.
The Act also runs afoul of the principles of necessity and proportionality, according to which any interference on rights must be necessary for a legitimate purpose and be the least intrusive means of achieving the purpose. The former Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression noted in his 2015 report that “[b]lanket prohibitions [on encryption and anonymity] fail to be necessary and proportionate”. Further, the prescription of criminal penalties, including imprisonment and/or onerous fines, for using fictitious identities to register and/or spoofing registered SIM cards appear to be disproportionate. Generally, criminal sanctions constitute “serious interference with the freedom of expression and are disproportionate responses in all but the most egregious cases”.
The criminal sanctions for using fictitious identities to register SIM cards or social media accounts will also disproportionately impact gender diverse individuals in the Philippines. The legislation itself unequivocally considers lived names as “fictitious identities”. In the Philippines, it is generally not possible for transgender and gender diverse individuals to change their names assigned at birth or gender marker on legal documents in the absence of a gender recognition law. Criminalizing the use of lived names to register for SIM cards or social media accounts is an act that is discriminatory, traumatizing and violent to gender diverse individuals.
The Act also grants sweeping powers to the Philippine authorities to demand disclosure of information obtained in the registration process without adequate independent oversight, empowering authorities to access data in an unfettered and potentially unlawful manner. Under the law, registration information may be disclosed in “compliance with a court order, legal process, or other government regulatory, or enforceable administrative request for information” or upon “order of a competent authority duly authorized under existing laws to issue subpoena”. The Act does not provide any safeguards to ensure strictly necessary and secure holding or furnishing of such information, and does not establish an independent oversight body, such as a court or oversight mechanism, to monitor State demands for disclosure of personal information.
Repeal or substantially amend the Act
In light of the above-mentioned concerns, we call for the Philippine legislature to repeal or substantially amend the SIM Card Registration Act, in compliance with the Philippines’ international human rights obligations. While we acknowledge the need to curb fraud and other crimes, we urge the Philippine authorities to do so in a manner that respects and ensures the rights to privacy, free expression and information, association and non-discrimination.
Signatories
Access Now
ARTICLE 19
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights
ASEAN SOGIE Caucus
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
EngageMedia
Human Rights Online Philippines (HRonlinePH)
ILGA Asia
In Defense of Human Rights and Dignity Movement (iDEFEND)
International Commission of Jurists
Open Net
