Upload
mathias-klang
View
2.176
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HUMAN RIGHTS &
TECHNOLOGY
Mathias Klang
TECHNOLOGY & RIGHTS?Why & What
TECHNOLOGY IS NOT ABOUT DEMOCRACYTechnology = Communication = Society = Democracy
CommunicationCommunication
OrganizationOrganization
ProtestProtest AccessAccess
ReligionReligion
PrivacyPrivacyCultureCulture
EducationEducation
PressPress
THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ONLINE
LIFE IS ORGANIZED AROUND TECHNOLOGY……and it always has been….
BY CONTROLLING TECHNOLOGY WE CONTROL SOCIETY
Regulation of technology is the regulation of democracy
SO WHAT?
SO WHAT?
DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGYThe disruption occurs when the technology, which is introduced effects the social arrangements around which we build our lives
IMPULSE: CONTROL
ANTIDOTE?Free Software
REGULATIONFrom Command and Control to Fuller & Lessig
WHAT’S WRONG WITH COMMAND AND CONTROL?It relies to heavily upon coercion and cooperation.
ONLINE OFFLINE
“We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.” (Barlow 1996)
Regulatory Metaphor
Law
Social RulesContextual & programed
Architecture
Lessig (1999)
CASES
SPEECH & CENSORSHIPCase 1:
Censorship
Information Control
• Local– Client based (software4parents, matewatcher)
• Organizational– Server based
• National– Backbone/gateway based
Censorship
Filtering methods
• Inclusion - whitelist• Exclusion - blacklist• Content analysis
Censorship
Privatizing Censorship
• Non-technical/self censorship– “Public Pledge of Self-Regulation & Professional
Ethics for China Internet Industry”
• Responsibility on the signatories:– Inspect & monitor foreign & domestic sites– Block harmful information
Censorship
SURVEILLANCECase 2:
Surveillance
Integrity
• That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection.
• Brandeis & Warren 1890
Surveillance
• Louis Brandeis & Samuel Warren "The Right to Privacy," 4 Harvard Law Review 193-220 (1890-91)
Surveillance
Technology 1888
• 1888 - Kodak nr 1 • First mass produced box • Simple and portable• Shot exposure
Surveillance
Paparazzi (1898)Surveillance
Reklam (1902)
• Robertson v. Rochester Folding Box Co (1902)
• The court did not accept Brandeis & Warrens argument of a “common law” right
Surveillance
Hidden camera 1928
• Execution of Ruth Snyder 1928
Surveillance
SurveillanceSurveillance
Little brothers
A must for anyone who needs to protect their loved ones, home or business!
Surveillance
TARGETING TECHNOLOGYCase 3: The Lufthansa Case
DoS
Denial of Service - examples• 1998 DoS attack against the Mexican president’s
website.• 8,000 hacktivists participated to show their support for
the Zapatistas. • In 2003 the electrohippies antiwar protest disrupted the
PM’s webpage (www.number-10.gov.uk/) causing it to be unavailable on several occasions.
DoS
• Three way handshake (Gibson: www.grc.com)
Denial of Service - technologyDoS
Denial of Service - the players
• The Electrohippies – Practitioners – Now on walkabout
• The Cult of the Dead Cow– Claim the name Hacktivism
DoS
• Accountability: “…we do not try bury our identities from law enforcement authorities any authority could, if it chose to, track us down in a few hours.”
• Popular participation: If people don't vote with their modems (rather than voting with their feet) the action would be an abject failure”
• Symbolism rather than damage
The Arguments: ElectohippiesDoS
The Arguments 2: Dead Cow
• “No rationale, even in the service of the highest ideals, makes them anything other than what they are -- illegal, unethical, and uncivil” (Ruffin 2000).
DoS
SOLIDARITYCase 4: Green Twitter, Location Tehran, Facebook for Monks
Arik Fraimovich (@arikfr)set up helpiranelection.com & seeks support for the protesters in Iran. Support by “greening” the Twitter avatar
ORGANISATION
HSBCFRA & the Bloggquake (bloggbävning)
COMMUNICATIONCase 6
Thank you!