International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance

Last updated

The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (also called the "Necessary and Proportionate Principles" or just "the Principles") is a document officially launched at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in September 2013 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation [1] which attempts to "clarify how international human rights law applies in the current digital environment". [2] Communications surveillance (that is to say, mass surveillance of communications) conflicts with a number of international human rights, mainly that of privacy. As a result, communications surveillance may only occur when prescribed by law necessary to achieve legitimate aim, and proportionate to the aim used. [3] [4] [5]

Contents

The document consists of 13 principles developed to provide society groups, industry, governments, and others with a framework to assess whether current and proposed surveillance laws or statutes conflict with International Human Rights law. [6]

History

The inception of the principles occurred as a result of a meeting between over 40 experts in privacy and security in Brussels, October 2012. After the initial consultation, a second meeting in Rio de Janeiro took place in December 2012 with the participation of the United Nations Special Rapporteur. [7] Global consultation followed via conference calls every month between January and May 2013. [8] The drafting process, led by Access Now, EFF and Privacy International, along with several NGO's, Criminal Lawyers, Human rights advocates and privacy advocates were finalized and published for the first time on 10 July 2013 online at www.necessaryandproportionate.org. [9]

In September 2013 at the 24th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, they were launched officially.

The principles have now been adopted globally by more than 400 organizations. The global adoption necessitated a number of primarily superficial textual changes in the language of the document for the purposes of translation. This occurred between March and May 2014. [10]

The effect and intention of the principles remained the same, and the final and authoritative version of the document was then launched in May 2014. [11]

Political Support Prior to the Publication of the Principles

The initial release followed a report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion in April 2013, which highlights the widespread practice of states surveying communications, stating that such surveillance severely undermines citizens' ability to enjoy a private life, freely express themselves and enjoy their other fundamental human rights. [12]

In July 2013 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, emphasized the importance of applying human right standards and democratic safeguards to surveillance and law enforcement activities:"While concerns about national security and criminal activity may justify the exceptional and narrowly-tailored use of surveillance programmes, surveillance without adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy actually risk impacting negatively on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms." [13]

Purpose

The purpose of the principles was to provide civil society groups, states, the courts, legislative and regulatory bodies, industry and others with a framework to evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws comply with International Human Rights. [14]

The concern was that key protections to privacy had been eroded away with technological advancements, therefore needed robust support in some areas to raise international human rights to the standards which had developed in the pre-digital age. [15]

The Principles

The following is a summary of the document containing the principles. All below is source from the actual document itself, except where noted. [16]

Preamble

The preamble of the document recognizes that Communications Surveillance interferes with the Right to privacy, therefore can only be used when it is prescribed by law, necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and proportionate to the aim pursued. [17] [18] [19] The view of the document is that existing human rights law has not kept up with the progression of technology. The preamble states that the threat to these rights combined with the increase in popularity of using communications content and metadata that states are not placing "sufficient restrictions on how they can be subsequently used by States". [20] [21]

Scope of Application

To get the correct scope and purpose of application for the document, it is required to be read and interpreted as part of a larger framework rather than as individual principles. Application of this document is to apply both within states and extra territorially, regardless of purpose.

It is to apply for protection of the individual from the state, and also states there is an obligation of states to protect individuals from non-state actors. [22]

The document states that unless the principles are applied this way, a State conducting Communications Surveillance may not meet International Human Rights obligations. The principles are stated to "articulate the duties and obligations of States when engaging in Communications Surveillance". [23]

Changing Definitions and Technology

This section of the document is dedicated to the interpretation of certain terms found throughout the document, and highlighting that some of the legal definitions used may not have effectively kept pace with technological change, and require reiteration. The principles state that the because of the increased ability of communications surveillance, the existing legal framework which currently distinguishes between 'content' and 'non-content' is no longer appropriate, and protection from all types of surveillance should be given a higher legal priority.

The Principles

Legality

Any limitation imposed on an International Human Rights must be prescribed by law. Sufficient notice should be given if a proposed law is going to limit one of these rights. The law should be clear, and given periodic review to ensure it remains effective given the speed of technological development.

Legitimate Aim

Communications surveillance should only be used by permitted state authorities where necessary in a democratic society. Any situation where discrimination arises should not be used.

Necessity

Surveillance laws should be limited to those which are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, or where there are multiple means but Communications Surveillance is the least intrusive method on International Human Rights. The onus of establishing necessity should remain with the state [24]

Adequacy

Any communications surveillance authorized by law must be appropriate for the legitimate aim it is fulfilling.

Proportionality

Communications Surveillance is regarded as a highly intrusive act, and therefore must consider the sensitivity and severity of the situation. The state should establish the following prior to conducting communications surveillance:

  • There is a high chance of serious crime or specific threat
  • There is a high degree of probability that relevant evidence will be obtained.
  • Other less invasive techniques have been exhausted, such that communications surveillance is the least intrusive method
  • Information collected will be confined to only which is relevant
  • Excess information obtained will be returned or destroyed
  • The information accesses will be used by the specific authority for the purpose the authority was given
  • The requested authority to use communications surveillance does not undermine the purpose of the right to privacy or other fundamental freedoms.

Competent Judicial Authority

The authority determining the validity of the communications surveillance must be independent of those conducting the surveillance, and be competent when making these decisions.

Due Process

That everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by a competent judicial authority. Due process can be used interchangeably with "procedural fairness" and "natural justice" [25] [26]

User Notification

Those subjects of Communication Surveillance should be given the opportunity to challenge the decision when a decision authorizing Surveillance has been issued. The materials presented in support of the application should be available for those subjects. Delay in notification is acceptable where notification would frustrate the purpose of communication surveillance and authorization is granted by a competent judicial authority.

Transparency

Information about use and amount of Communication Surveillance should be available to those who request it. States should provide the requestor with information sufficient to ascertain the nature of the request and determine the size of both the request and those who will be affected by it. Records of requests for communications surveyed should also be published.

Public Oversight

States should establish an independent position to oversee the use of Communications Surveillance and to ensure transparency and accountability. The person(s) in this position would have sufficient authority to access all potentially relevant information, to assess whether the State is making legitimate use of its lawful capabilities, to evaluate whether the State has met its transparency obligations, and to make public determinations as to the lawfulness of those actions. The document in this instance makes reference to the United Kingdom's Interception of Communications Commissioner as an example of such an independent oversight mechanism. [27]

Integrity of communication and systems

States should not require those service providers or software/hardware vendors to build surveillance/monitoring capability into their systems. People have a right to express themselves anonymously. [28]

Safeguards for International Cooperation

Where a state has entered into a mutual legal assistance treaty(MLAT) or other multi-jurisdictional agreement where more than one legal jurisdiction overlaps, the laws that apply are those which have the higher level of protection for the individual. MLAT's should also be transparent, publicly available and subject to guarantees of procedural fairness

Safeguards against illegitimate access and right to effective remedy

Communications surveillance by third parties should be prohibited with sufficient penalties. Protection for whistle-blowers should be enacted. Any information obtained by means not consistent with these principles should be inadmissible as evidence. Once information collected by communications surveillance has been used for the purpose for which it was collected it should be promptly destroyed or returned.

Response

In October 2013, The Principles were promoted in a brief filed before the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. They claim that "In a world of ever more complex technology, it is increasingly unclear whether the distinction between "meta-data" and other information carries much weight." [29] [30]

The Center for Democracy and Technology released a report noting overlap between the Principles and a December 9, 2013 proposal by tech groups such as AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo!. [31]

Now, the principles have over 400 organizations from across the world supporting the principles along with over 40 Experts, Academics and prominent individuals from over 17 countries, and 6 elected officials or political parties from 5 countries. [32]

The principles are now being used as model for reform of surveillance law and policy around the world and to provide a benchmark for measuring whether a State's surveillance practices comply with International Human Rights Law. [33]

Selected signatories of the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance

Related Research Articles

The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy. On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere; while right to privacy does not appear in the document, many interpret this through Article 12, which states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Artistic freedom can be defined as "the freedom to imagine, create and distribute diverse cultural expressions free of governmental censorship, political interference or the pressures of non-state actors." Generally, artistic freedom describes the extent of independence artists obtain to create art freely. Moreover, artistic freedom concerns "the rights of citizens to access artistic expressions and take part in cultural life—and thus [represents] one of the key issues for democracy." The extent of freedom indispensable to create art freely differs regarding the existence or nonexistence of national instruments established to protect, to promote, to control or to censor artists and their creative expressions. This is why universal, regional and national legal provisions have been installed to guarantee the right to freedom of expression in general and of artistic expression in particular. In 2013, Ms Farida Shaheed, United Nations special rapporteur to the Human Rights Council, presented her "Report in the field of cultural rights: The right to freedom of expression and creativity" providing a comprehensive study of the status quo of, and specifically the limitations and challenges to, artistic freedom worldwide. In this study, artistic freedom "was put forward as a basic human right that went beyond the 'right to create' or the 'right to participate in cultural life'." It stresses the range of fundamental freedoms indispensable for artistic expression and creativity, e.g. the freedoms of movement and association. "The State of Artistic Freedom" is an integral report published by arts censorship monitor Freemuse on an annual basis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of information</span> Freedom of a person or people to publish and consume information

Freedom of information is freedom of a person or people to publish and consume information. Access to information is the ability for an individual to seek, receive and impart information effectively. This sometimes includes "scientific, indigenous, and traditional knowledge; freedom of information, building of open knowledge resources, including open Internet and open standards, and open access and availability of data; preservation of digital heritage; respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, such as fostering access to local content in accessible languages; quality education for all, including lifelong and e-learning; diffusion of new media and information literacy and skills, and social inclusion online, including addressing inequalities based on skills, education, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and accessibility by those with disabilities; and the development of connectivity and affordable ICTs, including mobile, the Internet, and broadband infrastructures".

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) is a Washington, D.C.–based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organisation that advocates for digital rights and freedom of expression. CDT seeks to promote legislation that enables individuals to use the internet for purposes of well-intent, while at the same time reducing its potential for harm. It advocates for transparency, accountability, and limiting the collection of personal information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privacy International</span>

Privacy International (PI) is a UK-based registered charity that defends and promotes the right to privacy across the world. First formed in 1990, registered as a non-profit company in 2002 and as a charity in 2012, PI is based in London. Its current executive director, since 2012, is Dr Gus Hosein.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital rights</span> Type of human and legal rights

Digital rights are those human rights and legal rights that allow individuals to access, use, create, and publish digital media or to access and use computers, other electronic devices, and telecommunications networks. The concept is particularly related to the protection and realization of existing rights, such as the right to privacy and freedom of expression, in the context of digital technologies, especially the Internet. The laws of several countries recognize a right to Internet access.

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures granted increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, December 31, 2005, for most of the title's provisions. This was extended twice: on December 22, 2005 the sunset clause expiration date was extended to February 3, 2006 and on February 2 of the same year it was again extended, this time to March 10.

Source protection, sometimes also referred to as source confidentiality or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. It prohibits authorities, including the courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists.

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is a non-governmental organization with the dual goals of preventing Internet censorship by authoritarian governments and protecting the Internet privacy rights of individuals. It is sponsored by a coalition of multinational corporations, global non-profit organizations, and academic institutions. David Kaye (academic) is the Independent Chair of the Board. Mark Stephens (solicitor) was the previous Independent Chair.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yogyakarta Principles</span> Document about human rights in the areas of sexual orientation and gender identity

The Yogyakarta Principles is a document about human rights in the areas of sexual orientation and gender identity that was published as the outcome of an international meeting of human rights groups in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in November 2006. The principles were supplemented and expanded in 2017 to include new grounds of gender expression and sex characteristics and a number of new principles. However, the Principles have never been accepted by the United Nations (UN) and the attempt to make gender identity and sexual orientation new categories of non-discrimination has been repeatedly rejected by the General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies.

The right to Internet access, also known as the right to broadband or freedom to connect, is the view that all people must be able to access the Internet in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and opinion and other fundamental human rights, that states have a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is broadly available, and that states may not unreasonably restrict an individual's access to the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frank William La Rue</span> Guatemalan lawyer and civil liberties advocate

Frank La Rue is a Guatemalan labor and human rights law expert and served as UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, from August 2008 to August 2014. Along with American Human Rights attorneys, Anna Gallagher and Wallie Mason, Mr. La Rue is the founder of the Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) and has been involved in the promotion of human rights for over 25 years. He was nominated for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize by Mairead Corrigan, Northern Irish peace activist and 1976 laureate. Mr La Rue was previously the executive director of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Europe. He has also served as Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information at UNESCO.

New Zealand is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which contain a right to privacy. Privacy law in New Zealand is dealt with by statute and the common law. The Privacy Act 2020 addresses the collection, storage and handling of information. A general right to privacy has otherwise been created in the tort of privacy. Such a right was recognised in Hosking v Runting [2003] 3 NZLR 385, a case that dealt with publication of private facts. In the subsequent case C v Holland [2012] NZHC 2155 the Court recognised a right to privacy in the sense of seclusion or a right to be free from unwanted intrusion. For a useful summary see: court-recognises-intrusion-on-seclusion-privacy-tort-hugh-tomlinson-qc/

The right to sexuality incorporates the right to express one's sexuality and to be free from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Specifically, it relates to the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and the protection of those rights, although it is equally applicable to heterosexuality. The right to sexuality and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is based on the universality of human rights and the inalienable nature of rights belonging to every person by virtue of being human.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proposed reforms of mass surveillance by the United States</span>

Proposed reforms of mass surveillance by the United States are a collection of diverse proposals offered in response to the Global surveillance disclosures of 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015</span> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia that amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (original Act) and the Telecommunications Act 1997 to introduce a statutory obligation for Australian telecommunication service providers (TSPs) to retain, for a period of two years, particular types of telecommunications data (metadata) and introduces certain reforms to the regimes applying to the access of stored communications and telecommunications data under the original Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights and encryption</span> Use of encryption technology to ensure human rights are maintained

Human rights applied to encryption are a concept of freedom of expression, where encryption is a technical resource in the implementation of basic human rights.

Internet universality is a concept and framework adopted by UNESCO in 2015 to summarize their position on the Internet. The concept recognizes that "the Internet is much more than infrastructure and applications, it is a network of economic and social interactions and relationships, which has the potential to enable human rights, empower individuals and communities, and facilitate sustainable development."{{Citation needed}} The concept is based on four principles stressing the Internet should be human rights-based, open, accessible, and based on the multi-stakeholder participation. These have been abbreviated as the R-O-A-M principles. Understanding the Internet in this way helps to draw together different facets of Internet development, concerned with technology and public policy, rights and development."

The Toronto Declaration: Protecting the Rights to Equality and Non-Discrimination in Machine Learning Systems is a declaration that advocates responsible practices for machine learning practitioners and governing bodies. It is a joint statement issued by groups including Amnesty International and Access Now, with other notable signatories including Human Rights Watch and The Wikimedia Foundation. It was published at RightsCon on May 16, 2018.

The African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (AfDec) has been created in order to promote an Internet environment that conforms to established human rights standards and meets Africa's social and economic development needs. The Declaration was agreed on at the 2013 African Internet Governance Forum (AfIGF) in Nairobi, Kenya and launched in 2014 at the global Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul, Turkey. It provides a normative framework on which basis recommendations for policy and legislative processes on internet rights, freedoms and governance in Africa are made. They can be applied at national, sub-regional and regional levels.

References

  1. ↑ NECESSARY & PROPORTIONATE: International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, at Background History, May 2014
  2. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, at Preface, May 2014
  3. ↑ Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29; General Comment No. 27, Adopted by The Human Rights Committee Under Article 40, Paragraph 4, Of The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, November 2, 1999
  4. ↑ "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism," 2009, A/HRC/17/34.
  5. ↑ Frank La Rue, "Report of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council on the implications of States' surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression", 2013, A.HRC.23.40 EN
  6. ↑ Government Guide on the International Principles on the application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance
  7. ↑ UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, A/HRC/23/40, at para 10
  8. ↑ "Blog | Access". Archived from the original on 2015-03-22. Retrieved 2015-04-29.
  9. ↑ EFF, Necessary and Proportionate, article 19, May 2014 at 1
  10. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, at Insert, May 2014
  11. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance at Insert, May 2014
  12. ↑ Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression 10 April 2013
  13. ↑ Mass surveillance:Pillay urges respect for right to privacy and protection of individuals revealing human rights violations
  14. ↑ EFF, Necessary and Proportionate, article 19, May 2014 at 1
  15. ↑ EFF, Necessary and Proportionate, article 19, May 2014 at 2
  16. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, May 2014
  17. ↑ Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29; General Comment No. 27, Adopted by The Human Rights Committee Under Article 40, Paragraph 4, Of The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, November 2, 1999
  18. ↑ "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism," 2009, A/HRC/17/34.
  19. ↑ Frank La Rue, "Report of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council on the implications of States' surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression", 2013, A.HRC.23.40 EN
  20. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, Preamble, May 2014
  21. ↑ "2013 Year in Review: A Principled Fight Against Global Mass Surveillance | Electronic Frontier Foundation". Eff.org. 2013-12-30. Retrieved 2014-01-29.
  22. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, at Scope of Application, May 2014
  23. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, at Scope of Application, May 2014
  24. ↑ International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, at Principle of Necessity, May 2014
  25. ↑ European Convention for Human Rights, Article 6(1)
  26. ↑ The American Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
  27. ↑ Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office
  28. ↑ Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression 10 April 2013
  29. ↑ "Blog | Access". Accessnow.org. Archived from the original on 2014-02-11. Retrieved 2014-01-29.
  30. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-01-25. Retrieved 2014-01-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  31. ↑ "Common Ground Between Company and Civil Society Surveillance Reform Principles | Center for Democracy & Technology". Cdt.org. 2014-01-15. Retrieved 2014-02-03.
  32. ↑ List of Signatories
  33. ↑ 13 International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.