Dear viewer, these subtitles were generated by a machine via the service Trint and therefore are (very) buggy. If you are capable, please help us to create good quality subtitles: https://c3subtitles.de/talk/222 Thanks!
So this is our next speaker,
his step.
He works at Amnesty Germany
in the new Digital Task Force, Digital
at Amnesty, and he will talk about human
rights and technology. Please welcome
him.
Hello, everybody.
Thanks for coming.
First of all, I'd like to to to
thank the organizers of this great
Congress for inviting me.
Um, I'm really glad to be
here today.
Um, first of all, because
as far as I know, this is the first time
that Amnesty International is present at
a hacker con Congress.
And
many of you have approached me in
the past few days
asking me, why hasn't
Amnesty been active in the field of
digital rights before?
And frankly, I can't
speak for the whole organization.
I'm here as a kind of a spokesperson
for Digital at Amnesty, a new
task force
who just has
been established informally
in within the determined
section of Amnesty International.
And I don't
know why Amnesty hasn't addressed
digital rights with a special
focus yet, but I think
what I can say for me is
that of our group is that we
will
try to put
a focus on on these topics in the future.
And um, I
would like to
start off.
We have a look at the UM at
the first slide. My Um, the subtitle
of my presentation today is A New Hope,
The Empire Strikes Back.
Star Wars fans will know
what that actually where that actually
comes from.
Um, and
if we
have a look at what kind of
human rights issues we've had in the
past, um, and with a focus
on digital on
the digital world, um, there have been
a few and
I've
found my um
and talk has been reduced from 60 minutes
to 30 minutes. So I'm not going to go
into details about that.
But there have been a couple of human
rights issues like that. She talks, for
example, where she now has been released
a couple of weeks ago.
Um, but he's been imprisoned
for, um,
for a long time
by the Chinese government because he
once um,
he he blocked on
the internet. He just made
use of his right to freedom
of speech
and
with the help of Yahoo.
A US company, he
has been his his
contact details and his IP
addresses have been
tracked down and so he could
be detained.
I think this is what really
shows that, um,
there is something to the internet that
has some relevance for for
our human rights and for the possibility
to exercise these human
rights.
It is on the New Hope light because,
as I said, she tao has
been released a couple of weeks
ago.
Um, on
the New Hope slate also, of course,
the Arab Spring movement and what came
from that?
I think just this has been,
um, this has shown really
great relevance to, um, to
the human rights movement as a whole that
digital communications technology
has been used.
Um, bloggers
and Facebook members
have communicated
and have tried to
come together and to to, um,
organize meetings and organize,
um, public
public
demonstrations,
um,
in the course of the Arab Spring.
Um, what we call the Arab
Spring.
Um, on the other hand, there have
been new ways to impart information
like WikiLeaks, for
example.
Um, think of the, uh, Afghanistan
and Iraq, uh um,
information on
human rights violations that have been
documented for the first time by these
by these documents.
And of course, they've
the
much, much bigger
if she was to release of
secret U.S.
diplomatic cables
by WikiLeaks.
And uh,
as
the process has shown,
um,
assisted by um,
Chelsea Manning,
Amnesty International itself
has made use of tools, uh,
for a better exercise of human rights.
Like the panic button, the panic button
is kind of a hidden
button on your smartphone where
human rights defenders can
try to
set in or kind of,
um,
I don't
try to get out of an
emergency situation by pushing that
button, and that
leads to somebody
getting cold and cold so
he can come to the rescue.
No, that's the wrong one.
On the other hand.
And that's the Empire Strikes Back
slide as
what came out of the Arab Spring.
We have a kind of
set back on these
what really
um,
these demonstrators had in mind
when they started their uprisings.
WikiLeaks has
practically been closed.
So there was some
problems, too, to
make payments to the way to the wiki,
to WikiLeaks,
with
problems with credit card transactions
and so on.
Julian Assange is now an
embassy asylum in Ecuador
and
Chelsea Manning the informant.
The whistleblower who actually disclosed
the US cable files, is in
prison for
thirty five years.
That's at least the sentence
for now.
And on the other hand, we know
there are not only tools to
the information society, it doesn't only
provide tools to to
enable or to facilitate the exercise of
human rights, but also, on the other
hand, tools to violate
human rights.
Technology has evolved quickly, and
now we're close to
what could be described a total
surveillance state.
And I think this is.
What the Edward Snowden case
shows,
what digital human rights,
after
all, and
I'd like to start off by
making a reference to the UM
to a resolution of the
Human Rights Council adopted in
July 2005 2012,
um,
stating that human rights are basically
technologically neutral.
Um, they are
universal.
That's a fact that has been,
uh, that has been accepted
from the very beginning.
So they don't, uh,
apply just in the offline world, but
also in the online world.
And this resolution has made it clear,
um, again,
the Human Rights Council
has affirmed that the same rights
that people have offline must also be
protected online, and it's
made space as a special
reference to the to the freedom
of expression in this regard.
But there are, of course, a number of
other human rights that have a special
relevance for, uh, um, for
the digital world.
And I just, uh,
um,
after I just, uh,
I just give you a short impression
of what rights we
considered to have that special
relevance. It's not only the freedom of
expression, it's also the right
to access to information to impart
information, the right to privacy,
the right to the personal protection of
personal data.
Um, that might be a controversy
about the actual extent to which
copyright or other intellectual
property rights might and might be,
um,
might be human rights and
what the limitations may be.
Um, the freedom of assembly.
Um, we could think of, uh,
like, uh, denial of service
attacks or other forms
of political protest as
far as they are connected to a political
aim.
Um, and then there's
the question of is there anything
like, uh, a virtual home that
needs to be protected?
If you think back to the attendance
might might think back to the UM
to the ruling of the Federal
Constitutional Court.
Um, saying that there
is a new fundamental right
to the integrity of IP systems
and that's basically what could be
discussed in this context.
So, um,
as I said, I don't have much time.
I go through the Snowden,
uh, slides, uh,
quite quickly. I think um,
and these files, these these slides
are
I
have two main parts,
as I can tell you, the uh, the the first
part is, um, the one on
the informant, the informant, the
whistleblower Edward Snowden.
What human rights does he
have? Which human rights are relevant in
this case, that could have been violated?
And the other one is on
his disclosures.
Um, so what human rights are at
stake in this regard?
Um,
is there
a human right to the protection as a
whistleblower?
Um, I think all human rights
organizations agree and this,
uh, that there is a human
right to the protection as a
whistleblower.
And um, this,
uh, this
is also backed by, uh,
uh, um, for example,
uh, um,
for
example, by the by the European
Court of Human Rights.
Um, who has said that, um,
what is actually at stake here
is the information of freedom is,
um, the right to freely seek
access and impart information.
And as part of that, there might
be a right of somebody who
is actually might even be legally
obligated to keep a secret.
And he might even be allowed
to, uh, impart this information,
even if it's classified with a public,
um,
subject to certain conditions, of course.
And this is also Amnesty's, uh,
Amnesty's opinion that the
freedom of expression and the information
freedom is, um
um uh,
is limited in this regard.
And
uh,
as regards the, uh, the rules
that must be, uh, the
must be applied with,
um, there
need to be national whistleblower
laws that.
That effectively protect these
whistleblowers,
and
they must effectively protect them from
excessive sanctions like laws
must see that they
are not um,
they are not excessively punished if
they release information
in the public, interest must be
considered in any way
so that if there is public
interest in certain information, this
can override a legal
obligation to keep a secret.
And one must also consider the
real damage that has that these
information or the release of this
information has on state
secrets or on
legitimate, legitimate
aims of the state.
Um, this is
just what the European Court of Human
Rights has said on, uh,
on this. In this regard,
there's little scope for restrictions on
debate of questions of public interest.
Um, and that
actually applies in general.
So
even if there there might be
some, uh, some negative
impacts of that for
the state and this information
being released, um.
Public interest can can justify
this.
And on the other hand, in another case
in York versus Moldova,
he said, some criteria for the assessment
of the proportionality.
So a narrow definition
of what what can be released and what
cannot be released on the under the
information of freedom.
Right.
Um, these are, for example,
these are criteria that have to be
assessed and in
this analysis, whether or not a
whistleblower is protected by human
rights. And this is, for example, the
whether there exist alternative channels
to remedy the wrongdoing.
Could he go to his
officials to tell
his bosses and say
that there's information that needs
to be out in the public
or that
there are some
wrongdoings of the state that
need to be addressed?
Um, has he sought these
alternative channels if they
exist?
Is there any public interest
in the disclosures?
As I said, there might be,
you know, this might be an overriding,
um,
interest
is of the information
and
the authenticity of the information needs
to be assessed. So, um uh,
is is it credible
that this, uh, these documents are
true?
Um, and what is the actual damage to the
state, to the authority?
Um, in this regard, and
last not least, the motive of
the whistleblower, did he act
to,
uh,
the public
good
or did he just because
he wanted to?
Um, he he wanted to
do harm
to the state's legitimate
goals or interests?
Um, there there are some principles
that have been drafted.
Um uh,
these are on on the right
to the protection of a whistleblower.
And these are, for example, the, uh, the
Johannesburg principles of 1996
on national security, freedom of
expression and access to information.
Um, and these give some guidelines in
how these whistleblowers can actually,
um,
be protected and
what is a legitimate national security
interest that
can
prevent whistleblowers
from protection.
Um, and the recently adopted,
UH, Swain 20 principles
on national security and the right to
information, um have also been
signed by Amnesty International.
They give further guidance
in this regard.
I have for time reason.
I can't go into details on that.
Um.
So what
have has actually been
the problem the US had with, uh,
um
uh, Snowden releases.
Um, they accused him
of theft of government property
of unauthorized communication of national
defense information and willful
communication of classified
communications intelligence information
to an unauthorized person.
These were the three charges
were brought up.
And Amnesty said in this regard that
the revelations about human rights
violations are covered by the right to
freedom of speech. So there's
clearly
not, um
um, a state interest that can
speak against the release of this
information and any trial against Edward
Snowden would amount to political
persecution.
And these are couple of other aspects
of the Snowden case.
Um uh,
with regard to his seeking asylum
in Russia and
could he be extradited and
and stuff like that?
And um, what about the Guardian?
Um, pressure
and
the pressure and put by the U.K.
government on on the Guardian to destroy
files and hard disks and and on
David Miranda to, um
uh, give information about
this
case.
On the other hand, we have the
information that has been released
and that gives, uh,
credible evidence of massive human rights
violations
and
what Amnesty
has set into. And this report is
basically that,
um,
the right to privacy is
has been violated.
Um, and the right to privacy is a human
right that is enshrined in
many, uh, human rights
international human rights instruments
such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
and also at a regional level, UM
in the European Convention on Human
Rights.
And it needs to be said because
this is exactly what the US
government and also what U.S.
jurisprudence denies
that from the right to privacy
and covered not only the content
of the messages but also the metadata.
And this is crucial in this regard
because, as has shown, the
phone data tapping for, for example,
um, with a Verizon order,
um uh
um, allows exactly that.
Metadata of telephone calls are
stored for
a long period.
There are certain limits.
Um, and with regard to
the encroachment of the rights of privacy
in this, uh, for example, that any
surveillance measures must
be based on a legal norm, so
they must be lawful.
Um, but this is not everything,
and they must also pursue a legitimate
aim.
Um, national security may
be, uh, um, legitimate
aim, but
this is something that needs to be
narrowly defined.
And thirdly,
any encroachment needs to be
proportionate.
So
what is also,
um, uh,
what is also at stake
here is the freedom of expression.
Um, and a recent
Pen America survey has shown that
nearly twenty five percent of all writers
know this is the writers association
and twenty five percent of all writers
and questioned said that they, uh,
that the disclosures of the NSA
files have led
them to tend to think
about what they actually write and
what they don't.
So I think this is a very worrying
statement that shows that
there is a significant chilling effect
to the UM to the exercise of female
freedom, to the freedom of
expression in this regard.
Um, and that it's not
only the right of privacy that is
at stake here.
Amnesty International has also
said that there is a um,
there's an interference with the
information of freedom
and it has done so
for a human rights claim made to the
IPT.
And that is the Investigatory Powers
Tribunal in the UK and
the only official
body that can judge
on secret surveillance
measures in this regard.
Um, Amnesty International
has said that
the reception by the UK of information
from the US intercepted for
prisoner and upstream programs
um
the use by the UK as a temporary program
and the lack of the
sufficiency of the UK legal framework
regulating those operations, um
violate human rights and it has made,
uh,
it has made a case that, um, the complete
lack of a proper legal basis.
And um,
regarding the use of us
intercepted information,
um
violates human rights and also and
the disproportionate application
of these information.
And on the other hand, at the end of the
current legal framework
in place in UK
regulatory
UM, the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act,
UM,
which governs the surveillance
in the UK, is woefully inadequate
and urgently needs reform.
So, um, and
and also that there are no effective
safeguards in this
act.
Um, regarding the surveillance
of external communications and
there are some, some limits within
proximity to internal communications.
But communications that go without
the UK are not effectively
protected.
And on the other hand, Amnesty's right,
as I've just said, to seek receive
any information. So the information of
freedom is, um,
unlawfully impaired by the fact that the
sources would be discouraged to
communicate with amnesty.
So Amnesty has a lot of
informants on human rights violations
all over the world, and these
sources might be,
um um, might be
deterred from communicate with amnesty
if they knew that
their communications are
intercepted.
There are a
couple of other initiatives which I don't
have time to go into detail
right now. I'm most prominently,
I think, the um
human uh, the claim brought before the
European Court of Human Rights,
um
by Big Brother Watch, the open
government partnership
and constant reports of the
Chaos Computer Club.
And um
yeah,
and let's not forget that, um,
even the German government has taken
an initiative together
with the Brazilian government
on a General
Assembly resolution at the UN
General Assembly on the right to privacy
in the digital age that has been adopted
unanimously by all
UN member states.
You're a couple of other initiatives.
I think I should come to a
conclusion on this.
Um, so
what
is the actual impact?
Uh, of all this?
I think, um, evidence
has shown that human rights
are being trampled in the name of
national security.
And um,
well, nobody can give a proper
international, internationally consistent
definition of what national security
actually is.
So this is even more worrying.
And to the year to the
Five Eyes, uh, intelligence
agencies, um, just about anything
that secures their power in the world
seems to be justified for it, for
national security purposes.
And anything in the national interest
seems actually apt to counter attacks
on the
national security.
Technology can can solve a lot of these
issues, but not everything.
If you, for example, uh, encrypt
your communication.
This, uh, applies to your content, but
not to the metadata.
Uh, if you use Tor, you can anonymize
your communication and we'll see you
metadata, but that makes you suspicious
and thus NSA's target.
Um, you can pimp your PC security.
That's fine, but if you really think
this will prevent the NSA from breaking
in.
Personally, I don't think
you
can, so you can engage in the
security. Raised with the NSA
practically, and um, you.
Um, but
you will probably lose this game.
Um, so
what actually can make a difference is
political solutions.
Um, and I think in this regard,
we need
some
cooperation.
We need to join our forces.
Um, because
as everyone has said, if you think your
technology can solve your security
problems, then you don't understand
technology and you don't understand
your problems.
Um,
so um, quickly
go forward.
Um, move over to to, uh, to a quote
by Tim Berners-Lee.
And he said, I believe we have reached a
critical juncture where if we do not
unite and fight for our rights to
privacy, freedom of information, freedom
of association and freedom of expression
in this new digital world, it will be
taken away.
Human rights defenders like Amnesty are
critical to win the battle.
Decide that Amnesty is a new, newly
evolving task force at
jammin level, and we hope that we're
we're going to find,
uh,
a lot of other sections within Amnesty
International that will join us.
But we also need you.
We need, uh,
the
hackers. We need the hackers community
we have. We need digital
rights activists, um,
from other organizations to join
us and to cooperate with us.
Um, because
there is cooperation on the other side as
well. And we know that
national security agencies and
intelligence agencies all over the world
cooperate,
um,
to violate our human rights.
So what we should do is
to cooperate in fighting these
violations.
What is your share in this cooperation
or what could be your share, your
technical know how, of course, and
your community, that is
very networked, and I have to say
this again, that Amnesty
is an newbie
on this stage with regard to the digital
rights. We have said
a couple of times in the Chelsea Manning
case, for example, and WikiLeaks
on this case.
We have been involved in all this and
we have um
voiced our concerns, but
not
not as focused as we are trying to
do that now.
And you do that for a long time.
There are citizen rights groups and
there I know personally in Germany and
they do that for a long time.
And that's
still I think we need to join
forces on that.
What is our share?
I think Amnesty has a very good standing.
Um. And what have we got?
Human rights. We are a global
organization with three million
supporters worldwide.
Um, we have
a high credibility because we are an
independent and impartial organization
that has consultative status with
some of the U.N.
bodies that are concerned with human
rights issues, the Human Rights Council
and the ECOSOC.
So I believe that, um
uh, both
you and us, we have a lot
in common. We have common goals and we
should use that to cooperate,
um,
in order to in order to,
um, fight this
war on privacy that has taken place
and that has been disclosed by Edward
Snowden, but also on other digital
rights issues
that are relevant.
And Eric Schmidt, in a famous
statement, comes to my mind when I
heard that,
um, these
disclosures, um, they were actually
meant,
uh,
they were actually meant with regard
to users privacy.
Um, he said, if
you don't, I have
a find that here, um.
Because I don't remember it exactly.
If you have something that you don't want
anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be
doing it in the first place.
And I think with regard to user
privacy, this is really
an inappropriate statement.
But if you turn it on to
the intelligence agencies and it suddenly
makes sense and you
shouldn't be doing that
if you keep it secret, and
maybe it's for
a reason that you don't want anybody
to know what you're doing against
human rights.
And so in the end, what can you
do to take action?
We would like to invite you to our
assembly and we will
hold a self-organized session at 3:00
p.m. at the noisy square and
would like to discuss with you what
we can do, how we can take part in
the movement
and
what we can actually,
um,
how we can actually cooperate better
together. Because I think at national
level, we've done
too little, too little to join our forces
by now and we can do more.
So I would like to cordially invited
you to this session.
And with
this,
I think I'm already over time, so
I would
like to
thank you all and
hopefully see you soon at 3pm.
Thank you.