Internet universality

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Internet Universality
)

Internet universality is a concept and framework adopted by

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."[1]

Through the concept of Internet universality, UNESCO highlights four fields of Internet policy and practice: access to information and knowledge, freedom of expression, privacy, ethics and behavior online.

A framework named ROAM was developed by UNESCO in order to investigate and evaluate the universality of the Internet in different countries. The framework is based on four normative principles agreed on by UNESCO member states: human rights, openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder participation, summarized in the acronym R-O-A-M.[2] The principles represent a way for UNESCO to create a tool to comprehend Internet governance: the Internet Universality indicators.

History

The term was agreed on by UNESCO's General Conference in 2015 as a means to integrate UNESCO's work into the framework of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). It is part of UNESCO's project to fulfil the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. During the 37th session of the General Conference, UNESCO Member States affirmed the principle of applicability of human rights in cyberspace. The concept of Internet universality was then built upon the 'CONNECTing the dots' conference outcome document on 3–4 March 2015.[3] UNESCO's Deputy Director General, Mr. Getachew Engida, in closing the 'CONNECTing the dots' conference, stated: "The Internet and all new information and communication must be at the heart of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda - as a transformational force and a foundation for building the knowledge societies we need."[2]

The principles of Internet Universality

Wider context

The Internet can connect an

mobile Internet, and the Internet of Things (IoT), include developments such as cloud computing, big data, and robotics, which are part of networked technologies. Biometrics and other technologies help develop network applications
for reasons such as personal identification and security, and are also incorporated into this definition.

By 2014, over three billion people had gained access to the Internet from around the world.[a] However, those with access to it often may not access all of its content, due to language barriers, and skills deficits.[8][2] The global diffusion of the Internet is progressing, while public knowledge about the Internet is changing with it, in ways ranging from mobile applications and payment systems to social media and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). It has also become involved in economic development.[2]

Internet Universality Principles: R-O-A-M

The R-O-A-M principles are a theoretical framework for assessing the state of play of each key fields of Internet policy. The framework underscores a set of principles that are applied to the Internet by focusing on human rights, as well as openness, accessibility and multi-stakeholder participation.[2]

Rights-based

The Internet changes the perception of human rights.

digital and extra-digital life.[2]

Openness

UNESCO and the United Nations' ideas, applied to the Internet, discuss

interdependent.[2]

Accessibility

The Internet puts forward the discussion of digital divides, digital inequalities, and exclusions based on skills, literacy, language, gender or disability. Business models for Internet activity may also be created to increase individuals' trust in the preservation, quality, integrity, security, accessibility, and authenticity of information on it.[2]

Multi-stakeholders participation

Main article:
Multi-stakeholder governance

The concept of participation in decision-making has been part of the Internet from its outset[10] due to incorporating users and their perspectives in developing, using, and governing it.

It is possible to define a number of categories of stakeholders in the Internet, with subgroups as well: State, businesses and industries,

international governmental organization, research actors, individuals, and others. Each of these categories has different stakes in the future of the Internet, but there are also areas of great overlap and interdependence. For instance, some NGOs, are likely to prioritize the promotion of the concept of human rights; meanwhile, parliaments are primary actors in defining laws to make decisions on that concept. Other stakeholders are search engine providers, and Internet Service Providers (ISPs).[11] Individuals also play a part in the concept of rights on the Internet.[2]

Cross-cutting factors

Aside from the four main factors (R-O-A-M), UNESCO has also identified five different cross-cutting factors. Of the five, two of them are concerned with gender and age equality, one is concerned with sustainable development (i.e. what part does the internet play in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals developed by the UN), the fourth is concerned with the concepts of internet trust and security, and the last is concerned with legal and ethical properties of the internet.[12]

Internet Universality Indicators

UNESCO has been developing Internet Universality indicators - based on the ROAM principles - as a tool for governments and other stakeholders to assess their own national Internet environments.[13] The research process was made to include consultations at global forums and a written questionnaire sent to key actors, but also a series of publications on internet freedom related issues such as encryption, the concept of hate speech online, privacy, digital safety, and journalism sources.[14] The outcome of this research was publicized in June 2018. The final indicators were to be submitted to the UNESCO Member States in the International Program for Development of Communication (IPDC) for endorsement.[2]

The indicators are divided into three different groups: quantitative indicators, qualitative indicators and institutional indicators (which concerns constitutional and legal arrangements). This has raised questions about the credibility of the indicators, as well as the difficulty of actually carrying out the research. Due to differences in data availability, difficulties may arise in assessing all indicators for all countries involved. However, as expressed by its draft, UNESCO believes that the indicators included in the framework should enable the indicators to provide evidence of the Internet environment as a whole. Other challenges that it faces include different definitions of terms like 'broadband', as well as the fact that most of the data is held by private companies and is not publicly available as a result.[citation needed]

The Four Major Fields of Focus

Access to Information and Knowledge

ethnicity, or accessibility by those with disabilities.[15][16][2]

Freedom of Expression

Main article: Freedom of speech

Freedom of expression entails the ability to safely express one's views over the Internet, ranging from the rights of Internet users to freedom of expression online, through to press freedom and the safety of journalists, bloggers and human rights advocates, along with policies that increase an open exchange of views and a respect for free online expression. Privacy refers broadly to Internet practices and policies that allow individuals to have a personal space, and to control access to their personal information. Privacy, therefore, allows individuals to freely express their ideas without fear of reprisals.[2]

Privacy

Main article: Privacy

Privacy protection is a concept related to the promotion of openness and transparency, and its greater use for social and economic development.[2]

Ethics

Main article: Ethics

Ethics considers whether the tendencies, rules, and procedures that govern online behavior, along with the design of the Internet and related digital media, are based on principles anchored in human rights-based principles and protect the dignity and safety of individuals in cyberspace and advance accessibility, openness, and inclusiveness on the Internet. Issues such as discrimination on the basis of gender, age, or disabilities, along with the intentions of practices and policies that may lead to it, and their outcomes fall under this field.[2]

Challenges to Internet Universality

As the World Wide Web and related digital media have evolved, they have come to serve many diverse purposes for many different actors, (e.g. household entertainment, government surveillance). Technical innovations are altering traditional business models, such as in the provision of news, and the structure of organizations, where traditional hierarchical reporting relationships have been challenged by many-to-one and many-to-many networks of communication that span organizational boundaries.

Policy

See also: Human rights and encryption

As digital media has been a force behind the convergence of formerly more distinct technologies of the past, such as the telephone and mass media, policy and regulation have moved more slowly in comparison. A worldwide ecology of policies and regulations changes local and global outcomes of the Internet on access to information and knowledge, freedom of expression, privacy, and ethics.[17][18][19] Such policy choices are also being considered by multiple actors at all levels, since they are concerned that the policies and practices governing the Internet could undermine principles and purposes they view as fundamental to the Internet, whether those values are centered on freedom of expression, the privacy of personal information, or ethical conduct, and whether the implications are perceived to be immediate or long-term.[2]

Blocking, Filtering, and Content Regulation

filtering, and content regulation are common areas of concern for NGO's and International Organizations, such as UNESCO. These measures impact how citizens impart information and opinions, as well as access to online content. In many cases, users might not realize that content has been filtered or blocked. There was some recognition that there is reason in some contexts to block certain content, such as material that incites violence. This raises the question of how to draw the line in specific cases about what to block, for how long, in what proportion, and with what transparency and redress mechanism.[b]

Another issue is holding intermediaries liable for certain digital content as if they were its publishers—for example, making social media

filtering of Internet content would be the exception to free flow of information, and that such actions fulfill the conditions of due purpose, necessity, proportionality, and transparency, and are authorized under relevant law and policy.[2] Furthermore, multiple actors, including individual users can identify instances of censorship and expose these cases to the court of public opinion. In such ways, the Internet has the potential for enabling individual Internet users to hold institutions and other users more accountable for their actions online, creating what has been called a 'Fifth Estate', analogous to the Fourth Estate of the press.[21][2]

User Targeting and Profiling

private companies, and in infrastructure.[2]

Expression and Identification

Freedom of expression is influenced by related issues of privacy, anonymity, and encryption.[2]

Anonymity

Anonymity is considered as a prerequisite for the expression of unpopular or critical speech. Anonymity is sometimes viewed as contributing to speech going outside of international standards of human rights law for protected speech, such as hate speech. Despite this perception, academic research has not established that removing anonymity and requiring the identification of speakers would prevent speech considered to be insensitive or hurtful, which is often fostered by a larger set of circumstances, such as a failure of users sitting at a computer to fully realize that they are communicating with a real person. Anonymity may also impact public debate online. In some countries, participants would refrain from participating in discussions on certain topics, such as those of gay rights or domestic abuse, for fear of identification and persecution.[2]

Data Protection and Surveillance

Whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden, helped identify the mass surveillance of communications metadata, as a response in relation to a security problem. Concerns were also expressed during the 'CONNECTing the dots' conference about surveillance tools, which were originally built to address severe crimes, but being used to collect personal information about dissidents, or sometimes from all citizens. Further concerns were expressed over transparency on how data is collected or used for security investigations. Manipulation of security practices, such as the introduction of 'back doors' into software, which were originally made to allow legitimate government access, can leave Internet users vulnerable to illegitimate threats.[2]

Jurisdictional Issues

There are a certain number of obstacles in maintaining and promoting

freedom of expression via regulation and regulatory frameworks. Due to its globalized and borderless nature, the Internet can be seen as inherently unregulated. There is, for example, a difficulty in establishing state-based regulation, due to content being able to be hosted and accessed by those in multiple countries. UNESCO considers that governments role is not to restrict freedoms, but rather to ensure that certain concepts—including communication-related rights—are protected.[2]

Sources

 This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 IGO (license statement/permission). Text taken from Keystones to foster inclusive Knowledge Societies​, 107, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/crosscutting-priorities/unesco-internet-study/.

Notes

  1. ^ Internet World Stats estimates that there were 3,035,749,340 Internet users by 30 June 2014, constituting 42.3% of the global population of 7.2B people.[7]
  2. ^ This common example originated in 1919 with US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.[20]

References

  1. ^ "Internet Universality". UNESCO. 10 July 2017. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Keystones to foster inclusive Knowledge Societies (PDF). UNESCO. 2015. p. 107.
  3. ^ "Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action" (PDF). UNESCO. 5 March 2015. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  4. ^ a b Dutton, W. H. (1999). Society on the Line. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. ^ Castells, M.; Himanen, P., eds. (2014). Reconceptualizing Development in the Global Information Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. ^ Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  7. ^ "World Internet User Statistics and 2014 World Population Stats". www.internetworldstats.com. 30 June 2014. Archived from the original on 17 December 2014.
  8. ^ Qui, J.L. (2009). Working-Class Network Society: Communication Technology and the Information Have-Less in Urban China. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  9. ^ "General Conference 37th | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization". www.unesco.org. Retrieved 2018-01-27.
  10. ^ van der Spuy, Anri (2017). What if we all governed the Internet? Advancing multistakeholder participation in Internet governance (PDF). UNESCO. Retrieved 10 November 2017.
  11. ^ MacKinnon, R.; Hickok, E.; Bar, A.; Lim, Hae-in (2015). Fostering Freedom of Expression Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries (PDF). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  12. ISSN 2624-6511
    .
  13. ^ "Freedom of Expression on the Internet". UNESCO. 25 October 2017. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  14. ^ "UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom". UNESCO. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  15. ^ Lee, F. L. F.; Leung, L.; Qiu, J. L.; Chu, D. S. C., eds. (2013). Frontiers in New Media Research. New York: Tayor & Francis Routledge.
  16. ^ Gutierrez, A.; Trimmiño, A. M. (2009). Social Inclusion Through ICT: La Boquilla, Columbia. pp. 228–240. in Cardoso, G.; Cole, J., eds. (2009). World Wide Internet. Macau: University of Macau.
  17. ^ Dutton, W. H.; Dopatka, A.; Hills, M.; Law, G.; Nash, V. (2011). Freedom of Connection, Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet (PDF). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 30 December 2014.
  18. ^ Mendel, T.; Puddephatt, A.; Wagner, B.; Hawtin, D.; Torres, N. (2012). Global Survey on Internet Privacy and Freedom of Expression (PDF). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  19. ^ MacKinnon, R.; Hickok, E.; Bar, A.; Lim, Hae-in (2015). Fostering Freedom of Expression Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries (PDF). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  20. ^ Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (U.S. 3 March 1919).
  21. S2CID 153470450
    .
  22. ^ Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Press.
  23. ^ "OHCHR | Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights". www.ohchr.org. paras. 12, 13, 14. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_universality&oldid=1210731125"