IGF 2022 Networking Session #32 Internet’s contrasts: rights/obligations, inclusion/exclusion, in/accessibility, dis/connection, ...

The Session took place on Tuesday 29 November 2022, from 06:00 AM to 07:00 AM UTC, during the 17th IGF in Addis Ababa and online, and was moderated by Evelyne Tauchnitz (onsite) and Caitlin McGeer (online). The session explored four topics:

1. the rights and obligations associated with accessing (using) the internet,
2. the new forms of inclusion and exclusion as well as inequality,
3. disconnection and connection, and
4. meaningful access and inaccessibility.

It addressed, more specifically, both from the theoretical and practical viewpoints, the need to respond to a series of societal challenges, recently emerged or escalated, concerning the internet (access), which were called ‘contrasts’: rights/obligations, inclusion/exclusion, in/accessibility, dis/connection, in/equality, in/efficiency, progress/regress, etc.

Dariusz Kloza of the Universiteit Gent referred to the gradual transformation of the right (freedom, entitlement, option) to access (use) the internet into an obligation, especially in domains such as e-administration, and investigated the role of the existing human rights’ legal framework in protecting individuals from such an obligation. At least two solutions are possible: the introduction of a completely new, sufficiently defined, realistically implementable and enforceable human right not to access (use) the internet or, alternatively, an interpretation of the existing human rights, such as the freedom of expression or the right to privacy, so that one is free not to use the internet; coercion, in general, is something bad. Nonetheless, these approaches might be subjected to certain limitations, where the principles of proportionality would be of help. He posited that, eventually, the right not to access (use) the internet is consistent with the right to access it, and these two should co-exist.

Anriette Esterhuysen of the Association for Progressive Communications stressed the need to ensure inclusivity before further embedding or reinforcing access to the internet as most policy efforts that attempt to safeguard internet‑related human rights and digital inclusion overlook the actual infrastructural capacity. She noted that we sometimes overlook that this emphasis on digital inclusion always emphasizes the digital rather than the inclusion, and that the more that we embed or require access to digital tools to exercise human rights, the more we actually exclude people who do not have access to it. She argued that particular attention needs to be paid to the most excluded people in our societies to prevent the emergence of the digital inequality paradox. 

Paolo Passaglia of the University of Pisa introduced three different possibilities for defining the right to access the internet. The first is the right to access the internet as a freedom, the second is the access to the internet is a means to enable other human rights, whereas the third – most importantly – is the social right. It requires states to act, require funding etc. Based on this classification, the speaker raised the question about whether implementing access to the internet should go-by-hand with an effort to safeguard the internet that actually complies with the purposes for which it was originally conceived. His analysis questioned the gate-keeping role of digital service providers and whether the internet, in its current form, deserves the creation of a right and even the policy prioritization of the need to protect it as a social right, probably at the expense of other social rights.

Rosanna Fanni of the Centre for European Policy Studies talked about the geographical spread of digital identification systems, their advantages in terms of providing access to a wide range of services and the risk of them creating structural power imbalances between the state, businesses and citizens. Since 103 countries have implemented some form of digital identification systems that use biometric data, the speaker emphasized the privacy and cybersecurity challenges and concerns that are associated with the processing of particular biometric data and the disproportionate control governments have over those digital identification systems. According to Fanni, given that digital ID systems are gradually becoming gatekeepers to access an increasingly large amount of goods and services, there is a risk of exclusion for those, especially minorities, that do not fit a predetermined notion of identity by the government and the systems. She concluded by stating the need to more closely examine the impact on human rights, the rule of law, and the people who will be included or excluded from those systems.

Giovanni De Gregorio of the Catholic University of Portugal pointed out the problem of network disruption and the different technical forms that disconnection takes nowadays such as discriminating traffic or sensoring the digital space, or online spaces such as social media. The impact of these disconnection tactics on human rights and the way these measures are used or implemented require further analysis. The speaker argued that the right to an (internet) connection should not only be associated with the freedom of expression but also with the actual capacity to use the internet architecture to achieve also network access.

Olga Gkotsopoulou of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel highlighted the need to approach the term ‘access’ beyond the boundaries of internet access or access to information/knowledge/literacy and, at least, look for whom access is provided. The speaker made particular reference to the accessibility of digital information by people with disabilities, elderly people and the general need to contextualize when we think of access and accessibility in the internet context.

Quito Tsui of the Engine Room discussed the duality of accessibility and inaccessibility through the lens of biometric use in the humanitarian sector. She referred to the fact that many humanitarian organizations are increasingly employing the use of biometric information for tracking the recipients of aid. Beyond its obvious benefits (making registration systems faster and more efficient), the speaker highlighted the concerns related to the accessibility of these systems and the processing of highly sensitive, physical information that is immutable and utterly unique. She then reflected on the different manners in which inaccessibility in the realm of digital technologies could be conceived. These include physical inaccessibility by those that do not have fingerprints or do not have sufficiently legible fingerprints to be recorded; the intricacies of the refugee/citizen registration system and the issue of biometric illiteracy that raises concerns related to the asymmetry of information that prevents true consent. The speaker concluded by bringing forward the issue of how technology increases the barrier to meaningful access for some of the most vulnerable individuals who are attempting to access their fundamental rights.

Georgios Terzis of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel introduced and noted six different ethical lenses to approach digital inclusion/exclusion, namely the utilitarian, contractualist, deontological, discourse, virtue and care ethics. These were explained in detail, especially concerning how they apply and affect the accessibility of digital services and technologies. He then argued in favour of the balanced approach of virtue ethics as it looks at issues such as deficiency/the digital divide, excess/obligatory accessibility and inclusivity through the golden medium of maintaining the right for inclusion and the right not to use the internet. Furthermore, he argued in favour of a care ethics approach in which digital inclusion should be determined on contextual reasoning and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances based on embedded relations of care and responsibility. Empathy and compassion should be used to determine what is a fair action rather than merely calculating utility, thus respecting the right of those who want or need to be excluded. A care ethics public policy of the information society should also be more holistic and consider among others educational support, fair wages, environmental protection, and respect of privacy alongside critical infrastructure and in addition take into consideration the physical, psychological, digital and financial risks of an information society obligatory inclusion. In concluding his presentation, he raised questions about the ethical dilemmas and ‘status’ of those people who do not want to be part of this particular version of information society and/or their right not to be involved and embedded into the framework of digital services and online identification systems that is under development.

Peter G. Kirchschlaeger of the University of Lucerne referred to the fact that human rights standards which are in place and enforced offline are not enforced well online, and do not appear to enjoy the same level of protection. He then introduced the idea of safeguarding a human rights‑based digital transformation and human rights-based databased systems (HRBDS) as a means of benefitting from ethical opportunities and managing the relevant ethical risks and responding to the enduring digital human rights violations. He brought forward the idea of establishing powerful and well-equipped regulatory mechanisms that could take the form of an UN-based regulatory agency in the field of digital transformation and databased systems as well as in the field of the internet – the International Databased Systems Agency DSA. This international regulatory authority could supervise the terms of the ongoing digital transformation and tackle the relevant human rights’ challenges. The establishment of the DSA is realistic because humanity has already shown in its past that we are able to not always “blindly” pursue and implement the technically possible, but also to renounce, restrain, or limit ourselves to what is technically feasible when the welfare of humanity and planet Earth are at stake. For example, humans researched the field of nuclear technology, developed the atomic bomb, it was dropped several times, but then humans substantially and massively limited research and development in the field of nuclear technology, in order to prevent even worse, despite massive resistance. This suppression was successful to the greatest possible extent, thanks to an international regime, concrete enforcement mechanisms, and thanks to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the UN. He concluded by emphasizing the need to act on a global level to address the ethical challenges in this area, but also as a means to benefit better from the ethical opportunities that these technologies create.

In the discussion that followed, the main question raised was about whether increased digitalization and internet access have helped to shape more rights‑based societies and governance frameworks, both in the Global North and the Global South, and whether the proposed right not to access (use) the internet is also relevant and important in the developing world. Peter G. Kirchschlaeger acknowledged the opportunities offered in the areas of e‑governance, e‑voting and access to information and emphasized the need to tackle business models, which have in their core human rights violating practices. Anriette Esterhuysen emphasised that the focus on the interconnection among all human rights has been lost and there is a need to start talking also about the protection of social and economic rights. 

Within this frame, the speakers referred also to the complementarity between the right to access (use) the internet and not to access (use) the internet. Last but not least, Evelyne Tauchnitz of the University of Lucerne (moderator) concluded these discussions will be ongoing, as - among others - we do not only need more internet, but we also need a free and universal Internet that promotes not only civil and political rights but also economic and social rights.

Report by Mihalis Kritikos (European Commission; the views expressed are personal and do not reflect the views of the European Commission).