Promoting Effective and Inclusive ICT Policy in Africa

Blog

  HomeCollaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)  /  Blog
22May

CIPESA Presents Proposals on Access to Information Law to Uganda Parliament’s ICT Committee

Author admin Posted on

By Juliet Nanfuka |
The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) has met members of the ICT Committee of the Parliament of Uganda and presented proposals for more effective implementation of the Access to Information Act of 2005 and for amendments to this law in order to enhance citizens’ access to public sector information.
During the April 7 engagement, it emerged that the access to information law remains largely unknown, misinterpreted and unimplemented, thus fueling the gap in the amount of information held by the state available to citizens. Consequently, civic participation in governance, monitoring of service delivery as well as transparency and accountability in government, is undermined.
In 2005, Uganda enacted the Access to Information (ATI) law which granted citizens the right to access information held by the state. However, in the 12 years that have since elapsed, there are few cases to show utilisation of the law by citizens, and indeed the state.

Article 41 the Uganda constitution, states: “Every citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of the State or any other organ or agency of the State except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right to the privacy of any other person.”

Mary Paula Turyahikayo, chairperson of the ICT Committee, said the committee has worked to ensure that the necessary laws and infrastructure such as the national backbone infrastructure (NBI) project are in place to enable more citizens to access the internet.
Despite these measures, citizens’ access to vital information remains a big challenge, with the access to information law hardly implemented.


The ATI law requires every minister to make an annual report to parliament on the number information requests they received, indicating granted or rejected requests and reasons for rejection. However, no ministry has ever presented such a report. Moreover, at a workshop held last March for government information officers, it emerged that many of them are not aware of this obligation.
Silas Aogon, the Member of Parliament for Kumi Municipality, noted, “We have never seen any report to parliament on how the MDAs [Ministries, Departments and Agencies] are giving information to those who want to access it.  I had never thought about asking for it until now.”

On March 15 and 16, CIPESA hosted 12 Information Officers from 15  MDAs in a dialogue on some of the challenges faced by MDAs to implement ATI and training on the use of the online information portal www.askyourgov.ug.  This was followed by a workshop on April 7 during which a position paper on the Right to Information in Uganda was presented to Members of Parliament on the ICT Committee. The meeting was attended by 17 individuals including seven MPs, six journalists and four members of the Greater North Parliamentary Forum.

Ultimately, for the right to access information to be realised in Uganda, including meaningful implementation of the law, parliament needs to play an active oversight role. Indeed, while some MPs may not be conversant with the ATI law, they recognise the importance of citizens’ access to information for good governance. This was echoed by Abigaba Cuthbert, MP of Kibale County in Kamwenge district, who stated, “With increasing corruption, access to information is critical. We cannot talk about transparency without access to information.”


Accordingly, the CIPESA position paper on the State of Access to Information in Uganda makes several recommendations, the first being that parliament should use its oversight role and compel all public bodies to comply with section 43 of the Act which requires every minister to submit an annual report to parliament on requests for records or access to information made to a public body under his or her ministry. This will ensure that each ministry and the different agencies under it submit annual reports on the status of access to information.
Below are some of the other recommendations:

  • Government ministries, departments and agencies should develop manuals containing descriptions, addresses, nature of work and services, how to access information and persons to consult as stipulated in section 7 (1), (2) and (3) of the Access to Information Act.
  • Government should fast-track and operationalise the Digital Repository Centre for proper storage and accessibility of government records. This will serve to ensure the digitisation of information and more efficient information record keeping, management and release.
  • There also remains a need for the ATI Act to be amended, specifically to:

See the full list of recommendations: State of Access to Information in Uganda

28Apr

South Africa to host Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa

Author admin Posted on

Save The Date Announcement |
The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and the Association for Progressive Communication (APC) are happy to announce the date and location for the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa (FIFAfrica) 2017.
This year’s edition of the Forum will held be in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 27-29, 2017,  thus expanding the physical footprint of the Forum which has since inception in 2014 been held in Kampala, Uganda.
This landmark event convenes various stakeholders from the internet governance and online rights arenas in Africa and beyond to deliberate on gaps, concerns and opportunities for advancing privacy, access to information, free expression, non-discrimination and the free flow of information online.
The Forum brings together human rights defenders, journalists, government officials, private sector players, global information intermediaries, bloggers, developers, the arts community, law enforcers and regulators – all of whom have a role to play in advancing internet freedom in Africa.
Highlights at FIFAfrica include the launch of the annual State of Internet Freedom in Africa research report as well the commemoration of the International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) that falls on September 28.
In the coming weeks, we will release more details of the Forum, including how to participate and to suggest topics for inclusion in the event programme.
Visit the Forum page for more information on previous Forums and updates over the coming weeks.
You can also contribute thoughts and ideas through the #InternetFreedomAfrica hashtag.
If you would like to support FIFAfrica17 please get in touch:
Send an email to Wakabi ([email protected]), Ashnah ([email protected]) or Sekoetlane ([email protected]) and ([email protected]) with any queries.
 

26Apr

Tanzania Court Deals a Blow to Intermediary Liability Rules

Author admin Posted on

By Ashnah Kalemera |
A court in Tanzania has dealt a blow to the rules governing the country’s internet intermediaries, after ruling that requests for disclosure of user information for law enforcement purposes pursuant to the Cybercrimes Act (2015) are not arbitrary. In a March 8, 2017 ruling, three judges of the court in Dar es Salaam also ruled that the absence of regulations to govern the enforcement of the Act did not render the controversial law unconstitutional.
The ruling dismissed a petition filed by Jamii Media, proprietors of the popular Jamii Forums discussion platform, who argued that Section 32 of the Cybercrimes Act was arbitrary and contrary to citizens’ right to privacy guaranteed by article 16 (1) of the country’s constitution. Jamii filed the petition last April, after receiving three notices from police demanding that it discloses the personal details of up to four users who had posted on the forum information on political tensions among members of the ruling party Chama Cha Mapinduzi, and scandals in one of the country’s leading banking institutions.
The notices, issued during January and February 2016 pursuant to Section 32 of the Act, demanded disclosure of the names of the users, their emails and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Last December, Jamii Forums founder Maxence Melo was charged with obstruction of investigations under Section 22 of the Cybercrimes Act for failure to comply with the disclosure notices.

Section 32 of the Cybercrimes Act provides:
(1) Where the disclosure of data is required for the purposes of a criminal investigation or the prosecution of an offence, a police officer in charge of a police station or a law enforcement officer of a similar rank may issue an order to any person in possession of such data compelling him to disclose such data.
(2) The order issued under subsection (1) shall be granted to a law enforcement officer who shall serve the order to the person in possession of the data.
(3) Where the disclosure of data cannot be done under subsection (1), the law enforcement officer may apply to the court for an order compelling:
(a) a person to submit specified data that is in that person’s possession or control; or
(b) a service provider offering its services to submit subscriber information in relation to such services in that service provider’s possession or control.
(4) Where any material to which an investigation relates consists of data stored in a computer system or device, the request shall be deemed to require the person to produce or give access to it in a form in which it is legible and can be taken away.

In its petition, Jamii Media argued that no procedures were in place to enforce Section 32 as required under Section 39 (2) of the Act to govern the circumstances and procedure of disclosure by intermediaries. Section 39 (2) states that the Minister for Information and Communication Technology shall “prescribe the procedures for service providers to avail competent authorities, at their request, with information enabling the identification of recipients of their services”.
However, the judges noted that, often, for laws that provide for putting in place regulations by the Ministers responsible, “it takes a while before the said regulations are formulated.” This implied that intermediaries were obliged to honour disclosure notices in the absence of the regulations.
In their defense, the Tanzania Police argued that they had the duty to carry out investigations and prosecution of offences and maintained that the disclosure notices issued to Jamii Media were “justified”. According to the state attorney, the disclosure notices did not infringe upon citizens’ right to privacy because they were “intended to obtain the names of people who have published information that may turn out to be relevant to some offences under investigation”. The state attorney added that the Cybercrimes Act did not require the police to disclose to the recipient of the disclosure notices the offences under investigation.
Meanwhile, Jamii Media also argued that under sub-section 32 (4), the 2015 Act confers powers upon authorities to require the surrender of devices on which information is contained, without any safeguards. “If an investigator takes away one such device in order to access one piece of information relevant to a particular investigation, there is no guarantee that by taking the same, the investigation will not access other pieces of information contained in the same device and [which are] irrelevant to the matter being investigated,” it argued.
Judges ruled that Section 32 (4) did not empower the police to take away the devices as contended. “Our understanding of that section is that the person to whom the request has been made, like the petitioner in this case, may print the information such that it can be read and/or taken away by the investigators in printed form,” the judges stated.
Citing jurisprudence including provisions under Article 19 (2) and (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the judges considered that Section 32 of the Cybercrimes Act was “proportional” for balancing individual human rights on the one hand and public interest on the other.
Lawyers representing Melo in the ongoing case plan to file submissions for police to seek court’s intervention for mandatory disclosure pursuant to provisions of the Act and dismiss the obstruction charges.
For more on the government’s tactics to stifle citizens’ digital rights in Tanzania see the State of Internet Freedom in Tanzania 2016 report.
 

21Apr

Recent Developments in Telecoms Regulation Threaten Online Rights in Uganda

Author admin Posted on

By Edrine Wanyama |
In April 2017, the parliament of Uganda gave the minister in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) powers to single-handedly make regulations that govern the telecommunications sector. Hitherto, regulations proposed by the minister had to receive parliamentary approval.
The Uganda Communications (Amendment) Bill (2016), which parliament passed on April 6, 2017, means that making regulations for the telecommunications sector is in the sole preserve of the minister. Among others, such regulations are related to licensing and fees, operator obligations, competition, consumer rights and protection. It is for this reason that the newly passed law, which was gazzetted back in February 2016 when still a bill faced criticism from civil society.

“The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission and with the approval of Parliament, by statutory instrument, make regulations for better carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.” Section 93(1) of the Uganda Communications Act 2013

  “The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, by statutory instrument, make regulations for better carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.” Section 93(1) of the Uganda Communications (Amendment) Bill (2016)

The authority, Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), was set up in 1997 by the now repealed Communications Act, Cap. 106 (section 3) and now established by the Uganda Communications Act, 2013 (section 4) (the Act)  as the regulator of the communications sector but has since inception faced criticism over lack of independence from the government. The Act gives extensive powers to the minister of ICT, including to appoint the commission’s executive director and board members and to approve its budgets.

Meanwhile, there are growing concerns about mass surveillance particularly in the absence of a data protection and privacy  law to safeguard citizen data collected by the state and private parties. These are further aggravated by the haphazard implementation of laws which have an impact on citizens’ communications.
On April 12, 2017, the telecom industry regulator Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) announced a seven-day deadline for subscribers to update their registration details using national identity (ID) cards in a move reportedly to address cybercrime. Mandatory SIM card registration has been in force since March 2012. At the time of the original deadline for conclusion of the exercise in August 2013, the commission reported that 92% of SIM cards were registered. However, investigations into past and recent crimes have revealed the continued existence and use of unregistered SIM cards.
The April 12 directive raised concerns about the conflicting requirements for the validation of SIM cards, with subscribers pointing out that various other forms of identification other than a national ID should be recognised. Pursuant to the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act 2010, Section 9(1), SIM card registration requires the subscriber’s full name, residential address, business address, postal address and identity number as contained in an identity document. Other forms of identification  that have previously been used by subscribers have included employer identity cards, driving licenses, students’ identity cards and passports.
However, following an interim order as well as public statements by the Uganda Law Society and other stakeholders, the Prime Minister issued a directive extending the SIM card verification and validation deadline for a month to May 19, 2017.
The SIM card registration exercise has attracted criticisms from human rights defenders who claim it violates freedom of expression and goes against Article 27 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to privacy by possibly enabling mass surveillance of communications. Further, the absence of a data protection and privacy law continues to expose citizens’ data which is increasingly and now repeatedly being collected by the state. There is accordingly no guarantee that personal data will not be unlawfully processes and used.
Over the past year, national security has been cited as the basis for directives by the UCC including instructions given to telecommunications service providers to enforce two social media shutdowns during 2016.
Although Uganda has signed and ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and also fully subscribes to the international bill of rights, specifically the Universal Declaration for Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights there are repeated affronts to the rights enshrined in these instruments.
It is for this reason that the Collaboration on International Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) calls for the following actions to be taken:

  1. The Government should adopt a multistakeholder approach in decisions affecting the ICT industry in Uganda. Decisions that affect the rights of citizens should be evidence-based and reached in consultation with other stakeholders including academia, civil society, media and the private sector.
  2. The Parliament should immediately pass the Data Protection and Privacy Bill, 2015 subject to the proposed amendments from the citizenry.
  3. Government should harmonise the implementation of laws pertaining to registration of data of citizens, refugees and non-citizens in Uganda, including the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act (2010) and the Registration of Persons Act (2015).
  4. There is a need to reinstate the oversight role of the Parliament over the Minister for ICT in making regulations for the ICT sector. Failure to do so will leave excessive powers within the ambit of the minister and resultantly, lead to abuse.

Read more on the State of Internet Freedom Uganda 2016.
 

19Apr

18 NGOs file an intervention before France’s highest court on dangers of the ‘right to be forgotten’

Author admin Posted on

Press Release | Today, 18 expert non-governmental organisations from across the world have filed legal submissions before France’s highest court, the Council of State (Conseil d’État), raising serious concerns about a ruling of France’s data protection authority, la Commission nationale informatique et libertés (“CNIL”), on the “right to be forgotten”.
In 2014, CNIL ordered Google to remove 21 links from the results of an internet search on the name of a French citizen who claims a “right to be forgotten.” Google initially removed the links from its French search site (www.google.fr) and other European search sites (such as www.google.ie), but CNIL demanded it go further. Google then blocked the links from results returned to European users, even when using Google’s non-European sites, including www.google.com. CNIL however demands that when it orders content to be “forgotten” from search results, this decision must be given effect worldwide, meaning that the results must be made unavailable to all users internationally, regardless of where they are accessing internet search engines. CNIL has also imposed a huge fine on Google, of €100,000.
The 18 NGOs who have filed legal submissions with the Council of State today have grave concerns about CNIL’s approach and its implications for human rights worldwide. They all specialise in the defence of human rights, the protection of online freedom of expression, and in increasing access to information technology around the world. The NGOs, and the many people across the world whose rights they protect, rely on freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas and information online in order to carry out their important work in protecting human rights internationally. CNIL has unilaterally imposed draconian restrictions on free expression upon all organisations and individuals who use the internet around the world, even imposing a “right to be forgotten” upon countries which do not recognise this principle. The CNIL ruling causes particularly serious damage to human rights protection in the developing world. In their submissions, the NGOs urge the Council of State to annul the CNIL’s decision, stating:
“In the developing world, given that some governments are already trying to restrict freedoms on the internet through restrictive local laws, a precedent compelling companies to remove content based on already limiting laws will have the effect of eliminating checks and balances that inhere in international law. Countries such as Pakistan are already making efforts to ensure that certain political and critical content is removed from cyber space and the interveners are concerned that compelling companies to follow restrictive laws will further stymie the right to access to information and free speech. Such a precedent will also mean that dissent within a country can be censored in equal measure internationally.
As a result, the order of the CNIL sets a dangerous precedent, by opening the door for national authorities in other countries to impose global restrictions on freedom of expression through remedies grounded solely in their own domestic law. The possible race to the bottom is of the utmost concern to the interveners.”
The legal submissions were drafted by freedom of expression experts Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jude Bunting, barristers at Doughty Street Chambers, London, and avocat Thomas Haas, Paris, who acts for the NGOs and filed the submissions with the Council of State. The decision of the Council of State on Google’s appeal is expected later this year.
Additional Information:
The 18 NGOs who have filed submissions are: the Internet Freedom Foundation; the Software Freedom Law Center, India; Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (“CIPESA”); Digital Rights Foundation; Unwanted Witness; Paradigm Initiative ; Association for Progressive Communications; I-Freedom Uganda Network; Jonction; Media Rights Agenda; Sierra Sustainable Technology; Instituto Beta for Internet and Democracy; The League of cyberactivists for democracy, Africtivistes; The Karisma Foundation; Global Voices; the Institute of Technology and Society of Rio; Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales; the Center for Information Technology and Development (“CITAD”), Nigeria.
The Council of State is considering an application by Google Inc for the annulment of decision no. 2016-054 of 10th March 2016 by the CNIL. The CNIL in this decision ruled that the delisting process implemented by Google in order to comply with the principles arising from the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Google pain et Google Inc c and ario Coste a on le on 13th May 2014 was insufficient, imposed a monetary penalty on Google of €100,000 and decided to make its decision public.
Any queries regarding the legal submissions should be directed to Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jude Bunting at Doughty Street Chambers, London, by phone on +442074041313 or by email to [email protected] or [email protected]).
List of Interveners
a) The Internet Freedom Foundation defends online freedom, privacy and innovation in India. Through public campaigns, it aims to build and deploy technology to promote freedom on the internet. It advocates a free and open internet and campaigns against censorship in all its forms. It has also sought to intervene in similar litigation in India on delisting and erasure, taking the unequivocal position that there is no “right to be forgotten” in India, and that direction for delisting would constitution an impermissible restriction on freedom of expression and the public’s right to information, protected by the Constitution of India;
b) The Software Freedom Law Centre (“SFLC.in”) is a New Delhi based not-for-profit organization that provides pro bono legal representation and other law-related services to developers of open source software to further the goal of defending digital civil liberties. SFLC.in has worked extensively on issues of free speech, expression online, and intermediary liability, and has a history of supporting courts on these issues, for example they filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court, which was considering whether to grant certiorari in the case of Google Inc. v Oracle Inc (US Supreme Court ref. 14-410). SFLC.in has an interest in this matter because the decision of this Court will have a significant effect on the rights of the internet users that SFLC.in represents. More specifically, SFLC.in has an interest in ensuring that limits are maintained on the reach of law so that free speech rights that are facilitated by the internet are not unreasonably and unnecessarily impeded;
c) Since its inception in 2004, the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (“CIPESA”) has positioned itself as the leading centre for research and analysis of information aimed to enable policy makers in east and southern Africa understand international Information and Communications Technology (“ICT”) policy issues. Its overall goals are to develop the capacity of African stakeholders to contribute effectively to international decision-making on ICT and ICT-related products and services; and to build multi-stakeholder policymaking capacity in African countries. In particular, CIPESA focuses on decisionmaking that facilitates the use of ICT in support of development, civic participation and democratic governance;
d) Digital Rights Foundation is a registered research-based advocacy nongovernmental organization focusing on ICT to support human rights, democratic processes and digital governance. Based in Pakistan, the Digital Rights Foundation envisions a place where all people, and especially women, are able to exercise their right of expression without being threatened. It believes that a free internet with access to information and clear privacy policies can encourage such a healthy and productive environment that would eventually help not only women, but the world at large;
e) Unwanted Witness is a non-governmental organisation based in Uganda. It advises government on internet governance and lobbies for a legal framework that guarantees internet freedom and internet safety. Its work includes the drafting of policy briefs, making shadow reports to relevant human rights bodies to which Uganda is signatory, interfacing between internet actors and government agencies on internet freedom, and also providing legal support to internet users whose work is being threatened. It brings strategic litigation to challenge government actions that threaten the enjoyment of online freedoms in Africa;
f) Paradigm Initiative is a registered non-for profit organization with core objectives of digital inclusion and digital rights in Nigeria and other African countries of interest. The digital rights mandate of the organization involves working with several stakeholders within the African region on rights-respecting technologies and also pushing for people-inclusive policies in ICT. Paradigm Initiative carries out its work mainly through research reports, stakeholder-dialogues on Internet freedom and policy engagements within the region. Paradigm Initiative is currently working on the Digital Rights and Freedom Bill (HB. 490) becoming a law in Nigeria. It is the first long-term policy document to ensure Internet freedom in Africa and second in the world after Brazil’s “Marco Civil.” The bill has reached an advanced stage of becoming law in Nigeria;
g) The Association for Progressive Communications has 50 member organisations in 36 countries, the majority from developing countries. The vision of its membership is that: “All people have easy and affordable access to a free and open internet to improve their lives and create a more ust world ” It works to empower and support organisations, social movements and individuals in and through the use of ICTs to build strategic communities and initiatives for the purpose of making meaningful contributions to equitable human development, social justice, participatory political processes and environmental sustainability. The Association for Progressive Communications is a participant in high level international ICT policy discussions and was granted category one consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1995. Its chief operating office is located in Johannesburg, South Africa.
h) I-Freedom Uganda Network is an organisation that promotes and supports freedom of speech, expression, association, and assembly through technical IT support, research and development of tools and applications that enhance digital security and safety. It is composed of 28 member organizations which can be broadly categorized into three categories; LGBTI organisations, sex workers organisations and mainstream human rights organisations. The network was formed by a number of organisations that came together at the end of January 2012 to fight against the way in which various key stake holders were misusing the Internet to affect the online and offline freedom and rights of a marginalised groups. These organisations believed that online activity is key to their ability to freely associate, assemble and express themselves freely without any fear of risk and reprisal from state agencies and other dangerous hacking groups. The Network is therefore particularly interested in freedom of expression and associated assembly rights, as they manifest in online expression. It is based in Kampala, Uganda.
i) Jonction is a non-governmental organization, based in Dakar in Senegal, which aims to promote and defend human rights. Founded in 2006, Jonction has conducted a number of advocacy and awareness campaigns on the protection of personal data, privacy and freedom of expression in both Senegal and West Africa. It has a particular focus on the right to privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet.
j) Media Rights Agenda is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Lagos, Nigeria. It was established in 1997 to promote and defend freedom of expression, including media freedom and access to information. Media Rights Agenda is registered in Nigeria and has Observer Status with the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights.
k) Sierra Sustainable Technology is a non-profit and non-governmental organisation that was established in 2007 due to a large number of school children dropping out of education and large-scale unemployment of young people (especially girls). Its purpose is to serve as a rights-based organisation that meet the needs of poor and deprived communicates through advocacy and the use of sustainable and communications technology, promoting and protecting the rights and responsibilities of women, youth and children through training, awareness raising and empowerment initiatives.
l) The Instituto Beta: Internet & Democracy is a Brazilian based non-profit organisation engaged in defending and promoting human rights in the digital environment. Beta’s activities involve the promotion of Internet users rights, the production of Internet culture research and reports, and the organisation of social, cultural and political events and demonstrations aimed at preserving democratic values in cyberspace. Its action focuses on the protection of principles such as of freedom of thought and expression, freedom in Internet access, net neutrality and data protection. Pursuant to these goals, Beta has been accepted to intervene as an amicus curae in two central Brazilian Supreme Court legal cases relating to WhatsApp blocking.
m) The League of cyberactivists for democracy, Africtivistes, is an association founded in November 2015 and based in Senegal. It has 150 active members in 35 countries in Africa and in the Diaspora. It brings together committed Africans to contribute to addressing challenges of democratisation and freedom on the African continent through participatory democracy, e-democracy and the effective anchoring of democratic culture in our respective countries. Africtivistes has supported legal petitions to several governments regarding access to the Internet, net neutrality, privacy and online security. In addition to campaigns, Africtivistes also provides online security training to members, media organisations, and civil society.
n) The Karisma Foundation was founded in 2003 and is based in Bogotá, Colombia. Its goal is to respond to the opportunities and threats that arise in the context of “technology for development” so as to ensure the exercise of human rights and the promotion of freedom of expression. Karisma works through activism with multiple perspectives – legal and technological – in coalitions with local, regional and international partners.
o) Global Voices was founded at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School in December 2004. It subsequently became incorporated in the Netherlands as Stichting Global Voices, a nonprofit foundation. Global Voices is a largely volunteer community of more than 1400 writers, analysts, online media experts, and translators. It aims to curate, verify and translate trending news and stories on the Internet, from blogs, independent press and social media in 167 countries.
p) The Institute of Technology and Society of Rio is a non-profit independent organisation, which is made up of professors and researchers from different academic institutions (such as the Rio de Janeiro State University, Pontifical Catholic University (PUC-Rio), Fundação Getulio Vargas, IBMEC, ESPM, MIT Media Lab, and others). Its mission, over the past 14 years, has been to ensure that Brazil and the Global South respond creatively and appropriately to the opportunities provided by technology in the digital age, and that the potential benefits are broadly shared across society. It is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Global Network of Internet & Society research centers. Its members have been directly involved in the conception and in the collaborative process of creating the so-called “Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights” (Law no 12965/14).
q) Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales is a non-profit organization in Mexico that defends human rights in the digital environment. It was formed in 2014. It uses research, advocacy and litigation to defend digital rights in Mexico, including the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and the right of access to knowledge. As part of its work, it has successfully defended online media organizations from Mexico’s data protection decisions ordering the delisting of links to news articles in search engines. This litigation has included the leading case against Mexico’s data protection authority, which first considered the implementation of the “right to be forgotten” in Mexico. This case arose in the context of an order to delist news articles that considered corruption in Mexico. Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales represented one of the news organizations that published the original news story.
r) The Center for Information Technology and Development (“CITAD”), Nigeria, is a non-governmental and non-profit organization, established in 1996, that is committed to the use of ICT for the development and promotion of good governance, social justice, peace and sustainable development. It commits to universal access to free, secure, affordable and transparent internet services as a platform for development and cultural expression. CITAD uses ICT to empower youth and women in particular through access to information, skills and online mentoring opportunities. It utilises platforms such as social networking, web-to-text interface and tools such as Google alert to provide information that would promote peaceful co-existence. Its mission is to use ICT to empower citizens for a just and knowledge-based society, anchored in sustainable and balanced development.

1 … 98 99 100 101 102 … 158