Should Internet-based Firms Explain Terms and Conditions to Users?

By Kofi Yeboah|
There are many users of internet based platforms, like Facebook and Google, who are unaware of the existence of the terms and conditions that are available on the platform websites for users to familiarise themselves with and understand. The terms and conditions outline what is expected of both parties in agreement and also what both parties can and cannot do including with private data. Whose responsibility is it to popularise these often long policies to users?
This question was one of the most debated and discussed at the just ended Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2016 (FIFAfrica16) which was organised by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA). Sharing of user data by internet based firms, either upon request by particular governments or other entities has become one of the most worrying factors for many internet users. Users of social media platforms do not entirely have control over who has access to their data, neither do they always have an understanding of the privacy policy associated with using these platforms.
As part of the panel discussion on transparency and accountability of intermediaries at#FIFAfrica16, Ebele Okobi, Head of Public Policy, Africa, Facebook, stated that “terms of service are the main mechanism used by companies to communicate with customers. Read them”. In other words, it is the responsibility of the user to read and understand what the terms of service say. However, most users do not read the terms of service “before clicking accept” and as pointed out by Anriette Esterhuysen of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), firms hide behind that user ignorance to achieve their strategic goals at the detriment of user privacy.
 Do Terms of Service Govern the Relationship?
“Terms of services do not govern the relationship between users and the company,” noted Ms. Okobi. She added that terms of service are the mechanism by which companies communicate with their users on the product. This implies that a firm can take an action that will affect a user with or without his/her permission.
 What can be done?
Terms of services need to be in clear language and displayed boldly for users to read and understand. Internet-based firms should also consciously create awareness about the importance of reading the terms of services and also interpreting them to users. The firms should take the first step in explaining to users what the terms of services actually mean and what are they agreeing to for using the products. Terms of service should be simplified for users to understand the risks involved in signing up onto a platform and also outline how their data will be collected and used.
Meanwhile, users need to understand the rights they are giving up to internet-based firms when they check the “I agree” box on terms of service. On an ongoing basis, companies need to communicate with users to help understand why they need to collect their information and assure them the data being collected will be secured and not shared with third parties without their consent.
This article was first published at kofiyeboah.com on October 10, 2016.

Uganda Again Blocks Social Media to Stifle Anti-Museveni Protests

By Juliet Nanfuka |
A day before Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni was inaugurated for another five-year term, access to social media platforms including Whatsapp, Facebook and Twitter was blocked on instructions of the regulator, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC). The directive came less than three months after a four-day blockage initiated on Election Day (February 18) that drew local and international condemnation.
During the February 18 elections, social media in Uganda was shut down following a directive from UCC to internet service providers to disable all social media and mobile money services due to a “threat to public order and safety.” Tech-savvy Ugandans turned to Virtual Private Networks (VPN) in a bid to access and to share information on the elections.
On May 11, internet service providers in the country used social media to inform their customers of the second instruction issued by the communications regulator. They indicated that the regulator had cited “national security” as the reason for the shutdown. The present social media blockage comes on the heels of a May 5 ban on live media coverage of opposition-led activities in protest against what they consider the rigged re-election of Museveni, who has been in power since 1986. Earlier on May 3, journalists and artists decried the declining state of freedom of expression at the national celebrations to mark World Press Freedom Day.
Untitled1Untitled2
Screenshots of the MTN and Airtel Uganda Twitter accounts announcing the directive received from the Uganda Communications Commission
Last February, CIPESA joined several civil society groups based in Uganda and internationally to submit a joint letter to the African Union, African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) Secretariat, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Secretariat, Uganda Communications Commission, and the Uganda Ministry of Information and Communications Technology, among other authorities. The letter called for “immediate action to condemn the internet shutdown in Uganda, and to prevent any systematic or targeted attacks on democracy and freedom of expression.” To-date, no response has been received.
It is unclear when the social media blockage would end. However, at the time of writing social media activity has remained rife through hashtags such as #M7SwearsIn. Analysis of Ugandan Twitter interaction during the February blockage revealed mixed emotions among Ugandan Twitter users with fear, joy and anger featuring amongst the top sentiments that emerged from the tweets shared with the hashtag #UgandaDecides. See this Analysis Of Twitter Activity On Election Eve And Election Day Uganda 2016 and Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda.

Report: Women's Rights and the Internet in Uganda

By APC, CIPESA, WOUGNET |
This submission is a joint stakeholder contribution to the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism for Uganda. This submission focuses on women’s rights and the internet in Uganda. It explores the extent of implementation of the recommendations made in the previous cycle of the UPR and also identifies emerging concerns in Uganda regarding women’s rights online.
See the full report here

The African Declaration is Key to Reach a Common Understanding of Online Rights Policy

By APC |
“A fundamental challenge in need of urgent resolution in the digital age is how to protect human rights and freedoms on the Internet, and the African continent is no exception.” This is the introduction to the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms, an initiative joined by a diversity of organisations and individuals from the region to protect human rights in the context of the internet and digital technologies.

Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda

By CIPESA Writer |
The 2015/2016 electioneering season in Uganda set a precedent in the use of social media as a means for politicians to reach out and engage with citizens. It was the first time in Uganda that a candidate announced they would run for President via YouTube and also saw candidate Yoweri Museveni (the incumbent) seek out a more tech-savvy media team to keep abreast with the widening channels of civic engagement.
While some of the candidates maintained personal Twitter accounts and actively engaged in the online conversations, others remained dormant, although they had Twitter accounts.
In partnership with Outbox we present the first of a three-part series into the key themes shaping the online conversation of Ugandans during the electioneering process.
The report explores the level of Twitter activity, interaction and conversational trends with specific focus on the #UgDebate16 hashtag during the 1st presidential debate held on January 15, 2016 and 2nd debate, which was held on February 13, 2016. During both debates, the hashtag trended locally and gained popularity as far as South Africa.
See the full report here: Analysis of Twitter Activity During the 2016 Presidential Debates in Uganda – Monitoring Uganda Elections Series 01 #UgDebate16