Concepts of acceptable behaviour to protect and enhance trust

7 November 2012 - A Workshop on Privacy in Baku, Azerbaijan

Also available in:
Full Session Transcript

WS 97 Concepts of acceptable behaviour to protect and enhance trust

THE MODERATOR: Good afternoon everyone. You are at the workshop 97. We are still missing one of our panellists. As you can see, there are still very few people in the room so we will wait for a few more people to arrive before we start. Please bear with us.
THE MODERATOR: Welcome to the Internet Governance Forum November 2012. Bee Communications are providing remote speech to text for this conference with captioners who are listening to the event over Skype. Please position yourself so that you can read this screen if you need to use speech to text.
THE MODERATOR: Good morning everybody. We will start. You are in workshop 97, concepts of acceptable behave to protect and enhance trust. People interaction, socialise, work together and exchange all kinds of information on the internet. It is crucial in our lives and very, very important to our economies. It still has to grow to its potential. One of the things that is key to its potential is trust. There are possibilities to access the internet and get information and distribute information. This workshop are attempt to discuss concepts of acceptable behaviour. We will have 45 minutes of interaction with the panel. After that, we will have an open discussion. We will have to see about our time because like I said we have already lost 20 minutes. I'm the CEO of CIN in The Netherlands. I will start with introducing the panel to you. I will do it from left to right if that's okay. This is Mary Uduma of the .ng ccTLD registry and from Nigeria. Next is Jamie Saunders, director of international cyber policy at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Next is Flavio Rech Wagner, from the federal university of Roi Grandedo Sul. Next is.
LESLEY COWLEY: Cowl, CEO of Nominet.
PANELIST: Maybe to kick us off, I would like to focus on governments and some of the issues as we see them and some possible ways of mapping a way forward. I think it is important to start with some basic realities which inform this debate from a government perspective. The first one is governments have to develop domestic policies on the internet which ensure security. We have to do that obviously in a way that respects our fundamental human rights but there are some difficult trade-offs in that space and we can't ignore that. The second reality check is that we can't divorce cyberspace entirely from the reality of state on state conflict. States do act in cyberspace to protect national security interests and we can't get away from that. For some time, states do recognise the need to collaborate and tackle threats in cyberspace and have respect for national borders, as we know. There are different views about that. The challenge in terms of agreeing norms of acceptable behaviour is key. The key issue for me is to get the broadest possible consent of international standards to apply in cyberspace and in the real world.
THE MODERATOR: My understanding is that you are...?
THE MODERATOR: We are sorry for the lack of captions. There is a problem with the sound.
PANELIST: During our national meeting, one of the things we discussed is what you need to do to influence the behaviour of users. Sometimes there is bad behaviour. The truth is that Nigeria is ready to co-operate with government, civil society and ready to communicate with other organisations to see how we can tackle this matter. There is a correlation between people who have signed up. We have had consultation on the Bill. We agree with others on how to co-operate and tackle the bad behaviour on the internet.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Mary. We are still having a problem with Robert's presentation. You are part of the coalition that works on internet rights and principles, Dixie. I have the slides on the screen.
MS HAWTIN: I have put copies at the back of the room.
THE MODERATOR: Do you think there is a use of these rights and principles in the discussion? Can we use them as a starting point?
MS HAWTIN: Certainly. Yes, in a word!
THE MODERATOR: I thought so.
MS HAWTIN: So the internet rights and principles coalition is a collection of individuals and groups across the world who are excited about the internet because we see it as a space with enormous public value to citizens in terms of it the right to association, discussion, assembly and being able to access information like never before seen in history. There are lots of danger online, some that comes from bad behaviour by users. Some of it comes from companies and some of which comes from governments as well. We see mass surveillance without due process or censorship or internet shutdowns. There is a vast range of dangers out there. The approach of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles is that in order to ensure that the public value of the internet is promoted and that the dangers are protected against, we should embed or internet governance and our internet policy making in human rights standards. The work of the coalition over the last five or six years has really been to think through how existing human rights standards apply in the internet environment. It's an evolving document. It has gone through about three or four formations so far and it is still not at a final space. It's called the charter of human rights and principles for the internet and in 2010, as a coalition, we decided to take that charter and to really distil it down to ten internet rights and principles, which is on the document at the back of the room, so I won't read them out. The reasons that we decided to distil is it down, one, it was done by a working group called the Punchy Working Group, because we wanted to have it more punchy, because the charter is a long document. But also, as an extremely long and detailed document, it was quite hard to get agreement on every element of the charter whereas with the central argument and agreements, there was agreement. By taking a top-level approach, we ensured global consensus amongst the vied variety of people in the coalition. That is my first lesson in this initiative. We are not necessarily ready to bring on extremely detailed responses on an international level. Any issue we can get agreement is over a top-level value. Two other lessons I would like to share from my experience in the IRP coalition are to do with the legitimacy of the outcoming document. One reason why I think this document has a lot of legitimacy and why we are called to present it to groups such as this is because it is based on hiewt rights standards. As Jamie mentioned, human rights standards apply online as they do offline. 85 countries signed the resolution in July, making that powerful statement that human rights apply online. In many ways, it is almost above constitution so it is right and proper that it should apply online too. The second question of legitimacy comes from the actual process with which the principles were formed which were the open process. Absolutely anyone could input and we took it out to as many different forums and spaces we could to get input and consult with groups. We were aiming for consensus as much as possible. We had some very, very long discussions. It was a multi-stakeholder process. We had involvement from across the range of stakeholders and it was global. We had people from - every country was invited to feed in and we had a fairly representative level of input. Especially on that last point, if you looking at what type of internet governance principles are acceptable, we are finding it becoming more and more necessary to take this multi-stakeholder approach if the outcoming document is to be seen as legitimate. The question of whether we need top-level internet governance principles in the internet environment? The answer is yes. The ten IPs is something to draw on. We have internet principles from the Council of Europe. There are lots of resources to draw from rather than reinventing wheel. There was a society meeting and one of the things was for the IGF to start creating these top-level IGF principles. We should try and link these two initiatives. My final comment at this point is just about the title. I really don't love the term " "acceptable behaviour online." It makes me think of a sanitised approach to the internet that doesn't sit comfortably with an open and free internet. I will put that on the table for now. Thank you.
THE MODERATOR: That was exactly the question I wanted to ask you, because you were approaching this from another angle, people's rights and principles is a different approach from what can I do and what shouldn't I do. A Apart from the title, what do you think about the discussion on the approach? From two sides, we can formulate what is acceptable behaviour with the risk. Maybe it's better to defining what we think is unacceptable. Is that a direction you want to go in or would you prefer to stick to rights and principles of people online?
MS HAWTIN: I definitely think whatever approach you take has to be founded in human rights principles and has to respect human rights principles. I would agree with you on that, that it's much safer to start from defining unacceptable behaviour. If you look at the human rights framework, it provides a framework for making the balances that you are talking about for dealing with criminals or appreciating a government's responsibility to protect its citizens. It provides us with a framework for ensuring that the way we deal with that doesn't undermine the values we are trying to protect. I don't have a problem with us looking at how to tackle unacceptable bad behaviour online. In fact, I think that is necessary and lots of people have real harm done to them by things online. I think it is definitely legitimate how we can tackle that. We need to ensure that we are tackling that in ways which sit within a human rights framework. I think it is entirely possible do that.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. Robert, we managed to get your presentation up, so can we have your perspective.
MR SHIEGEL: Yes. Thank you. It can be seen broader at first sight because what we are discussing today in a broad context it can generate a very, very different idea and approach. For the first time, in our country, we have had the research and unfortunately the Russian internet is one of the fastest growing internet space in the world. The figure is increasing. Our domain ru is growing. It is half of the Russian population who are internet users. On the next slide, you see that Russia is among the top ten countries in the world using the internet. We have had serious changes in the last year. We have introduced the concept of a network of providers and we have a long blacklist of users. It will define the definition of the Russian Federation and all of these cases. In the meantime, we would like to use the system of open licences. This has not been done deliberately. This will be mainly a situation right now which tracks in all situations. We need an electronic democracy. Each address will have more than one hundred thousand (100,000) users. It will enable internet users. It can be done in the capital cities and in the regional areas. This is something that can be an initiative in Russian politics. We are using it as an answer for citizens to go online and debate the drafting of legislation. It is an important pillar of democracy. In principle, it is our plan for the future. I would like to quote Medvedev. [inaudible]. The official Poe social of Russia and I quote the minister of communication which is that the internet is the fantastic opportunity of human communication. It has risks and challenges. There is a frustration and a concern amongst the Russian Federation. Those ten principles, fundamental principles, that will be with us in the nearest future. Yes, we can see in words but unfortunately it's very difficult to do it in reality because in Russia there is a problem with geographical locations. We are going backwards because cybercrime is allowing us in this case because how can we define or adapt a man or a woman to identify... and the right to privacy. To influence internet policy takes place in Russia. Just several days ago, the law creating so-called black lace, the sites that are offered by our citizens to be included in a trial pornography... instigation of a person to suicide and they have thousands and thousands of sites... but we have tried to take them down. Many of our citizens have been very active in this initiative. We are only tackling a small percentage of this. Tackling cybercrime should be done in a way involving everyone it. What about the services? As you see, 47% of users get information about the world's news from the internet. 37% use it for communication with their friends. 15 million Russians use the internet to issue electronic cards for their identity. In my opinion, what next has happened in Russia, the search engine has even, the number of audience has increased to the Federal TV channel. They prefer not to watch TV but go to the internet. The number of TV watchers is increasing in social networks. We are thinking about that but don't have a solution for the time. Concerning education, the national education system... for each 15 schoolchildren. They have the tablets and some form of internet. In other countries, for mobile phones per capita. We have distance learning which is very popular among the school teachers, which also helps to increase educational possibilities. I would like to say about remote medical care. All hospitals are connected to the internet. The majority of them are connected and I hope all of this will be connected next year. We would like to underline we had a huge inundation this year. The internet has been actively used by volunteers heading to rescue people who have suffered from i inundation. We want to help children and those who are suffering in such a situation because very different problems can occur as natural calamity. It helps us to make this struggle more effective. Thank you for your attention. I have an email here. I'm ready for communication and for contacting. Thank you.
THE MODERATOR: Well, it's clear that the Russian government is worried about the safety of the internet for its users and working hard to improve the situation. What do you think about this approach of an international multi-stakeholder discussion to define unacceptable behaviour on the internet?
PANELIST: One second. It is all about attitude. I think this is quite simple. I think we have to think about it and act at an international level and we have to put a lot of effort to hear each other. I'm talking from my experience. We are declaring the possibility of dialogue and this can be done and that can be done but the reality is quite the opposite. People express why they are not considering it. First of all, we have to listen to each other; that is what we have to strive for.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you. That's clear. Flavio, you are a member of the Brazillian Internet Steering Committee. You have applied a few different approaches to this. Brazil has ten internet principles of its own. What is your angle on this?
PANELIST: Well, Brazil is very much interested in promoting worldwide multi-stakeholder approach for the development of a framework of acceptable behaviour. We have been following this approach for many years at a national level with success. We have involved all of the various stakeholders in the country. As you mentioned, and as many of you now, there is an internet steering committee. We have 21 members from civil society and nine members from the government. CGI is responsible for technical function regarding the management and we have technical frameworks to improve the internet in the country. It has a political role and an important one. It proposes policy before elections regard rg the internet in the country. CGI is not an alone agency. Its policies relate to the management of br. It works together with society, government and even the Congress by education and o outreach to put those policies forward. I will give you such examples of its success that are related to the recommendations that derive from the policy recommendations and the multi-stakeholder approach we found in Brazil. CGI has created a multi-stakeholder group. We have policies for fighting spam. This resolution has been felt by our internet service providers in the country and recently by all telecom providers in the country. The anti-spam committee are working together with our associations to put forward a self-marketing regulation code, which is embedded in the society of the country. As a second example, on the multi-stakeholder approach, CGI organises together policies on privacy and the protection of personal data. The goal of the seminar to discuss and propose policies on actions by the different stakeholders and their respective responsibilities. The third example is after lengthy discussions with the governors and users of the internet and many of those principles are linked to acceptable behaviour on the internet. This idea of developing fundamental principles using a multi-stakeholder approach has been discussed in Brazilian Congress. We have open consultation on the internet and produced the Internet Bill of Rights. We are working on a response from the Brazilian Congress on this document. There are many articles that relate to norms of acceptable behaviour, regarding privacy and the responsibilities of providers of content and so on. In conclusion, Brazil is following a multi-stakeholder approach to develop actions and policies that help protect and ensure trust. They are seen as legitimate by the Brazilian society because of the multi-stakeholder approach. They are taken into consideration by the various stakeholders in their respective roles. Because of the positive experience at home, Brazil would like very much to get involved and play a permanent role in international discussion of developing a framework of acceptable behaviour. I'm pretty sure that the stakeholders will look on positively to this challenge and we will have an active role in the initiative.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Flavio. Let's start with principles and rights first, before we start starting about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Lesley, you have been CEO of Nominet for many years now. You have taken a lot of initiatives to improve the safety and security of the dot UK name and many internet users. What do you think of the initiative of your government and how do you think this should be put forward?
THE MODERATOR: Not publicly.
LESLEY COWLEY: Let me give you two hats for this contribution to get us started. Firstly, it is Nominet and then from the UK IGF that we had just the other week. So, Nominet, of course, we take our responsibilities incredibly seriously. One very good example of that in recent years is how we have been working with our law enforcement in the UK where activity breaches our terms and conditions. We have found that as a very blunt instrument towards dealing with some of the undesirable behaviours that damage trust and have, for some time now, been trying to develop some policy around how the registry should respond to criminal behaviours. It is through a multi-stakeholder process. As many in this room will know and recognise, it is quite difficult to develop policy particularly in the contention area through a multi-stakeholder process but nevertheless we have tried. I think we are shortly going to be at the moment where we have some UK policy on that. It is a difficult issue. We are not intending that Nominet acts for law enforcement or becomes law enforcement. Equally, we want to meet our responsibilities in that area, particularly to the end user, and we want to ensure that people can retain trust in .uk. How on Earth can we scale these breaches of trust? The speed at which harms can be committed on the internet is incredibly fast now but often our processes for dealing with those are incredibly slow. My experience at Nominet is how do we scale things to be fast and help users. Some of that kind of learning needs to come into how we deal with harms on the internet as well. How we deal with things needs to scale up? From a Nominet point of view, I would like to question the whole concept of a trusted internet. We teach people how to keep safe in an unsafe world. You know, I have children and I know many delegates here have children and we keep them how to keep themselves safe. Sometimes, when it comes to cyberspace, we try and protect and cocoon people at times. I think more effort needs to be put in helping users and businesses to keep themselves and their systems safe. For me, any discussion about rights is missing another half which is responsibilities. The responsibility of users. You have rights but you also have responsibilities too and they may well be responsibilities to other users Let me just briefly feed in some thoughts from the UK IGF If you can agree the standards at an international level, the countries can use it as a benchmark to define their unacceptable behaviour. It is what I think that the whole process is all about. Because of the way the internet does develop and because of the openness so that at the end of the day it is not for another country to define another country. It should be a high-level agreement and from there it should take over. That is what I think.
MR SAUNDERS: I don't want to lose the point I think you were making earlier about the value or otherwise of a multi-stakeholder approach to setting principles and so on. My view is that that is an extremely valuable process and that if we can develop a mechanism in this forum to make that happen it would be enormously useful. We do need have government-to-government debate and agree things and have treaties and all that kind of stuff in various areas because that's what makes things binding. The problem is that process is incredibly slow. Our objections to some of the proposals to codes and conduct and treaties is that they're premature but not that they're a bad idea per se. I think the multi-stakeholder voice can really help to accelerate that process. I think it's a value in its own right because having common principles is of value even if they're not binding. Finally, and this answers the cultural point that the lady raised just then, there will be occasions when smaller groups of countries say we can't all agree universally but we are going to agree. It happens a lot in Europe. It makes trade in the economy so much easier. In some cases, countries can make a choice. Do I get with the higher set of standards because that enables economic opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist or do I wait and do a lowest common denominator approach? They can all feed into each other. The missing ingredient for me at the moment is the civil society, IGF-style statement of principles which we as governments can use as an aspirational reference points. I'd be very keen to see a mechanism to take that forward.
THE MODERATOR: We are running out of time. I may have to cut you all short. I will take one more question from the room and one final remark from the panel and then I'll try - I don't know how - to sum this up and see if we can push it a bit forward. I think I will go to you because you have been flagging me for quite some time.
NEW SPEAKER: My name is John Bullard and from Identeris in the private sector. We run a global trust network which is based upon the law of contract, a private contract between members of a scheme, rather than r relying on government to provide the schemes for us. It works in the commercial sector very well for promoting commercial globally. I would ask the Panel to consider these sorts of option, whether you are in Russia, whether you're in Nigeria, the United Kingdom or Brazil, the same set of private contractual arrangements do exist and do actually work today.
THE MODERATOR: Famous last words from the panel. Any volunteers? Robert, you go first.
MR SHIEGEL: Just very briefly, I would like to say it seems to me I would like to say this approach has the right to exist and it can be effective. We have a social network in Russia where people from across the Soviet Union communicate. In general, the internet space will not be effective and it will not work because in any case it is something that is inside their minds, a cultural behaviour, it is the algorithm of their actions. We are meeting the frontiers and what is permitted and what is not permitted and this is something that can be defined. I do not know fully. For example, a child gets a message with a threat and unfortunately this happens. Maybe this is cultural behaviour. I would like, for example, to see the man who is sending a message that is threatening and can be taken accountable for his action. For example, in some cases, it can be seen as a norm. If someone has insulted or if someone has threatened to publish your personal data or has illegal access to your personal data, they could be a neglect of rights of people. In order to... I think we need to lay town the foundations on which we can build on this. We need to find a consensus. Thank you.
THE MODERATOR: I will try and sum this up. We have seen the examples and heard quite a few statements supporting the position that in order to be able to e enforce, we will need laws on the most serious issues, the more serious issues of cybercrime. There seems to be support for discussion on an international discussion with multi-stakeholders on a set of principles as long as we base them on human rights and there was quite a bit of support for rights and principles and also responsibilities. The IGF might be a good environment to start this discussion. I think that quite a few people doubt if this is really going to lead to something that we can use in a relatively short time. It's not a good alternative to international legislation because that is time consuming work and already at a national level we sometimes see that we have to make an arrangement before the legislation is in place as a sector. That is what I make of it. If I miss something important, this is the last chance of my panel to correct me.
MR SHIEGEL: I would not like to correct you. After we agree at an international level on rights and principles of unacceptable behaviour, we need to bring the discussion down to the national level. Each country has its own cultural and legal issues and can adopt it to their own laws.
LESLEY COWLEY: To hear somebody from the government talking about that is good. It recognises this is a difficult conner haveisation and - conversation and to have civil society input in that would be good.