Freedom of information

Freedom of information is freedom of a person or people to publish and consume information. The government of the United Kingdom has theorised it as being an extension of freedom of speech, and a fundamental human right.[1] It is recognized in international law. It is related to freedom of expression, which can apply to any medium, be it oral, writing, print, electronic, or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[2] Freedom of information is a separate concept which sometimes comes into conflict with the right to privacy in the content of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognized human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.[3] Lastly, freedom of information can include opposition to patents, opposition to copyrights or opposition to intellectual property in general.[4] The international and United States Pirate Party have established political platforms based largely on freedom of information issues.[5]

Free Speech Flag, from the HD DVD AACS case.

In law

In June 2006 nearly 70 countries had freedom of information legislations applying to information held by government bodies and in certain circumstances to private bodies. In 19 of these countries the freedom of information legislation also applied to private bodies.[6] Access to information was increasingly recognised as a prerequisite for transparency and accountability of governments, as facilitating consumers' ability to make informed choices, and as safeguarding citizens against mismanagement and corruption. This has led an increasing number of countries to enact freedom of information legislation in the past 10 years.[7] In recent years, private bodies have started to perform functions which were previously carried out by public bodies. Privatisation and de-regulation saw banks, telecommunications companies, hospitals and universities being run by private entities, leading to demands for the extension of freedom of information legislation to cover private bodies.[8]

Government bodies

As of 2006, 70 countries had comprehensive freedom of information legislation for public bodies, nearly half of which had been enacted in the past 10 years. Such legislation was pending in a further 50 countries.[7]

Private bodies

As of 2006, the following 19 countries had freedom of information legislation that extended to government bodies and private bodies: Antigua and Barbuda, Angola, Armenia, Colombia, the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Panama, Poland, Peru, South Africa, Turkey, Trinidad and Tobago, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. The degree to which private bodies are covered under freedom of information legislation varies, in Angola, Armenia and Peru the legislation only applies to private companies that perform what are considered to be public functions. In the Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Trinidad and Tobago, Slovakia, Poland and Iceland private bodies that receive public funding are subject to freedom of information legislation. Freedom of information legislation in Estonia, France and UK covers private bodies in certain sectors.[9] In South Africa the access provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act have been used by individuals to establish why their loan application has been denied. The access provisions have also been used by minority shareholders in private companies and environmental groups, who were seeking information on the potential environmental damage caused by company projects.[10]

Consumer protection

In 1983 the United Nations Commission on Transnational Corporations adopted the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection stipulating eight consumer rights, including "consumer access to adequate information to enable making informed choices according to individual wishes and needs". Access to information became regarded as a basic consumer right, and preventive disclosure, i.e. the disclosure of information on threats to human lives, health and safety, began to be emphasized.[11]

Investors

Secretive decision making by company directors and corporate scandal led to freedom of information legislation to be published for the benefits of investors. Such legislation was first adopted in Britain in the early 20th century, and later in North America and other countries.[12] Disclosure regimes for the benefit of investors regained attention at the beginning of the 21st century as a number of corporate scandals were linked to accounting fraud and company director secrecy.[13] Starting with Enron, the subsequent scandals involving Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia and Global Crossing prompted the US Congress to impose new information disclosure obligations on companies with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002.[14]

Internet and information technology

Freedom of information (or information freedom) also refers to the protection of the right to freedom of expression with regard to the Internet and information technology. Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.

The Information Society and freedom of expression

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 reaffirms democracy and the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Declaration also makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:

We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits the Information Society offers.[15]

The 2004 WSIS Declaration of Principles also acknowledged that "it is necessary to prevent the use of information resources and technologies for criminal and terrorist purposes, while respecting human rights".[16] Wolfgang Benedek comments that the WSIS Declaration only contains a number of references to human rights and does not spell out any procedures or mechanism to assure that human rights are considered in practice.[17]

Hacktivismo
Main article: Hacktivismo

The digital rights group Hacktivismo, founded in 1999, argues that access to information is a basic human right. The group's beliefs are described fully in the "Hacktivismo Declaration" which calls for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to be applied to the Internet. The Declaration recalls the duty of member states to the ICCPR to protect the right to freedom of expression with regard to the internet and in this context freedom of information.[18] The Hacktivismo Declaration recognizes "the importance to fight against human rights abuses with respect to reasonable access to information on the Internet" and calls upon the hacker community to "study ways and means of circumventing state sponsored censorship of the internet" and "implement technologies to challenge information rights violations". The Hacktivismo Declaration does, however, recognise that the right to freedom of expression is subject to limitations, stating "we recognized the right of governments to forbid the publication of properly categorized state secrets, child pornography, and matters related to personal privacy and privilege, among other accepted restrictions." However, the Hacktivist Declaration states "but we oppose the use of state power to control access to the works of critics, intellectuals, artists, or religious figures."[18]

Global Network Initiative

On October 29, 2008 the Global Network Initiative (GNI) was founded upon its "Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy". The Initiative was launched in the 60th Anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and is based on internationally recognized laws and standards for human rights on freedom of expression and privacy set out in the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[19] Participants in the Initiative include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, other major companies, human rights NGOs, investors, and academics.[20][21]

According to reports Cisco Systems was invited to the initial discussions but didn't take part in the initiative. Harrington Investments, which proposed that Cisco establish a human rights board, has dismissed the GNI as a voluntary code of conduct not having any impact. Chief executive John Harrington called the GNI "meaningless noise" and instead calls for bylaws to be introduced that force boards of directors to accept human rights responsibilities.[22]

Internet censorship
Main article: Internet censorship

Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech".[22] The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.

According to the Reporters without Borders (RSF) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: Cuba, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Syria, Tunisia, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.[23] A widely publicised example is the so-called "Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[24] Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[25][26]

In 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking on behalf of the United States, declared 'we stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas'. In her 'Remarks on Internet Freedom' she also draws attention to how 'even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable', while reporting President Barack Obama's pronouncement 'the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become'.[27]

gollark: Er, user ID please?
gollark: It is?
gollark: 🤖 🚀 🏎️ WHEN?
gollark: <@!309787486278909952> Give Automated RocketRace invite link or user ID.
gollark: ?charinfo ∵

See also

References
  1. "What is the Freedom of Information Act?". ico.org.uk. 2019-04-04. Retrieved 2019-08-17.
  2. Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, pg.128
  3. "Protecting Free Expression Online with Freenet - IEEE Internet Computing" (PDF).
  4. "Freedom of Information vs. Protection of Intellectual Property". Archived from the original on 2012-04-26. Retrieved 2011-12-22. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. "Avast Network, What is the Pirate Party—and why is it helping Wikileaks?". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 211 & 223.
  7. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 213.
  8. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 222.
  9. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 223.
  10. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 223–224.
  11. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. 2 (1): 216.
  12. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 216–217.
  13. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 219.
  14. Mazhar Siraj (2010). "Exclusion of Private Sector from Freedom of Information Laws: Implications from a Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Alternative Perspectives on Social Sciences. 2 (1): 220.
  15. Klang, Mathias; Murray, Andrew (2005). Human Rights in the Digital Age. Routledge. p. 1.
  16. Klang, Mathias; Murray, Andrew (2005). Human Rights in the Digital Age. Routledge. p. 2.
  17. Benedek, Wolfgang; Veronika Bauer; Matthias Kettemann (2008). Internet Governance and the Information Society. Eleven International Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 90-77596-56-9.
  18. "cDc communications - CULT OF THE DEAD COW - Hacktivismo - Ninja Strike Force". www.cultdeadcow.com.
  19. Global Network Initiative, FAQ Archived 2009-03-09 at the Wayback Machine
  20. Internet Rights Protection Initiative Launches
  21. Global Network Initiative, Participants
  22. Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008). "The big business of net censorship". The Guardian. London.
  23. List of the 13 Internet enemies Archived January 2, 2008, at the Wayback Machine RSF, 2006 November
  24. Watts, Jonathan (2006-02-20). "War of the words". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
  25. "II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2006-08-30.
  26. Chinese Laws and Regulations Regarding Internet Archived 2012-02-20 at the Wayback Machine
  27. "Remarks on Internet Freedom". US Department of State website. Retrieved December 18, 2010.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.