22 Feb 2010

Is technology good for human rights? #aitech

There was only ever going to be one conclusion to this debate but it was good one to listen to.

At Amnesty's Human Rights Action Center tonight were:

Susan Pointer, Google's Director of Public Policy & Government Relations; 
Andrew Keen @ajkeen (via video), author of Cult of the Amateur: How the Internet is killing our culture;
Kevin Anderson, blogs editor of the Guardian;
Annabelle Sreberny @RussellSquared, Professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies with a special interest in Iran, bloggers & social media (see her article here, for example).
Rory Cellan-Jones @ruskin147 Technology Correspondent for the BBC, chairing the event


To sum up the night in a sentence:

Technology can be good and bad for human rights.

(and by tech we're talking largely digital communications like Twitter, email, blogs...)

To add some details to that:

The internet is a tool or a medium for communication like any other and therefore can provide the mechanisms for human rights abuses to be brought into the light and human rights defenders to mobilise quickly across large physical spaces.

It is by nature a neutral platform with low barriers to accessing information and creating content. This allows a free access and exchange of information, connections to be made between people, mobilisation on a global scale, the questioning of authority and greater transparency around organisation or government practices.

More than any other medium it has "democratised the access to communication channels" and because communications is politics it has provided a tool for dissent that is more global than ever before. Pamphlets, cassettes and other methods have been used before to deliver messages or challenge authority but information has never reached so many people so quickly.

It is precisely because of this that it would be impossible to argue the opposite case: that technology was bad for human rights. There are too many examples and possibilities with the internet for it to be defined as either good or bad. It is not a monolith, it is a network of networks where virtually anything is possible.

However there is a warnings for all those who believe the internet to be the great leveler:

Regimes are becoming increasingly sophisticated at monitoring, controlling, subverting and creating their own communications online.

The question therefore should not be "is it good?", it should be "how do we make it good?". Then "how do we fight for it?" and the best thing about this is you can fight for it from your living room.

(this great summary supplied by John Leynes - BBC Tehran correspondent)

Some interesting side points:

How to deal with "slacktavism" or "mousy solidarity"?

The internet has become a quick and easy way to show you care about an issue - the speed with which people like, retweet or change avatars to show their support for a cause is becoming a weekly reality on social networks. However if this is nothing more than a quick web meme what does it actually achieve? The trick is to translate the enormous numbers involved in this "click activism" into offline action or concrete support. This is definitely not a new debate and what counts as participation or membership can be challenged offline too - is going to a meeting any more effective than commenting in a forum?

Should the internet become a human right?

Becoming a fundamental part of communication and freedom of expression - not to mention access to services. Will there be a moment when it becomes a human right? Not universally anytime soon but if you look at France and Finland it makes you think just how important it has become to so many people in a short amount of time.

So that was my attempt at a summary complete with bad grammar, possibly poor spelling and maybe even factual inaccuracies. The good people on Twitter are probably a better source...