Towards a declaration of digital human rights
In the New Statesman, Peter Bradwell of the UK think thank Demos explains why we need an explicit declaration of digital human rights.
Here is the excerpt with his argumentation.
Peter Bradwell:
“Without it, we will lose collective and individual purchase on them, ceding more power to other people, governments and organisations to determine the meaning and course of our lives.
There is a risk that we presume networks like the internet are, by default, open and democratic. But as it has become embedded in everyday life, tensions have emerged between what is possible and existing norms, laws and ways of working. In response, legislation, investment and regulation have begun to shape how network technologies operate.
At the moment, we are not basing these interventions on the principle that technology can help more people have power to influence their lives and the world around them. The focus has been too keenly placed on the interests of those that already have that power.
There are two principle challenges.
Firstly, information has become infinitely more reproducible, meaning we can share it and comment upon it like never before. Digital technology has connected people, their ideas, information, and products, making new kinds of collaboration and innovation possible.
Secondly, information about us and what we do has proliferated. We leave a digital footprint detailing our every move, which has made it easier for others to find out about us and decide on the kind of people we are. Neither of these are good or bad in themselves. But whether it is creating, sharing and critiquing the information around us, or in the investment we have in how others make decisions about who we are, the digital age can either give us more power, or take it away. A statement of digital rights is the only way to guarantee which.
For example, content like video and music is too often seen as just an economic asset. But it is also our culture. As such, there is a democratic imperative to emphasise the principle that people can share and discuss and build upon it. That will only happen if we stress our rights to do so, and build regulation and interventions around those principles.
If we do not stake a claim for such digital rights, then technology is merely in the service of the world as it currently is. The internet will become merely a shop, rather than an engine of social, political and economic innovation. We will not find new spaces for expression, debate and exchange but will find overly regulated, inhibited forums.
Our information will not become a tool for us to have more power over how others see us, and to debate and negotiate our place in the world. It will instead hand others – business and government – the power to decide those things, and the requisite response, for us.
If these rights are to make sense, they have to be universal, and international. We need a right-based paradigm rather than one of heavy regulation and rules. Ofcom and other media bodies are rightly looking at self-regulation and co-regulation, for example.
But these initiatives need to be underpinned by an assertion of the ideal status of individuals in the digital age.
Intervention and regulation around the internet was once seen as an attack on the principles of openness and autonomy.
It is now necessary, in the right form, to guarantee technology remains open, accessible and free. Just as with the Declaration of Human Rights, that takes a healthy mix of optimism, advocacy and realism.”
