Re: [hrpc] My suggestion for the attribution paragraph

[Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>]

I can live with that too - will make the suggested change. 

Thanks!

Best,

Niels

On 04-05-2021 01:10, Mark Perkins wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> The paragraph is excellent, but instead 'potential' I would prefer 'probable'; giving
> 
> Considering the *probable* adverse impact of attribution on the right to privacy and freedom of expression, enabling attribution on an individual level is most likely not consistent with human rights.
> 
> Regards
> Mark P.
> 
> 
> Le 04/05/2021 à 01:25, Niels ten Oever a écrit :
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On 03-05-2021 16:12, John Curran wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2021, at 11:05 AM, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> Explanation: Access to remedy may help victims of human rights violation in seeking justice, or allow law enforcement agencies to identify a possible violator. However, such mechanisms may impede the exercise of the right to privacy. The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has also argued that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom of expression [Kaye]. Considering the adverse impact of attribution on the right to privacy and freedom of expression, enabling attribution on an individual level is most likely not consistent with human rights. However, providing access to remedy by states and corporations is an inherent part of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights {{UNGP}}.
>>> Niels -
>>>
>>> Great job in both addressing the issue and adding useful context for the reader!
>>>
>>> If I had one nit, it would be that attribution doesn’t inherently mean an impact to the right to privacy and freedom of expression, although I agree that such is often the result…
>>>
>>>   Since it is not inevitable, I would ask that state it as a potential, as follows -
>>>
>>> ///Considering _the potential adverse impact from attribution _on the right to privacy and freedom of expression, enabling attribution on an individual level is most likely not consistent with human rights./
>>> /
>>> /
>>> Thoughts?
>> Looks reasonable to me, added and thus the para now reads:
>>
>> ### Remedy
>>
>> Question(s): Can your protocol facilitate a negatively impacted party's right to remedy without disproportionately impacting other parties' human rights, especially their right to privacy?
>>
>> Explanation: Access to remedy may help victims of human rights violations in seeking justice, or allow law enforcement agencies to identify a possible violator. However, such mechanisms may impede the exercise of the right to privacy. The former Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has also argued that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom of expression {{Kaye}}. Considering the potential adverse impact of attribution on the right to privacy and freedom of expression, enabling attribution on an individual level is most likely not consistent with human rights. However, providing access to remedy by states and corporations is an inherent part of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights {{UNGP}}.
>>
>> Impacts:
>>
>> - Right to remedy
>> - Right to security
>> - Right to privacy
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>>
>>> /John
>>>
>>> Disclaimers:  My views alone.  This email is composed of 100% recycled electrons.
>>>
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of Amsterdam
Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European University Viadrina
Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Affiliated Factulty - Digital Democracy Insitute - Simon Fraser University

https://nielstenoever.net - [e-mail] - @nielstenoever - [phone]
PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in New Media & Society here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820929320