The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November 2015. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> MODERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
Balancing transparency and privacy. And we're here because UNESCO is working on this subject in our mandate of promoting freedom of expression online and off line. We perceive that freedom information transparency is a part of the free expression, but if you are on the Internet in the digital age, it has become very complicated because of a border. That is why I have commissioned University of Gronigen, led by Professor Kanatachi earlier this year to look at this complex of seriousness of issues. The aim is to unpack the difficult issue in the subject by seeking answers through both enumerative and empirical information.
This impact here came across individuals, society and private sector, and also government. We need to address the privacy and the personal data by the transparency and vice versa. And to share the good practices in privacy and transparency.
Actually, one privacy expert, Mr. Macinber, wrote me he doesn't like the word balancing. It can also be well discussed because should there be a tradeoff between its two freedoms.
So I'm very happy to introduce our first presenter, Professor Joseph Kanatachi, and also I like to take this opportunity to congratulate his appointment at UN Internal on the privacy. And we are gladly to have known the commissioner before he was appointed.
So now have the very short presentation on the research and the finalization, so I believe we can have the PowerPoint of the research on now.
>> PROFESSOR KANATACHI: Yes, good morning, everybody. This seems to be working. I have the flicker. Thank you.
Thank you for your kind introduction. Yes, I would like to make it clear, ladies and gentlemen, that although one of the three hats I'm wearing in this IGF session is that of the US special operator on privacy today -- I mean, not today, I should say, this particular session is not -- this session is wearing a hat from the University of Gronigen in the Netherlands where I go directly to the Security of Technology and the Privacy Research Group. We have about 20 people working on the various aspects of privacy, and in this particular case I have been given the task of summarizing eight months' work by four people in ten minutes.
All I'm going to do, ladies and gentlemen, is zip through a kind of table of contents and some of the recommendations and then those of you who are interested can come along to Dr. Shankoa and myself and give us a card and we'll share with you the final product when it is ready.
The technical crew at the back, is the flicker working, because I keep flicking and all people are seeing are my name and the title, and I don't like that. I share Mark's sentiments.
Balancing Privacy and Transparency. They complement each other. They don't balance each other. But we'll see that as it goes along.
This is not working. I should try to put it on? Is there an on/off switch? It is slightly different than mine. Okay. I was the on/off switch. There we go.
Okay. The first thing that I would explain is that we tend to perceive the Internet not as one ecosystem but as a collection of ecosystems.
It was actually designed technically to be that way, too. But the way that this was developed later is something which we'll see immerging over the next few years, certainly.
Whether you put this ecosystems together, and I could spend the next ten hours talking about ecosystems and the way that we could put this together, technically socially, nationally, regionally, internationally, it's a term which sometimes is overused, but actually it is -- it would seem to fit the Bill here.
And what we have been looking at in this study is the way that not one right, actually although we talk about transparency, we are also talking about some other rights like freedom of expression and the right to information, which are very important complementary rights to privacy.
In fact, some of our previous work we had come up with the notion of lex person, a law of personality. This is one of the things which hopefully in future, future studies of privacy and transparency will look at in greater detail.
The Germans have been amongst the jurisdictions which have studied this most, which have developed the concept most, and unfortunately we haven't really had a structured international discussion about the subject, and I'm hoping that this report, which UNESCO has commissioned us to produce, would be part of the few which will fuel interest in the study of these three rights together. To a certain extent, they can be called a tripod of rights.
In terms of constitutional law, some people call these enabling privacy freedom of expression, the right to information could to a certain extent just be determined enable leaning rights. They are rights, fundamental rights certainly, button able the achievement of a higher right.
The higher right is the un hindered right to the development of one's personality. And that is something which I think will benefit from much greater discussion during the next months and years.
I don't have much to tell you about the world we live in, so that was my cue here just to think about all the various things which have happened over the past ten years, including the extensive so much personal data is now generated in every single transaction we make on the Internet, on using our mobile phones, even when not on the Internet using our credit cards, that's the world we live in.
And we have to see the extent to which that is going to get any better or worse. And then you have to define better or worse. But one of the things that we're looking at in the studies is what does privilege see mean. Okay, so as you know one of the greatest problems with privacy for a long time has been defining privacy. And needless to say we have been examining the traditional versus the modern understandings. Also needless to say, we lead from a position where we don't consider privacy to be an absolute right, but then many other rights are not absolute rights. And we try to determine the level to which privacy is dead in the digital age, right. Because people believe privacy is dead.
Then we go carry out a whole bunch of research and privacy seems to be more alive than the last time we did it. What we've done in the studies is we're looking at privacy at the individual level, we're looking at the corporate level, we're looking at state, international level. We've tried to look at the way that measures can be taken up from the highest level to the lowest level.
The next thing we did is the freedom of expression. And in freedom of expression, we considered the extent to which freedom of expression has been enlarged by the Internet. Today you no longer need the medium of a journalist or an editor in order to be able to publish worldwide.
Some people say it is a good thing. Some people say it's a bad thing. And, of course, we can have a long discussion about that. But it's also endangered in the Internet age because whether we like it or not, there are a number of countries where you are free to say what you like, but unfortunately if you do say what you like, you have no guarantee that either some form of state service will not pick you up at night and do rather negative things to you.
By the same token, you can say what you like, but the consequences are generally always there. In some countries other than others you are in a far better position. And one of the things that we're looking at are the new regulatory approaches which are needed.
We also are examining transparency and freedom of information in different contexts, right. So we are also looking at the challenges in the Internet age that we are seeing in these two rights. And you have noticed also the degree of intersection between the rights. I mean, one of the happy things that happened to me when I was made -- when I was appointed to a special repertoire on privacy is freedom of expression they had actually written a very useful report two months before which was mostly about private see, mostly about anonymity and encryption and a very useful report it was, too. And we have many intersections of the two rights.
I generally look at it as the flow of information in society and the way that we regulate those flows of information in society. Professor Rodota choose works have long been in inspiration to me was writing about the subject in 1979 and 1982 when I was still an undergraduate student. If I had to refer to an Italian philosopher, Norberto and Laclamet where democracy and physical power where Bobbie was examining the flows of information in society and the result and impact on the distribution of power of society, but now we're no longer only interested in distribution of power; we're also interested in distribution of money, because so much has been monetized, and we're also interested in all the other impacts that we have.
Ask one of the things that I would like to bring to the floor is the growing value we hope of the personality of the private individual and how that personality can be both developed by using the Internet and the Internet offers hugely valuable tool for developing one's personality and all society can be challenged and damaged.
Okay. Freedom of expression. I've already talked about some of this and I don't wish to go out of time. What we've looked at in some of the parts of the study that we are finalizing at this moment in time, we've looked at the Google Spain case. We've looked at public figures and freedom of expression. We have looked at annotators of legislation privacy protection. And we've come out with a few recommendations, which are rather sketchy at this moment in time, but they are directed at least three different target audiences. When it comes to national state authorities, we are encouraging self-regulation, co-regulation of the private sector. No great surprise there.
We're also recommending an update of the existing league of protection framework, both in scoping the rights, but also providing for exemptions.
We're also recommending great standardization. We're talking about the improvement of transparency in all stages.
We are looking at safeguards for the use of personal data by secret and surveillance services. You could also have security services there.
We are openly encouraging the use of encryption, PET price see technologies, and I'm sorry to come out badly here, but also stopping indirect support for countries abusing technologies.
So what does that mean in plain English? If you have countries which seem to be abusing surveillance technologies we should stop direct or indirect support with this. We could have a whole argument in this room just about that is what you've discovered in the hacking team the revelations in July.
Insofar as the second target audience looking a the private sector, once again we're advocating more transparency, we are advocate ago closer look at internal policies and instructors, we're talking about the clarification and indeed the simplification of privacy policies. We're talking about transparency reports and their value. A huge value in transparency reports. We're talking about the importance of humans rights and assessments.
We're also talking about following higher industrial standards and self-regulation and co-regulation. And by higher industrial standards is also talking about building and privacy by design from an industrial point of view.
We're talking about the respecting of human rights of old people and adopting policies to the requirement of local laws.
Then we have a third target audience which is international society, which is us and many people out there, which is -- there are recommendations focus on emphasizing the importance of these rights that we're talking about, negotiating and developing -- developing new agreements, international agreements and developing new international agreements as well as con continuing to improve existing international agreements.
We are also recommending the minimization of surveillance across borders, and once again, that is another subject which we could be here all week about.
One thing which is very important that which builds upon private use work by UNESCO is improving digital literacy and reducing the digital divide. And looking at life skills would like to see the extent to which children are also brought up in an atmosphere of sensitivity to awareness of privacy, freedom of expression, et cetera. Also, can you look at the economic input which these human rights have, and the importance of promote democracy and digital transparency.
That's it. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I can come back with more details if questions are asked, but I trust within ten minutes --
>> MODERATOR: A little bit more. Thank you so much. It is such an inspiring research. Also we are still finalizing it together with the professor. This meeting, workshop will well contribute to this process. So all the comments can be possibly taken into the final draft.
I should mention that this study contributes to UNESCO comprehensive Internet study. We are looking at four areas. Access, free speech and privacy and once it is finalized we will make a new edition on the Internet of freedom series, which you have showcased outside the room. All these books are available online. You can download them from the link we have put on the leave lit.
Now I think that you have seen we have a very strong panel here. I shall not waste more time on moderation, but go straight to the quick comments from our experts. We have experts from different regions, from different stakeholders, and from different agents. Also have a very young active speaker, Yada, from Syria.
So first I would like to give floor to our expert. It is Mr. Daniel Tonita. He is advisor to the consumer office of the ministry of the justice of Brazil.
So you have the floor. I wish you can finish your comments in three minutes. So are you the first one.
>> DANIEL TONITA: Let's try. Thank you.
I begin to say that I completely support the position of (Indiscernible) not balanced in free information and privacy is a necessary to do. I remember that a French professor, Yet Tacala, planned a (Indiscernible) of information, which included freedom of privacy and technical rights and data which tried together in a kind of general framework for Information Society and that is the way I believe the subject must be approached.
We must believe that choose the freedom of information can be used to protect external data just as the right to access data, as well as choice of transparency are fundamental to the protection of information data, in the sense that all treatment of personal data must be public, must be transparent so enter session between these two rights is kind of obvious, but, of course, there will be some problems that must be taking care by the international framework.
We must believe that without a joint effort, without com plea mentation we risk having no trust from the society on sharing their data for important for legitimate purpose. And without sharing the data that can be shared that could have no real use -- the data can be useless sometimes.
And also there is a particular situation we sometimes feel in Brazil that there is the risk when one side is taking with some present dominance among the other, just like in Brazil we have a lot of freedom for information and we have to law on personal data. Regardless, it has improved our freedom of information practices. It's clear that sometimes there is kind of (Indiscernible) against right to privacy which can be seen, for instance, and I’ll only mention two brief examples. The banning of CCTVs in public arenas. For instance, newspapers and TV used to show images that must be printed secretly by enforcement agencies, but for a Brazilian they kind of belong to the public.
Also, the overflow of personal information. Some journalistic pieces of information, that creates a kind of risk or privacy violation. We must remember that we are approaching the regulation of the general framework in Brazil. In the drafting of this proposal the Minister of justice tried to implement some protections to freedom of information just like the law on personal data doesn't apply to law to personal data, use it for journal list stick purposes but also for literary, artistic and academic purposes, but what can be done of this depends on the Congress and then the judges.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. I notice you are set ago clock here to remind you. Such a good practice of self-regulation.
>> DANIEL TONITA: That was my best effort.
>> MODERATOR: How we balance this. We can ask, maybe, our young speaker. Really appreciate the practice. We know that Brazil is really leading this Internet governance, and also the balancing rights, so it is very useful to our research. So now I wonder if we get to the slide for our young speaker, Yad Calas.
>> MR. YAD CALAS: just need the remote control. Can I have it?
>> MODERATOR: Mr. Joe Yachad is a co-founder of (Indiscernible) in Syria.
>> MR. YAD CALAS: Exactly.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much for traveling to here and to share at the Internet age we all need to use from use and thank you to be here and now the floor is yours.
>> MR. YAD CALAS: Thank you for inviting me and thank you everybody for coming. My name is Yad Calas. I come from Syria. It is a community development and radio. We work in conflict, so probably this is the way I'm going to tackle the transparency in privacy issues that we face every day, since we're reporting from conflict zones.
For us when we talk about transparency and privacy they're very strongly associated with accountability. Transparency is very strongly associated with accountability because we're reporting on crimes of war, we're reporting on a lot of issues happening. Every day there is a lot of data coming from Syria and the Internet everybody has turned either into a fighter or into a citizen journalist, so we're getting a lot of data.
So we try to deal with it as a media outlet, as a responsible media outlet, we try to take it with social -- we try to be as much socially responsible as possible. But it is getting complicated every day because when we increase transparency to a point that might tackle the privacy of individuals or groups and might affect their security, their personal security. I mean, probably a report on the Internet might get somebody's head off, it's that bad. So we try to be as much -- as responsible as possible and for that we try to work a lot on what would lead to peace building and that is what we call positive media.
Ethics are very important. Transparency and privacy of ethics of conduct with journalism are very important, but so are the dignity of the people. And so are the usefulness, the hub lick interest that we try to deliver by working in such a conflict zone.
So we try in order to be socially responsible, we try to work on three levels. We have a methodology that we try to develop to work with the people with reporting. First of all we differentiate. We differentiate between the groups and the individuals because reporting on the individuals is not as important as reporting on the groups. The groups are mostly responsible for the acts and not the individuals. The individuals are mostly groups or brain washed by groups. So this is how we try to focus on groups more than anybody else.
We try to differentiate between what is happening online and off line. We know there is a strong connection so we try to create the environment not to create any kind of evaluation of privacy and security off line.
No. 2 we try to cooperate by cooperating we care a lot about public interest. And I mean by that that we protect our sources. We provide them with secure channels so they can communicate with us. Without violating their privacy on the Internet, and keeping a level of transparency of what is happening on the floor.
We give them the right training. We give them everything they need so they wouldn't bust themselves and expose themself on the Internet, because once you're expose owed the Internet, you're not safe on the ground. Even if you are in the ex I'll. And this happened to our colleagues in Turkey, for example.
We also try to work with Civil Society, with Civil Society organizations, and we try to benefit from research done by the UNESCO, for instance, by human rights watch and whatsoever.
No. 3, we try to educate. We know that we're a bit far away from what is going to happen in the future when we talk about digital citizenship and we're a bit far away from that. We should be really careful about the privacy. But we try to, since we're a media outlet we try to benefit from that and try to educate people about digital citizenship and what is related to it so maybe one day in the future we can benefit from that.
If you can any questions you can reach me by Email and I'm available during the three days.
Thank you so much.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. It has been a new issue. I don't think we have addressed your study about the transparency and conflict region which would definitely be considered.
So now I move on to our company representative, Mr. Pedro Less Andrade. He is Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy for Latin America, or GLUCO. Thank you for coming.
>> PEDRO LESS ANDRADE: Thank you. It's a great pleasure to be here. I would like to focus on what are the challenges that we are seeing from the -- particularly focusing in Latin America. While having witness and having working on that production in privacy for the past 18 years. So I can see the evolution. But also I can see some lack of evolution in terms of what we need to do to get, you know, the next level of legislation in relation in terms of privacy.
One of the key issues that we are seeing is that sometimes we are facing with definitions in the different privacy legislations. They are outdated for the Information Society and this could lead us to confuse personal data with information. Sometimes we see very broad definition of what is considered personal data and that can lead to this confusion. This is something that we discuss in our past workshop last year that was one of the key issues around the discussion on right to be forgotten, that sometimes, you know, it is a problem that some information get caught in the discussion that is not personal data and that is information that needs to be there.
So that is key to -- because, you know, we can reach to be instead on the Information Society on the personal data society, if we don't -- you know, focus more on, you know, new definitions on what we consider personal data.
Also another challenge that we see here has to do with the issues of jurisdiction. And also going back to the example of right to be forgotten, for example what happened with France when Sanile asked Google to apply the concept of right to be forgotten worldwide and we showed that we were unable to do that. In fact we have a good example in Latin America. We have the Supreme Court of Columbia that come out with a complete different interpretation of what right to be forgotten should be implemented. And as completely opposite of interpretation and there were, you know, two supreme courts, supreme bodies of the Jew dish area that has completely different opinions.
That is also another important point to keep in mind.
Particularly for regions like Latin America we have, you know, the benefits speak almost one or two languages with Brazil and Spanish speaking
Latin America, what we are seeing is a lot of different legislation on privacy with different principles that makes very difficult for a company in Latin America to work across the region. So harmonization is something important also.
It is very interesting the work that the organization is doing on this regard. They are setting up principles on the data protections with the interests to just get more harmonized on this and it is really good work in progress that we are looking for in terms of privacy.
So I'm all of my time now, yes. So those are mainly the -- oh, there. So those are mainly the points.
Also the other -- what we are seeing, we just released our new report on transparency report where you can see how many requests from governments we have received, but in the H1 2014 report what we have seen, for example, for Latin America is the information request from the government, this could come from (Indiscernible) or government bodies. In Latin America 50% is almost about defamation, which in our regions accounts for one-third. This is something interesting that sometimes what we see is people that want to solve issues around defamation are using data protection as a shortcut, because something is so hard to get a good decision depending on the different laws of information in different countries that they might find a shortcut using privacy. But that could lead to a lot of problems on expression and access to information.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you for very useful inputs. It reminds me my necessary key previous publication on the intermediate law.
We also, of course, have your recommendation to have a more enabling legislation for the components to be responsible for human rights and for some issues here. For example, but even within the company, I mean the terms of services and you have your self-regulator framework, which could also be very much contribute to the issue as well.
And now I move to our next speaker, it's Mr. Danny O'Brien. Did I pronounce that well? I just learned it from him. And he is a co-founder of Open Rights Group and also the International Director of one of the leading NGO in the area called EFF, Electronic Frontier Foundation based in San Francisco, US. The floor is yours.
>> DANNY O'BRIEN: Thank you.
I think the framework that Joe described that the report embodies of these interlocking domains is incredibly useful, and I think part of the reason why is it so useful is as participants on the Internet and new technology and I think the background that I'm going to be speaking from is largely about representing the individual rights of users and participants in technology and the Information Society is that those domains are very blurred. We quickly move depending on the rights and responsibilities of each of those domains. Each of us now have a set where they're no longer professions, I think they're no longer each roles, I think they're capabilities of each individual. Each of us can be at any point in our lives a citizen journalist, whether it is something that we choose to take up as something that is important for us or have it put upon us.
I know people have been involved in the Syrian conflict who had no interest in politics or documenting what they saw around them, but quickly found themselves in a vital and important capacity. So often these are powers of freedom of expression that we can now take because of the technology we have.
We're also, I think, all, perhaps not by the letter of the law, but certainly as I say in terms of capacity, I think we're also all data controllers and we're all data processes. I think one of the fascinating things and one of the things that made the data protection principles so precedent was that they described a world in which everybody had this capacity to collect and process and share and use data.
And I think that is important to note, because it's not just large companies who take advantage of these capabilities and it is not something that we should reserve solely to those companies.
We're also all public figures. We're also public figures and private figures. Some of the most fascinating aspects I think to that reinforcement between privacy and transparency that I've seen is when individuals, just to give an example on Twitter, go from being just people talking to their friends to finding that something has been re-Tweeted, they suddenly have thousands of followers, they have a lot of public attention, and the attitude to their private data suddenly shifts to becoming a public figure without them having any of the protections of the traditional public figure. You go from a situation where private information is sack raw sink to a position where people feel they have a public duty to trail through someone's past.
And finally, we're all citizens. We're all participants in the open Information Society and I think that is a really important one, because when we think of freedom of information, we think most importantly about powerful institutions and obtaining information from them. And of course, what do those powerful institutions contain? An incredible amount of personal data about citizens. And we don't want to be where freedom of information dissuade people from participating and getting involved in the process.
I am running over a little bit so I will quickly summarize how quickly these things can shift and how important in a regulatory environment, some very fixed lines so people know when they're going to cross them, but in this period of transition I think it is important to allow us the flexibility to shift between them.
There was a time when your vote was something of a public record. People didn't see a responsibility to keep a vote private. Your address, which I remember living with telephone directories made perfect sense to publish an address. If you found an address of someone these days it would be doxing. I think shifting so quickly we have to make sure everybody who is in charge of regulating this environment is aware of all of these interlocking domains. If you are data protection authority you are also responsible for freedom of expression on the Internet. If you are a regulator who is charged with protecting freedom of expression on the Internet or freedom of information you're also in charge of data protection.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. You well cited a hard, complicated issue because there are so many actors, so many different frameworks we do need sort of harmony there. I want to apologize for our last speaker, because when I was organizing the panel, my habits go to mathematics in the gender equality. We have three female speakers and three male speakers. In my head somehow that I failed.
So I think that, Carolyn, you can speak one more minute.
>> MODERATOR: Let me introduce you formally. Ms. Carolyn R. She is vice president of Internet policy and the public technology. Also a little bit further because it's too brief. Okay. The floor is yours. You can speak one more minute.
>> CAROLYN: Hi. Is this working? Okay.
So I'm actually from Brazil, but I work in the US now, and I worked on this environment for more than 15 years. I have passed from every stakeholder from companies, academia, to Civil Society. What did you do here? Okay. You control. Yeah.
And, so, first I would like to thank you. I will try to keep three minutes, but thank you for the fourth minute.
First I want to thank you to all the work here you guys did at this table. I know some of you for many years. Without you I think we would be really worse if the NSA surveillance were not worse enough.
Second, I think we need to also look at other things that are happening because while I agree very much with the principles and recommendations you are doing and are working on and I'm very happy you got elected for this position, a lot of people are not paying attention where law is being negotiated and implemented. So I'm talking about trade agreements. I'm talking about something that a lot of countries do which is shifting. They cannot get the most pressing laws at the national environment, for example, for any political reasons and they go outside their Country where sometimes they have more negotiation power, they go to negotiate with Developing Countries and then because Developing Countries need access to the commodity markets Developing Countries give a lot of other rights that you worry about, freedom of and verb on, access to knowledge, access to textbooks, and in a lot of cases privacy.
So one of the works I've been doing, I've been to the transpartnership agreement that was just signed some time ago and actually now the countries have 92 days to move it towards the national environment. This is one of the agreements that have has a lot of substance I have law that means it can in general be directly applied and they become a federal law in those countries, a lot of South Asia countries, in America, Latin America, Peru, Chili and Mexico.
And all those trade agreements, if you look at chapters such as eCommerce, service and telco that is where they're regulating our privacy.
I think to work at the UN level is extremely important. That's where we gather documents to exercise accountability when we go back to our countries, but trade agreements are not transparent for much lateral venues.
Even with the US charge which is the negotiating head or all the negotiating heads transforming in the open govern partnership those transparencies are not enough because you don't know just now we know what's there about privacy. And for the first time in a trade agreement we actually have national security and surveillance issues written down in our trade agreement. So trade agreements have broaden. They scope much more from the very old traditional trade barriers.
Talking about trade barriers, how am I on my time? Okay. Safe harbor. You guys have probably heard that the safe harbor was considered, how do you say that in English? Well, they drop the safe harbor European union invalidate Ted safe harbor and there were two, three hearings in the US Congress. There were two or three hearings last week where a lot of American companies are pushing the US government to sue the European Union at the WT world trade organization mechanism. So privacy is being seen, has a trade barrier. Accept limitations on copyright that have all of us have access to education and so many things. So I would encourage all of you, and I'm available and there are incredible people here from Latin America working on trade, to talk more about that if we need.
So I think my final note is on balancing. I like a lot what the Google repetitive mentioned here that we need to separate personal data from information. I am a believer in open science, collaborative science and a lot of things that are happening science are possible because we share data. Patients want to share data because they want to find their cure for Alzheimer's, for cancer and for many other issues.
There is a great project on informed consent that solves a lot of privacy issues. However, if countries do put high barriers to cross-border data flows, we won't be able to match data from China from Europe, US and Latin America. So we need to somehow, and I don't have the answer for that, figure out exceptions that are important for issues like, for example, health, clinical trials, understanding the effects of medicine, understanding how a disease progresses. So I think it is a very hard issue. It is not a black and white question, so we have to consider this, I think n a whole list stick matter to really understand what works. And don't forget to pay attention to the hard law places where law is actually made.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I think our last speaker didn't disappoint us to really give us new ideas. We do agree that you have been promoting open access to scientific information. When talk about transparency really not only talking about the government.
Since I'm reminded by that clock we have ten minutes. I can't believe it. Since we started late can I take liberty we can have ten more minutes and so we have 20 minutes for discussion.
And, would you like to give some quick feedback or go straight to the audience?
>> YAD CALAS: I think it is fair to go to the audience and see what they have to say. But perhaps I'm picking up responses I wouldn't mind going first because I have to go and speak somewhere else in ten minutes time.
>> MODERATOR: Okay.
>> YAD CALAS: If we have a midway, I would be glad to respond briefly. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Also thank everybody here. I see so many people are sitting on the floor and somebody is standing in the behind. It shows that you have a strong interest in this important subject.
So now I open the floor. I promote the culture of Twitter. Can you limit your intervention question or comment into 140 words in ten seconds.
Please, the lady here, I think just go there. You have the floor.
>> AUDIENCE: Thanks. I'm Dawn Dominco. I have a question for you.
My question is about if I have understood very well that in European self-regulation and the co-regulation could be suited sources to regulate privacy and the freedom of speech. Any doubt for name of democracy and represent if our fundamental right are regulated by private people? That's all.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Anybody else? I like to collect maybe three or four questions ask then we can -- okay. The gentleman there, please.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm (Indiscernible). Could you please tell which international standards in fear of protection of privacy you could provide and how they could be formulated.
>> MODERATOR: Who else? Yes, please.
>> AUDIENCE: Patrick (Indiscernible), Project Mapping.
Privacy is about the release of information or not between two or more parties, which means access control. Access control requires some form of authentication and identity management to support the trust relationship.
So my question is: How do you see authentication and identity management helping to assist improvements in authentication, hoping to improve privacy?
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for a good question.
And anybody from behind? Yeah, I saw a lady as a remote
>> It's on the clock. You see.
Ø > MODERATOR: We have this question from India. Shall I read it?
Okay. She said --
>> Carolyn: Do you want me to read? I can read.
>> MODERATOR: I can read it. Thank you.
I would like to ask the gentleman from Google; that is, Pedro, if he thinks government intervention with regard to privacy should operate on the principal that the Internet and digital users are unaware of the repercussions of breach of privacy by private companies like Google and the consequent of individual consent should not be the automatic exception to the protection of a certain kind of data or information.
If there are no other quick -- oh, yeah. I like to give the floor to the gentleman sitting on the floor. Yes, please. The floor is yours.
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. My question relates to like in a citizen journalist who are operating in repressive environments. Like in my own Country, Zimbabwe there was an anonymous and see Donna Musgy, just clubbed up on facebook and he had a large following. But what he was saying, although it was true but he was not accounted for because he was using an encryption. So how do you balance the right of citizens journalist to remain anonymous or maybe private but at the same time how do you know what they are saying? How do they become accountable? So how do you balance those interlocking, you know, domains?
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you for this very valid question.
>> AUDIENCE: Also I think Google, I know the government ended up coming to you to produce a transparency report, for you to identify who that person was, so I wanted to seek clarification under what circumstances do you disclose the identity of that person to an oppressive government.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. That is a hard one.
So we go for the last question from a gentleman to my right side, could you please give the floor. Yeah, and then I will give it to you respond and go through our panelists.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. My name is Tecavo from (Indiscernible).
So my question is for you. With many constraints related to income share, related to secretive, for example, the one who the gentleman presented from Syria, would you -- there will be a balance between privacy and transparency with an equal level in some time because there are a lot of constraints.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
I think we really have got more than enough questions and we have so little time.
Now I give prior to Joe. Joe, give some feedback very quickly. Thank you.
>> JOE: Okay. Thank you very much. Let me start to the right -- or the last question.
The -- first of all, I think that before you talk about transparency and privacy you should also talk about security. I'm also one of those people who doesn't like to talk about balancing, privacy and security. I think security and privacy and transparency complement each other. It's just how you organize things in such a way that you do it in a way which is appropriate in a democratic society.
So that is my first point, that when you talk about transparency and privacy, include security and see not how you're going to balance them, but it's a bit like cooking and the recipe. I don't know whether you like your food, but I enjoy mine. You don't need to have the right amount of herbs or paprika in a recipe to make a good dish but you have to have just the right amount. And sometimes you add more and sometimes you add less. And it depends on what you're trying to do, right.
And the same applies to security. The same applies to privacy. The same applies to transparency.
A number of important points have been raised and I tried to take some notes, but the point that has been raised about repressive society, that is a particularly difficult issue as Dr. Shancou said I would suggest that we have to error on the rights of the safety and security of individuals, which is why as far as I'm concerned, anonymity is a sacred right if you need to take things forward in a society.
There are many societies, unfortunately, where there is some form of repression or another which is carried out using the Internet, using information which is revealed on the Internet, and that is dangerous. So, when it comes to identifying somebody who has hidden behind anonymity tee, you have to think about mechanisms there which are properly thought out in a rule of law context. You can't simply give that away. I mean, I could go on at length over this because you need a number of appropriate safeguards in order to make sure that you go behind the technical safeguards which have been set up to protect somebody's anonymity tee.
So, this is a bit similar to the discussion that we have going on forever and ever about tour, right. When you have -- when you understand that TOUR is subsidized to a certain extend by the United States, you know, 06, 80, 90 percent, when you see how much funding is spent so people around the world can have means to access information in a private manner and in a manner expose them to retribution and then on the other side you have the police and you have secret services who are constantly complaining about TOUR because it makes life difficult.
Now, it's the same police in the United States who also do that, not only them, police around the world complain. But I think it is very important that we realize that in the end you often go down on the side of the person who is weakest or most exposed here.
The lady asked the question about self-regulation. Well, I think within my team and myself personally, we published some work even about self-regulation on the Internet and other places. Self-regulation and co-regulation should be encouraged and they're fine and dandy, but we must also realize that there are places where co-regulation and self-regulation just does not work. And at that moment in time we've got to be responsible enough and sensible enough and say, I'm sorry, we're trying to give self-regulation and co-regulation a chance, it's not working, here comes regulation.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. My colleague is taking notes. We will definitely provide you and consider all the questions.
Look, I have difficult to balance the questions and responses because we only have a few minutes, so now I give you one minute to each of our panelists to give your responses or your last comment to our audience. Who would like to take the first floor? Maybe from you. Yes, our Google gentlemen, please.
>> Well, to answer the first question addressed to me, I'm going to be on top of Professor Kanatachi just mentioned about the importance considered privacy and transparency all together and I will add also control. And control by the user. The ability of the user that constant could be -- that's okay. Constant could be not enough and sometimes the user need to have tools within the platforms to counter his information, to see what they want to show, to understand what information is gathered from him, and that way is a way to exercise its right to the term -- to information determination.
This is very important in order to also complement what constant could do. The fact going to the second question that has to do with requirements from repressive countries to release information, what we do is first there are countries where we are not operated, operating because we consider that by operating those countries that put up our users at risk and we will decided to take very tough decision. Sometimes we relinquish very big markets and not to have operations in certain markets because of that. So that is part of our commitment to our users.
In other countries that could be, you know, we always look at the rule of law. We always look at due process. We always have lawyers analyzing the requests and analyzing if those requests are in line with the local law, and if there is the ability of use others to defend their self against those requests.
So those are kind of analysis we do when we have to release information.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I just noticed maybe there is another event which you are needed immediately.
I am sorry. We are just finishing in three minutes, I promise.
My panelists, I will give a treat to respond to either a question or last comment. Thank you.
>> Just my general take on this in a conflict Joan or developed world this, is my personal take.
Accountability and transparency should be applied more on the powerful and privacy and security should be given more to the power less.
>> That was very good. Thank you for that.
I think, again, it's a complex issue. We need to get involved with. We need to speak with other, how I come them, sister communities to see what is at the table in terms of when it's good, when it's bad, sharing information on personal data.
>> But I'm also talking about prove us, show us that collecting information actually helps to prevent things. So I think that's really important in what we should be thinking of.
>> MODERATOR: Yes. So briefly, just to check on the comment from
Carolyn about the agreement, which was written and valid, I want to stress when checking that protection as a commercial issue, we tend to forget that some courts, such as European courts of justice are pushed on the side that protection is a fundamental right. It can be a clash of standards that if really provokes in the freedom from information site and also the protection site.
>> CAROLINA: Just very quickly to touch on some of the questions that talked about anonymity tee. I think particularly in tees where there are challenges about discussion and free discussion I think protecting anonymity is incredibly important. I think that while I understand the point that part of being able to protect the propagation of private information requires some kind of authentication, I don't necessarily think that authentication has to be tied to identity, strongly, and I also think one of the reasons why we need to push hard to protect people's individual right to encryption and anonymity so that they're the only people who know who they are rather than necessarily sharing information with intermediaries is because with we look at repressive societies, I am increasingly seeing technologists and users of that technology being targeted and that being used as an excuse to chill and imprison them for otherwise perfectly reasonable acts of freedom of expression. We see this in Ethiopia, in Syria, and I don't want to see that spread any further.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. My last comment to thank all the panelists and participants and all the girls and boys helping us with this, and I invite you to UNESCO sessions on Thursday and Friday. We will continue this discussion. We will address more questions you have raised, particularly flavor of other publication about UNESCO and also panelists there. So I wish to catch up in our other session and other occasion.