Internet Architecture and Human Rights: Beyond the Human Rights Gap

Abstract

Internet architecture and infrastructure are generally not at the top of the concerns of end users, and the overlying logical arrangements of root services, domain names, and protocols remain largely invisible to its users. Recent developments, however—including massive user data leakages, hacks targeting social networking service providers, and behavioral micro‐targeting—have turned a spotlight on Internet governance defined broadly, and its relationship with civil liberties and human rights. The articles in this special issue examine the policymaking role of influential private intermediaries and private actors such as ICANN in enacting global governance via Internet architecture, exploring the implications of such a mode of governance for human rights. They consider: to what extent are human rights standards mediated and set via technical infrastructure, such as the DNS and platform policies, rather than by governmental structures? What are the implications of governance via Internet architecture for individual human rights? And what frameworks—be they legal, technological or policy‐related—are needed to address the contemporary privatization of human rights online, in order to ensure the effective protection of human rights in the digital age?

Forming Legal Definitions of Modern Information Technologies under Economic Digitalization

“…It is interesting that in spite of the fact that the development of user rights is very active now, opinions are expressed that the user has very few opportunities to protect his rights [15].…”

Operating-System Design and Its Implications for Victims of Family Violence: The Comparative Threat of Smart Phone Spyware for Android Versus iPhone Users

“…Social media companies have already been identified as a necessary recruit for combatting gender-based abuse (see Dragiewicz et al, 2018; Suzor et al, 2019), but operating system developers also have a privileged position in mediating social relationships, and so should also be added to this list of responsible agents. There is an established literature and momentum for “privacy by design” or “human rights by design” approaches that underline the connections between IT infrastructure and security outcomes for individuals or groups (see, for example, Langheinrich, 2001; Suzor et al, 2019; Zalnieriute & Milan, 2019); it is necessary that operating-system design in smartphones is similarly regarded as critical to the safety of victims of family violence.…”

Sobre la gobernanza digital, política digital y educación

“…Como es normal y cotidiano en los sistemas de administración occidentalizados, estos giran en torno al sistema privado o privatizado, donde los principales activos urbanos tales como la energía y las comunicaciones se encuentran regidas por consorcios privados, y algo similar es lo relacionado con la accesibilidad a los datos y sus limitaciones, tanto a escala como en volumen (Zhao, 2017); pero que en relación a los procesos de gestión documentaria en las agencias públicas se puede acceder bajo un enfoque determinado por parámetros de una gestión urbana integrada y coordinada en tiempo y espacio, tal como lo expusieron Ovando et al (2018). También cabe resaltar sobre este punto que en el contexto de la gobernanza digital se han implementado una serie de trasuntos relacionados al plano neoliberal (Nosthoff & Maschewski, 2019;Zalnieriute & Milan, 2019;Pérez & Foronda, 2018;a Schou & Hjelholt, 2018;Gil-García, Dawes & Pardo, 2017;Sixin, Yayuan, Jiang & Yue, 2017;Marland, Lewis & Flanagan, 2016). La neoliberalización de las políticas digitales se sustenta en el rol proactivo del Estado en la transformación de su política y políticas, principalmente a través del empleo de instrumentos de medición e indicadores (Giannone & Santaniello, 2018).…”