The limits of online freedom and activism?
February 25, 2007
“Citizens now have much greater control over how and when they receive information and, much more than ever before, they can react to it if they choose, they can participate and they can be active towards it,” said Timothy Balding, CEO of the World Association of Newspapers, which organized the conference in Paris with the World Press Freedom Committee and UNESCO.
“On the negative side, the internet has opened up extraordinary new possibilities for the widespread, damaging and sometimes dangerous manipulation of information which is difficult if not impossible to stem,” he said. “In my view, this phenomenon will increasingly place a heavy responsibility on professional journalists to maintain high standards of fact-checking, honesty and objectivity. The very fundamentals of our societies and democracies will be lost if we are unable any longer to distinguish between true and false in terms of information.”
New media increases freedom but holds dangers, conference told
As the dotcom boom and bust fades into history, the business press is again celebrating the revolutionary potential of a wired world. The discomfort of the mainstream media is just the start of it, they argue. The net is humbling big business as consumers compare the price of everything from gas to bank interest rates and take their custom to the corporations offering the best value. Meanwhile, doctors face patients who can find out if the NHS’s treatments they are offered are the best available and politicians must cope with an electorate that can investigate the claims of soundbites and manifestos with a click of a mouse.
The cheerleaders are right in many respects. The net is changing the world, but not all of it. Contrary to the optimism of the Nineties, that it would allow oppressed peoples to escape censors and read forbidden opinions, the net is proving surprisingly easy for dictatorships to control.
A connected world proves no threat to tyrants
The first excerpt, from an international conference on the press freedom dimension of new media at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris, succinctly articulates a position that is increasingly finding favour with many web and online activists – that the advent of new technologies, in and of themselves, are liberating or empowering, and that dictatorships and repressive regimes often use these very technologies to further stifle dissent and rights. I fall squarely into the camp of cautious optimists who recognise the power of new media to challenge governments and States which seek to curtail fundamental rights and democratic dissent. However, living in a country that is increasingly intolerant of those who articulate human rights concerns, I am deeply aware that the fate of an Egyptian blogger of late, despite the growth of online activism in the Middle East, may well be a trend that we see increase in the future around the world.
The second excerpt, and one that has generated a number of interesting comments, is from Nick Cohen in the Guardian Unlimited. Nick’s point is simply that dictatorships and repressive government will always have the power to block and limit access to the web. As the Human Rights Watch Global Report 2007 points out:
The “war on terror” did not cause, but did exacerbate, the trend towards restriction of the internet and the proliferation of surveillance through modern technology. Governments that once invoked child pornographers as a good reason to censor internet publications shifted emphasis to terrorism as a rationale. Corporations became willing assistants in the fencing and filtering of access, even while justifying their cooperation with repressive governments in terms of expanding public access to information (and of course, their own access to markets). Surveillance and data collection grew exponentially, not only because developments in modern technology made such practices more economically feasible, but also because security fears made them more politically palatable.
Nick’s point is a shade too simplistic and ignores the point that the world over, bloggers and mainstream media are equal in their condemnation of the Egyptian’s regime action to jail a blogger and act against the freedom of expression. Before the advent of the web and internet, news of such blatant displays of repression would have taken weeks, or even months, to get global attention. And while attention itself may not prevent or in any way convince governments to stop acting against the rights of citizens, the global scrutiny afforded by the web – in the form of text, audio and video – is in itself a powerful case for the power of new media to bear witness to the gross abuses of power and the use of terror tactics the world over, be it by a State, a repressive government, a local law enforcement authority, or by terrorists.
Technology may not be neutral, but its progressive use can help shape democratic dialogue and citizen driven activism for human rights and peace with justice, bridging local initiatives to international rights campaigns. While it may be the case that the same tools we use as rights activists are used by governments for diametrically opposite ends, by exposing the criminality of corruption, nepotism and the seedy underbelly of governments who violently silence their opponents whilst purporting to uphold international human rights norms, those who use technology to secure and strengthen rights & democracy will always hold a slight edge that cannot be erased completely even by the most vicious government.
Somehow, from somewhere, the news will always trickle out. A single photo taken on a mobile phone or an SMS is all it takes.
Mobile phones for advocacy and social transformation
February 22, 2007

NTEN and MobileActive.org are announcing the second MobileActive Guide, profiling strategies and civil society organizations using mobile phones in their work to make the world a better place. The second MobileActive Guide focuses on using mobile phones in issue advocacy. The guide features case studies from around the world, strategies for using mobile phones in advocacy work, and a how-to section for advocacy organizations considering using mobile phones to advance their causes.
MobileActive recently released their second strategy guide on using mobiles for non-profit, civil society activism. Titled Strategy Guide #2: Using Mobile Phones in Advocacy Campaigns it’s an interesting, albeit short, look at the manner in which mobile phones have been, and can be used in social transformation and advocacy campaigns. As the documents notes, SMS can add value to advocacy campaigns augmenting the speed with which messages travel, with corresponding increases in response times by the target audience, broader reach and more effective coverage leading to a larger footprint for outreach activities, the ubiquity of mobile phones lending themselves as devices for communication and information dissemination, the accessibility to young people and the ability to support a campaign by disseminating key information to activists on a just-in-time basis.
The document goes on to mention several interesting case studies from around the world,and in particular highlights FrontlineSMS, which looks like a tremendously powerful tool, free to boot, that organisations can download and use for SMS campaigns. The only caveat I can see is that the programme only runs on WindowsXP, and as I’ve noted elsewhere in this blog, when the trend is to be platform agnostic and move into a web services model, this lock in to a platform that for many in the Global South is only accessible through high prices or piracy, is unfortunate. It looks, however, a powerful application and I would be interested to hear the stories of any NGOs who use it.

The document ends with a couple of interesting lessons learned. Lesson learned #2 is particularly interesting, given my own experience with a very large mobile telecoms provider in Sri Lanka. Noting that it’s important to work with a mobile vendor, the document avers that to “conduct an effective large-scale mobile advocacy campaign, you’ll need to work with a mobile vendor who can help you with setup, implementation, list management, and understanding metrics”.
Juxtapose this to this cryptic email answer I got from the CSR division of the mobile telecoms provider I approached with an idea for the use of mobiles to support the peace process:
I;m not sure if we’ll be keen to get into the peace line, since we operate in the north and east.
So much for CSR and peacebuilding…
In fact, the document only mentions a single human rights campaign that used SMS in collecting petition signatures. This is both interesting and regrettable – interesting because it clearly demonstrates the potential to scale up such approaches and strategies for the use of mobiles, and regrettable because there aren’t more examples, in the document, of similar experiences from other conflict & post-conflict zones. As I’ve noted earlier on this blog, even organisations such as Amnesty International have much to learn in online petitions – and the advent of mobile based petitions may clear the path for even small CBOs to ratchet up campaigns in support of human rights & democracy.
I would personally love to see the use of mobiles for peacebuilding and online dispute resolution (ODR).
Katrin Verclas, who edited this short publication, and I had a lengthy Skype conversation in early January this year where we explored some conceptual and practical uses of mobiles in social activism and transformation. I’m looking forward to reading more from MobileActive.org in the future.
More reading:
Mobile phones, laptops and ODR
News and information through SMS: A Second Look at Jasminenews
Building peace through ICT: Ideas for practical projects
The future of protesting
Mobiles and peacebuilding
Mobiles phones: Access and content development
Defeating Repressive Regimes
Mobile Phone Futures
Community based, community driven disaster and humanitarian response
February 20, 2007

During incidents like Hurricane Katrina, the Kobe earthquake, the British foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, and the Indonesian tsunami, communities collaborated via the Internet to provide supplies and assistance to those in need of help, which is what Shneiderman and Preece are looking to create. Under the proposed project, the web sites will be run by “trained volunteers with a few professionals, much as volunteer fire departments now operate,” according to the proposition in Science magazine. The sites would accept text, video, and photos from the community to help emergency crews react more quickly to disasters as well as inform others of the status of the situation via the web. “Citizen reporters would report to a centralized authority who will take care of emergency response coordination and allocate scarce resources of police fire and medical services,” Professor Shneiderman told BBC News.
A story on ArsTechnica and BBC alerts us to the possibilities of mobiles, new media and citizen journalism in support of humanitarian operations and disaster relief.
Also see:
How much information should we share in peacebuilding and humanitarian operations?
Wikis, Webs and Networks: Creating Connections for Conflict-Prone Settings
Is Technology Neutral?
How not to go about an online petition – Amnesty USA’s online petition on Sri Lanka
February 19, 2007
International rights group Amnesty International has called for an end to the impunity on the spate of disappearances and has setup an online petition addressed to Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake calling on the government to take urgent steps to curb the trend.
Having read the news-story in today’s Daily Mirror on Amnesty’s online petition against dissapearances, I was surprised that Amnesty’s main website had no record of this petition. A Google search alerted me to its existence on the Amnesty International USA.
This is more than a bit daft – an organisation such as Amnesty must surely realise the value of having all its output available from a central location, or at the very least, indexed in one catalogue that’s accessible through all the websites that each of its country / region offices set up. Clearly this is not the case at present, and leads to a situation where one has to visit at least two websites in order to ascertain whether Amnesty’s put out anything on Sri Lanka’s erosion of human rights.
Secondly, the online petition itself is complicated to send. You need to register first, and I never got past it to actually send the petition, managing only to repeatedly encounter this cryptic message:
Your country does not match the restrictions for this action item.
Registering also requires one to enter a US State even if resident outside the US. Given that online petitions need to be as accessible as possible, from all countries, especially from Sri Lanka, this is quite bizarre and most unfortunate.
While the petition itself can be printed out as a letter, Amnesty International USA’s approach to online petitions leaves much to be desired and is frankly tantamount to a grossly callous approach to online human rights awareness raising and (online) activism.
PetitionOnline, Petition Spot and Petition Them are just three websites on the web that allow for the creation, free of charge, of online petitions.
More interesting, and certainly very progressive, is the e-petition (to date beta) website set up by the British Prime Minister’s office. As noted on this website,
Petitioners may freely disagree with the Government or call for changes of policy. There will be no attempt to exclude critical views and decisions to accept or reject will not be made on a party political basis.
Amnesty International USA’s flawed approach to e-petitions could be inspired by what’s already out there on the web, since I don’t believe that for all their hype and hoopla of e-government in Sri Lanka, ICTA is going to follow the Downing Street model anytime soon.
War and free software
February 10, 2007
But while FOSS’s role in the waging of war is surely rising, it doesn’t mean that war will/should become more inevitable. In fact, the principles behind the development of FOSS can be the biggest deterrent to war—people from all walks of life, all over the world, working together, to produce tools that can be used to benefit everyone. It is up to us to work, and if necessary fight, to ensure that our creations are used to make us free, and not to destroy us.
Read the full article here.












RSS - Posts