Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries

“Fostering Freedom Online: the Role of Internet Intermediaries” is the title of a new title in the UNESCO Internet freedom series. With the rise of Internet intermediaries that play a mediating role on the internet between authors of content and audiences, UNESCO took a joint initiative, with the Open Society Foundations, the Internet Society, and Center for Global Communication Studies at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, to examine this recent historical phenomenon and how it impacts on freedom of expression and associated fundamental rights such as privacy. The case study research, collaboratively delivered by 16 international researchers led by Ms Rebecca MacKinnon and Mr Allon Bar, as well as 14 members of International Advisory Committee, covers of three categories of intermediaries: Internet Service Providers (fixed line and mobile) such as Vodafone (UK, Germany, Egypt), Vivo/Telefônica Brasil (Brazil), Bharti Airtel (India, Kenya), Safaricom (Kenya), Search Engines such as Google (USA, EU, India, China, Russia), Baidu (China), Yandex (Russia) and Social Networking Platforms such as Facebook (USA, Germany, India, Brazil, Egypt), Twitter (USA, Kenya), Weibo (China), iWiW (Hungary). The research showed that internet intermediaries are heavily influenced by the legal and policy environments of states, but they do have leeway over many areas of policy and practice affecting online expression and privacy. The findings also highlighted the challenge where many state policies, laws, and regulations are – to varying degrees – poorly aligned with the duty to promote and protect intermediaries’ respect for freedom of expression. It is a resource which enables the assessment of Internet intermediaries’ decisions on freedom of expression, by ensuring that any limitations are consistent with international standards

Systematic mapping of big data for development stakeholders with a focus on the ‘Global South’ : final report

Annex IV for IDL-56905Drawn from a larger database, the final mapping consists of 215 actors worldwide found to be most relevant or potentially relevant to big data and development (BD4D) at this time. The entries are coded based on region, organization type, actor, domain and gender. A broad view of activities related to BD4D are captured along with original sources and search terms. Though most of the domains developed in the research reflect sustainable development goals (SDGs), SDG is included as a separate domain, to include work that looks at uses of big data solely in light of the United Nations 17 SDGs

Systematic mapping of big data for development stakeholders with a focus on the ‘Global South’ : results of mapping exercise

Annex VIII for IDL-56905Tables provide lists of research studies, foundations, granting bodies and resources, with comprehensive links to individual researchers and networks, as well as funding categories and subject domains. This is an Annex to “Mapping big data for development and the global goals : final technical report” by Lokanathan, Sriganesh (see http://hdl.handle.net/10625/56905) which aims to better understand the applications of big data in relation to sustainable development goals, and conducts a preliminary assessment of the Big Data for Development (BD4D) landscape with a focus on the global south

A Comparative Analysis of Indian Privacy Law and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Cross-Border Privacy Rules

In today\u27s global economy, and particularly for India, the importance of strong, enforceable, and internationally interoperable data protection standards cannot be underestimated. While India has adopted various sectoral laws and policies for securing data protection, most significantly the Information Technology Act and the Rules thereunder, a holistic national legislation on privacy rights is absent. Such an attempt can be seen in the October 2012 Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, which sets out nine National Privacy Principles. This paper examines the Report in the backdrop of the privacy principles of the APEC and the Information Technology Rules in light of the Cross-Border Privacy Rules. It concludes that if India is to become a member of APEC, while the principles in the Report reflect many of the principles central to the APEC privacy framework, it must expand a few aspects of its privacy requirements under the Rules to align them more perfectly with the Cross-Border Privacy Rules