Sam Gregory's Content

Cameras Everywhere: Human Rights and the Ethics of Ubiquitous Video

Sam Gregory — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:43:06 -0800

Updated version of a WITNESS presentation on video online and the human rights considerations around safety, security, dignity and consent.Please feedback via the comments section or directly to sam [at] witness.org.

***********************

WITNESS was created over fifteen years ago, shortly after the Rodney King incident, by Peter Gabriel and other allies. At the time, our founders asked: What if every human rights worker had a camera in their hands? What would they be able to document? What would they be able to change? For fifteen years we have engaged with the risks, the opportunities and the possibilities for action that emerge from the power of moving images – training and supporting human rights activists worldwide to create real change.
Now, it is every citizen who has a camera - and it is participants, witnesses and perpetrators who are filming.

Everyday witnessing of human rights violations We have all witnessed videos, particularly mobile video, documenting and publicizing human rights struggle from monks marching for freedom in Rangoon and the election protestors in Tehran to individual voices speaking out against injustice on YouTube. Online there is an abundance of peer-produced content 'for the good’ and multiplying opportunities for transparency, participation and action.

But what about safety, consent, dignity and retaliation? However, despite the growing online circulation of images of human rights violations, victims and survivors, there is a limited discussion of the related safety, consent and ethical concerns that arise, particularly for people who are filmed.

What responsibilities do we have as witnesses? At the heart of human rights is the idea of respect for the dignity, worth and integrity of every person. We believe that we have an ethical responsibility as witnesses to violations to share the suffering of others in a manner that empathizes with - rather than re-violates and re-victimizes the victim or survivor of abuse.

How can we together respond? Issues around consent, representation and direct re-victimization and retaliation have emerged even more clearly in an open and networked online environment. Video is being reworked, remixed and re-circulated by many more people. With this we all see the renewed possibilities for action by a global citizenry but also real dangers that the technology community can help lead the way in confronting.

As a starting point for a conversation that we hope will share learning, identify problems and challenges, and propose solutions, here are some questions we focused on:

*How can we best introduce ideas around consent, safety and human dignity into broader online culture?

*What technology solutions can address challenges around consent, representation, and safety?

*How do we protect and balance openness and transparency with a proactive response to risks?

* Who else should we bring into this conversation? What are the best fora to engage with? How could we start to move this conversation forward?

The Ethics of Online Video: Questions on Dignity, Re-Victimization, Consent, and Security

Sam Gregory — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:53:33 -0700

This past June, my colleague Sameer Padania and I were part of a panel at the Open Video Conference in New York City on ‘Human Rights, Indigenous Media and Open Video.' We used the opportunity to launch what will be a continuing effort by WITNESS to engage with the human rights issues around dignity, re-victimization, consent and security raised by contemporary online video.

Here's the video we used for the WITNESS presentation at the conference. Watch and tell us what you think - what should WITNESS (and others) be doing in this area?

Over the coming months, look out for many more perspectives and in-depth looks at some of these issues on the Hub. My colleague Priscila Néri's post on the recent footage of Neda Agha-Soltan in Iran is a thought-provoking place to start: 'Iran Protests: A Woman Dies on Camera - to post or not to post?'

WITNESS was created over fifteen years ago coming out of the Rodney King incident asking this question: what if every human rights worker had a camera in their hand? Now, it is every citizen who has a camera - and it is participants, witnesses and perpetrators who are filming. Use of video, particularly mobile video, has publicized and documented many emerging human rights struggle from Rangoon to Tehran. Online there is an abundance of peer-produced content 'for the good.'

However, despite the growing online circulation of images of human rights violations, victims and survivors, there is limited discussion of related safety, consent and ethical concerns. At the heart of human rights is the idea of respect for the dignity, worth and integrity of every person. We have an ethical responsibility as witnesses to violations to share the suffering of others in a manner that empathizes with - rather than re-violates - the victim.

From a human rights perspective, new issues around consent, representation and direct re-victimization and retaliation emerge in an open and networked online environment of reworking, remixing and re-circulating video and other imagery.

So how do we go about "incorporating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" into the "terms of service" of online video? (an idea first suggested by Dan McQuillan) How do we introduce ideas around consent and human dignity into the broader culture?

This discussion needs to happen at a technological level (how do we build these concepts into platforms and technology, as we have tried to do with the Hub), and it is also a conversation about skills, media literacy and cultural norms.

We need your help to consider how to move this conversation forward - please contribute your thoughts, questions, and ideas in the comments field below.

The Ethics of Online Video - Human Rights, Dignity, Consent, Safety

Sam Gregory — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:38:06 -0700

In June 2009, my colleague Sameer Padania and I were part of a panel at the Open Video Conference in New York City on ‘Human Rights, Indigenous Media and Open Video.'

We used the opportunity to launch what will be a continuing effort by WITNESS to engage with the many different human rights issues raised by contemporary online video, including dignity, re-victimization, consent and security.

This is the video we used for the WITNESS presentation at the conference. Watch and tell us what you think - what should WITNESS and others be doing in this area?

Burma: Shooting, owning, sharing, watching video, shouting with glee at a TV broadcast...can earn you years in jail

Sam Gregory — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:38:00 -0800

In Burma, shooting video, owning a video, speaking in a video, sharing a video, or even shouting out in glee after watching television, can earn you years in jail.

Today the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) circulated an urgent action call for Ko Zaw Htay from Burma (Myanmar) - found guilty of giving out official secrets and sentenced to ten years in jail for allegedly arranging to film land where famers had lodged complaints about land confiscation by the military to the International Labour Organization (ILO), and for then sending this footage abroad. You can act on this call at: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2009/3104/.

Of course, the video footage we're most familiar with from Burma over the last few years has been the footage courageously shot by people inside Burma of the 'Saffron Revolution' movement of autumn 2007 when the people of Burma rose up in mass, peaceful protests against the military regime that has ruled Burma for the past two decades. And a film that has just won a big prize at Sundance, Burma VJ, takes us inside how this footage was shot - I'll be looking out for it (it opens in the US in May). You can read more about it on the film's website.

Less well-known is how the military government in Burma systematically hunted down the people filmed and the people who filmed and distributed the material. Over 1,000 people were arrested last year, and many of them have received sentences of up to sixty-five years: you can learn more about their situation on the website of the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP, Burma). And the setting of examples continued after ther protests. For example, one blogger - Nay Phone Latt - was sentenced to twenty years in jail including fifteen years for offenses under the Electronics Act, two years for creating "public alarm" and three and a half years for offenses under the Video Act.

A little background on these laws... the 'Electronic Transactions Law' provides for up to fifteen years in prison for anyone who uses the internet to distribute information that is 'detrimental to the interest of or that lowers the dignity of any organization or any person', while the Video Act carries penalties of up to three years for - amongst other crimes - 'copying, distributing, hiring or exhibiting video tape that has no video censor certificate' as part of its purpose to 'cause the emergence of video tapes which will contribute towards national solidarity and dynamism of patriotic spirit... and prohibit and ban decadent video tapes which will undermine Myanmar culture and Myanmar tradition". Needless to say, the definitions here are sufficiently broad to allow the Burma regime to use them wherever it needs to.

And Zarganar, one of Burma's best-known comedians was sentenced to forty-five years in jail in November 2008, including fifteen years for violations of the Electronics Act when he spoke to foreign news organizations, expressing criticism about the governments's slow response to Cyclone Nargis.

But it's not just filming or being filmed, or being at the center of international attention, that puts someone at risk.

In 2007, AHRC highlighted a case where two men were imprisoned for allegedly possessing videos showing the wedding of the daughter of Burma's most senior army officer, Senior General Than Shwe. They received two years and four and a half years imprisonment respectively for intention to incite public fear and for violations of video censorship regulations for possessing CD videos that showed footage of the lavish, over-the-top, dripping with diamonds wedding of Than Shwe's daughter, contrasted with the images of poverty and children begging in the streets. By some estimates the wedding cost up to $40 million; in a country where the government spends less than 50c a year on education for its children, and where people struggle to afford to buy basic food staples like rice. These videos had widely circulated in Burma in late 2006 - creating real uproar and laying the ground for the popular protests in 2007; demonstrating why the regime fears the uncontrolled circulation of images.

Both this case and the land seizure case cases at the top of this blog were prosecuted under the incredibly broad latitude of Section 505 (b) of the Penal Code which allows that "Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report... (b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility... shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with [a] fine, or with both."

And even reacting as you watch a television can do it... After the Saffron Revolution events of 2007, AHRC also reports the case of Ko Kyauk Hke, an artist who was watching satellite television footage of the crackdown on protests in Rangoon at a street-side video stall when he leapt up and yelled, "Long live Theravada Buddhism!" As AHRC notes, he was arrested shortly after, charged under 505 (b) and sentenced to two years after the prosecution accused him of also shouting anti-government slogans.

So what does this tell us about how the Burma regime is responding to the threat of information distribution and citizen media generated both during the Saffron Revolution and around Cyclone Nargis? Much of the discussion and analysis around the events in September 2007 has focused around the use of the internet and censorship/control - for example the two excellent reports from the Berkman Center at Harvard. And do check out this excellent video from our friends at GOOD magazine on internet censorship. But here, it's brute force that's being used - who will be the citizen journalists, the heroes online, when they face sixty year in jail? It's a depressing thought.

PS - If you're interested in learning more about how the Burma military government treats its villagers do take a look at the video, Entrenched Abuse, produced by our partner organization, Burma Issues, which shares villagers testimonies on forced labor, and property seizure, and was made for a screening at the ILO.

UDHR 60: Rahimi from Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission

Sam Gregory — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:50:06 -0800

Said Abdul Qader Rahimi from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) answers the question "What image opened your eyes to human rights?" by describing a photo of himself that he has held onto from the Taliban era.

UDHR 60: Josie Kauona Sirivi, Bougainville Women for Peace and Freedom

Sam Gregory — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:43:18 -0800

Bougainville activist Josie Kaouna Sirivi answers the question "What image opened your eyes to human rights?"

UDHR 60th Anniversary: Sam Gregory

Sam Gregory — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:44:52 -0800

For 16 years, WITNESS has harnessed the power of video to advance human rights. In honor of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10th, we're asking our friends and partners to answer the following question:

What image opened your eyes to human rights?
Was it an image or video that gave you hope, or did it show you how much further we needed to go and inspire you to take action?

In this video, WITNESS' Sam Gregory, Program Director, answers the question and talks about an image from Eastern Burma that made a lasting impression on him.

Alan Miller - Speech at the CIVICUS World Assembly

Sam Gregory — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:31:07 -0700

This speech of Alan Miller was filmed by a fellow participant at the CIVICUS World Assembly, 18-21 June 2008, in Glasgow, Scotland.
The CIVICUS World Assembly is a forum for international civil society representatives to get together, exchange ideas, experiences and build strategies for a just world.

Alan Miller is the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Comission. The Commission will promote widespread awareness, understanding of, and respect for human rights; review and recommend changes to any policies or practices of any Scottish public authorities and provide advice and guidance.

Prof Miller has a combination of experience and expertise in the field of human rights grounded in 25 years involvement with the legal, academic and voluntary communities within Scotland .

Erika Izquierdo - Interview at the CIVICUS World Assembly

Sam Gregory — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:17:46 -0700

This interview with Erika Izquierdo was conducted by a fellow participant at the CIVICUS World Assembly, 18-21 June 2008, in Glasgow, Scotland.

The Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) is a growing alliance of trade unions, community groups, faith groups, women and youth organisations, NGOs and other campaigners working together across more than 100 national platforms. GCAP is calling for action from the world’s leaders to meet their promises to end poverty and inequality. In particular, we demand solutions that address the issues of
* Public accountability, just governance and the fulfilment of human rights
* Trade justice
* A major increase in the quantity and quality of aid and financing for development
* Debt cancellation
* Gender equality must also be at the heart of eradicating poverty.

The CIVICUS World Assembly is a forum for international civil society representatives to get together, exchange ideas, experiences and build strategies for a just world.

Ricky Stuart - Interview at the CIVICUS World Assembly

Sam Gregory — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:02:35 -0700

This interview with Ricky Stuart was conducted by a fellow participant at the CIVICUS World Assembly, 18-21 June 2008, in Glasgow, Scotland.

Ricky Stuart is working for 'Gender at Work'. Gender at Work promotes women’s empowerment
and gender equality through institutional change.
We accomplish this by analyzing an organization’s culture, policies and leadership, and by encouraging practical changes that have a direct, positive impact both on the organization and the communities it serves.

The CIVICUS World Assembly is a forum for international civil society representatives to get together, exchange ideas, experiences and build strategies for a just world.