Technology Companies and their Bid to Find Balance in the Application of Human Rights and Privacy Standards against Security Priorities: A Comparative Consideration of International, EU and US Law and Practice

 

Investigator:
Shavana Haythornthwaite

Abstract:
Technology companies around the world are continuously being pushed to fulfill demands stemming from domestic laws. These laws often require the divulsion of consumer information to domestic law enforcement agencies. The tension is exacerbated in light of other national and international laws that exist, which require a company to ensure the protection of human rights and the privacy of consumers. The weighing up of conflicting legal obligations gives rise to a number of questions. For example, does (and should) the freedom of expression override laws pertaining to hate speech? Should companies infringe the right to privacy in order to facilitate governmental counter-terrorism strategy? This project attempts to get to the heart of a number of these tensions to find a surefooted approach that technology companies might apply in trying to find a balance between various conflicting legal obligations. The project will select the most common tensions that technology companies face, including human rights versus security and intricately assess their legal positioning. Based on the tensions of focus, the project will compare selected domestic laws and intelligence-gathering practices in the EU, US and international organizations and correlate against how technology companies could, should and are applying human rights standards. The aim is to create a comprehensive policy document that can provide scholarly insight, but more importantly, be directly utilized by technology companies to help them create more balanced policies and procedures. The project will also seek to assess Facebook’s creation of an Oversight Board. The Oversight Board is described as using ‘independent judgment to support people’s right to free expression and ensure that those rights are being adequately respected. The board’s decisions to uphold or reverse Facebook’s content decisions will be binding, meaning that Facebook will have to implement them, unless doing so could violate the law’.1 Whilst this is a clear development to ensure that internet and social media content is in line with international human rights standards, the methodology of the Board is unclear and the project attempts to critically align this development with the aims and objectives of assisting companies to “find balance”.