OHCHR report press conference 25 June 2020

OK, it's three O clock, so I guess we're ready to go.

We have 26 participants.

Thank you to everyone who's come online.

So going live in a couple of seconds On our website is the report on the impact of new technologies on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of assemblies, including peaceful protests, a very topical issue.

We also will have a for those of you not using English with the press release, we'll be going out in all six UN languages.

I'm not sure if all six are ready right now, but four or five certainly are and the remaining ones will will go online very shortly afterwards.

So to talk to us on, on, on these issues, we have Peggy Hicks, who's our Director of Thematic Engagement and Mona Reshmawi, who's the Chief of the Rule of Law branch in the office of that Commissioner.

And it's that division which which produced this report and which also deals with the broader tech issues as well.

So, Peggy, would you like to to kick off the briefing?

Sure, Thanks, Rupert.

It was two years ago when the Human Rights Council requested that the **** Commissioner submit a report on new technologies and their impact on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of assemblies, including peaceful protests.

A lot has happened since then.

The report before You now takes up these issues that have never been more important.

During 2019 alone, protests relating to a wide range of issues took place in more than 80 countries.

In the past month, the killing of George Floyd has been followed by protests against systemic racism and police violence in thousands of cities, not just in the US but globally.

And today, of course, we face a pandemic that is laid bare and exacerbated the very issues of inequality and racial disparity that have fueled those protests.

The right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of expression, the right to participate in public affairs have never been more visible or more important.

New technologies play a critical role in bringing these rights to life.

People learn about protests, organise protests for movements online as well as offline.

New technologies can also be helpful, for example, in increasing transparency and accountability for violations of rights that may occur during protests.

In our world today, these digital technologies are key enablers for peaceful protests and for engaging in public affairs and pushing for social change.

New technologies, in this case as in so many others, can help people claim their rights, and that possibility needs to be nurtured and allowed to flourish.

Yet unfortunately, we live in a world where a great digital divide separates half the world's pop population from the Internet and forecloses that possibility to billions of people.

The Secretary General's recent road map for digital cooperation places bridging this gap at its centre and recognises the importance of that movement on this front for achieving the SD GS.

But even where the Internet is in principle available, in practise it often is not.

Internet shutdowns and disruptions in service are all too common and take place for many reasons.

Access Now has counted, for example, 65 Internet shutdowns during protests in 2019 alone.

Such actions undermine not only the right of peaceful assembly, but the exercise of many other human rights, such as access to emergency services or healthcare.

States should not shut down or disrupt Internet or telecommunications networks at any time, and particularly during peaceful assemblies.

While our report also describes how new technologies facilitate people's ability to protest, at the same time it describes how, as in so many other areas, unfettered use of digital technologies can undermine rights, disrupt democratic participation, and cause real world harms, including racial discrimination.

The use of facial recognition technology in the context of peaceful protests is an area for us of substantial concern.

In recent weeks, facial recognition technology has drawn headlines when several companies announced they'd stopped selling the technology to police forces.

Many others, including Amnesty International and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have called for a ban on the use, deployment, production, sale and export of facial recognition technology for mass surveillance purposes by the police and other state agencies.

In the context of peaceful protests, the routine use of facial recognition should certainly ring alarm bells.

There's a substantial risk that use of facial recognition could have a profound chilling effect, leading people to reconsider participation in protests and undermining their ability to express opinions and advocate for change.

In the past, with large numbers of participants and limited technology tools, assemblies traditionally have allowed participants a certain level of protection against being singled out or identified.

This protection is already considerably weakened when states routinely make audio visual recordings of assembly participants.

Facial recognition, though, constitutes A paradigm shift.

It dramatically increases the capacity to identify and track all or many participants in an assembly in an automated fashion and sometimes in real time.

At the same time, facial recognition today remains prone to errors.

That means, in this context, that misidentification could lead to wrongful arrests, for example, or prosecution.

These risks, we know, are substantially greater for women and people of colour, raising the likelihood that facial recognition technology may perpetuate and amplify discrimination, including against Afro descendants and other minorities, women or persons with disabilities.

Despite these known problems, states are increasingly using facial recognition in the context of peaceful protest.

In the absence of regulations or rules that could potentially minimise these risks, They seem to think if the technology exists, we should use it.

Use it often without regard for these consequences.

Sorry about that.

The obligation of States and the responsibility of companies under human rights law requires a different path.

Surveillance technologies, including facial recognition, should be used only when they are necessary and proportional responses.

For example, states should refrain from recording footage of assembly participants as a default measure.

We have called on states to establish a moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology in the context of peaceful protests until certain minimum requirements are in place.

Those requirements include that states should demonstrate they have in place robust privacy and data protection standards and that they should be transparent about their use of facial recognition.

States should also conduct human rights due diligence before deploying facial recognition technology and throughout its entire life cycle, and should ensure that independent oversight mechanisms are in place.

And crucially, states should demonstrate that facial recognition tools they seek to use do not have significant accuracy issues or discriminatory impacts.

A variety of other surveillance practises that can adversely affect the right to peaceful assembly are also described in our report.

Authorities have deployed an arsenal of surveillance techniques ranging from hacking of account devices to the systematic monitoring of social media communications interception.

**** aerial surveillance of assemblies is also a a worrying trend.

Police forces in many countries routinely deploy devices and impersonate cell phone towers and enable the authorities to intercept or block cell phone communications and in fact, to send errant or deceptive messages.

Too often, authorities have viewed peaceful assemblies as something that need to be controlled or managed, rather as critical vehicles for public participation and democracy.

How we address new technologies such as facial recognition will be key in restoring the focus to protecting freedom of expression, assembly and participation.

Thanks, Rupert.

Thanks very much.

Peggy, can you wave your automatic light system on again?

[Other language spoken]

Yes, of course.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, everyone for being here with us today.

[Other language spoken]

The protests are indicators that people are unhappy when they want change.

They're often an expression of their participation, of people's participation, public affairs.

This is often really an uncomfortable truth for many government.

Their reaction, therefore, is to restrict the space for protests to blame the protesters, often accusing them of being instigated by foreign elements or even criminalising them as terrorism.

Our report shows that when people assemble and express themselves peacefully, they are fully protected by human rights law.

That's so important to_States must ensure that this right can be enjoyed in the fullest to the to the greatest extent possible we.

Also acknowledge that these rights are not absolute however, they can be limited under certain cons the.

Burden is however on stage to show that the restrictions are necessary and serve the purpose will not take away or weaken the rights themselves.

A common way to restrict the right to peaceful assembly is for domestic law to require a permission or notification for demonstration.

When permission is not granted, many states consider being illegal and therefore and and afterwards subject the individuals to criminal law, including in some circumstances anti terrorism legislation.

This conflation, peaceful assembly with subversive act, including terrorism, is a worrying trend and sometimes leads the militarisation to to militarising the response.

Let me say a word about that because that's really an important point that we see now across the world.

The militarisation of law enforcement response country often leads to the to the protesting community being treated as if they were the enemy.

In addition to the criminalisation, curfews are sometimes enforced and law enforcement officials use force the military.

The militarisation approach increases the potential for use of force violations and fuel a cycle of must trust violence, which we so recently 2019, but also 20 unnecessary and disproportionate of of force shatters the bond in the state city in all cases, even when they use less lethal water and ammunition.

Law enforcement officials should abide by basic principle on the use of force in party principles of excess proportionate.

You can explain that later.

If this is something that.

[Other language spoken]

If I can interrupt for a second, can you move slightly nearer your computer?

Because the sound is is rather dim.

[Other language spoken]

In all cases, even if they use less lethal weapon and ammunition, law enforcement officials should abide by the basic principles of the use of force, including in particular the principles of necessity on proportionality, as we say in the report.

And the technology is the technology is advancing in this in the area of less lethal weapons.

These are, however, not a panacea.

They are less lethal rather than non.

This lethal weapons and ammunition can **** and maim if used improperly and should not be used against peaceful protesters.

Higher office have noticed misuse, misuse leading to death and disproportionate injury unharmed many countries for large protest artists.

These include firing clear gas canisters directly at demonstrators, deploying chemical irritants such as tear gas and pepper spray enclosed areas, and directing these so-called less lethal weapons at the head or neck or neck of demonstrators.

We have three recommendations for states in this regard.

One, they should refrain from the use of less lethal weapons in situations of crowd control that could be addressed through less harmful means and ensure that the use of less lethal weapons is closely monitored.

They should train their law enforcement officials in the proper use of less, less lethal weapons and ammunitions and closely monitor their use during their operations.

We recently we recently concluded and published United Nations guide human rights Guidelines on the Use of lethal Lethal Weapons in law enforcement.

This we believe is very helpful and could be a tool that could be used for States and others to actually train deadly law enforcement officials in.

Thirdly, states should also ensure accountability.

This is an issue we stress very much for human rights violations related to improper use of less lethal weapons via and ammunition by law enforcement officials in the context of SMB, particularly peaceful assembly through judicial or non judicial mechanisms.

Let me now turn briefly to those who manufacture and trade in such the complex.

We have often heard, you have often heard us saying that business enterprises have a responsibility to respect all human rights, including the right to peaceful assembly and expression.

And my colleague Peggy Hex just underscored this one.

This includes their obligation to fully operationalise the UN Guiding Principles on Business.

They have two sets of obligations in this area.

1 is is to conduct effective human rights due diligence across their operations and also second to take appropriate action to prevent, mitigate and address actual and potential adverse impact of their products and services.

They should initiate such due diligence efforts as early as possible in the development of new activity or partnership and continue to pose due diligence tests and questions throughout the manufacturing and transaction in with regard to peaceful protests and the the new technologies.

And in addition to what my colleague when what Peggy mentioned about facial recognition and the issue of surveillance, we have in particular these recommendations.

They should businesses and companies should fully take into account the human rights record of the recipients, the existence of an adequate framework, the existence of a robust safeguards against human rights, against human rights violations.

They as manufacture.

They, particularly those who manufacture less lethal weapons and ammunition, should provide information about the specific risks these weapons and the ammunitions may pause and be transparent about the technical specifications and the chemicals included in these weapons and the design features and safety analysis conducted with regard to the Internet shutdown.

As Peggy mentioned, they should carry out should not carry out requests without challenging via all viable.

We should also take measures to mitigate the impacts of such shutdowns to inform the customers and the public of the fullest extent.

You may want to watch out for another work that is being done by our office and the human rights system.

Very soon the UN Human Rights Committee will be issuing a general comment on the right to peaceful assembly.

And we think we are, we are expecting this perhaps as soon as next month, the final.

This will be an important tool to guide states in ensuring adequate physical and online space is provided for the enjoyment of the right of peaceful lesson.

Thank you very much.

[Other language spoken]

Just to say to to everyone who's attending this virtual briefing, we'll get the opening remarks from Peggy Hicks and one or Ishmaeli because the sound was particularly poor during that second, second segment there.

So we'll send you the opening remarks shortly after the briefing finishes.

So now open the floor to any questions.

I don't see any raised hands at the moment.

Ah, Gabriella, and if you could obviously introduce yourself before you give the question.

Yes, thank you very much.

[Other language spoken]

Yes, loud and clear.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.

I would like to ask about the shutdowns.

You you mentioned.

[Other language spoken]

Could you elaborate a little bit where, where this, if you can give us some examples?

And then on facial, facial recognition, the use of facial recognition during the protest, if you can elaborate as well where, which, which countries if you give us the main examples that you have or main concerns?

[Other language spoken]

The the use of the shutdowns and disruptions actually, I'm going to refer you to a resource which is there's a keep it on campaign by access now that has, you know, really detailed records of, of a lot of what's happening in this space and will give you some, some good resources on that the Internet, Internet disruptions.

Phenomenon overall has occurred in a in a lot of different contexts and for extended periods of time and in some places.

And you know, the office has commented on those disruptions in a variety of places over the years.

[Other language spoken]

In this particular quote, what I was talking about is specifically where Internet disruptions had an impact on protests and were used in that way as well.

And it occurs in in those settings that I just spoke of in some cases and in many others.

So it's a, it's unfortunately a very common phenomenon on the, the facial recognition technology and its use.

It's, it's obviously something that is, is either more or less public in, in various places, but it's certainly something that has been commented on both in the US context and in the Hong Kong contest, for example.

So it's, it has been used in a variety of places.

I think they're still being developed exactly how widespread it is.

But the reality is what we've seen is an environment where there's really no countervailing consideration to the the types of issues that we've raised.

One thing I'd like to comment on favourably though, is that, you know, some cities, for example, in the US have specifically said that they don't want facial recognition being used by police in their jurisdictions.

So there is, you know, I think a growing recognition that there is a need to to at least regulate and use facial recognition technology in these circumstances, you know, much more carefully than it's currently being used.

Thank you, Peggy.

I don't see any other hands must be somebody who has a question.

[Other language spoken]

I see iflown iPhone of Klaus Schwab which is and Nick coming Bruce.

[Other language spoken]

I wondered if you had been compiling or, or seeing authoritative data on the level of casualties inflicted by less lethal technologies, particularly perhaps in the context of the recent protests in the United States, but more generally, if you have it.

And also, what are the particular technologies that are indeed inflicting most of the casualties?

Mona, I think that's probably with you.

Yeah, No, we are actually, we have a casualty, casualty reporting actually, and casualty recording approach.

And we we do look at casualties in a number of countries depending on where we have actually monitored and reporting in the our press release.

In our press release, we actually singled out a few possible a few this so-called lest lethal weapons.

You could see that we talk about particular use of Tasers and the pepper balls and pepper balls and acoustic weapons, drones and and autonomous systems that deploy tear gas.

I think these are, I think it's fair to say what we have in the press release is what we think are the causes of really most, most of the problems that see on this issue.

If you have a particular country in mind, we'll be very happy to review the information that we have on the Casualty Act, that particular city.

And perhaps just to add, Nick, that you'll have seen the urgent debate last week and the outcome of that that asked the **** Commissioner to look at the use of violence in protests into particularly impacts of of such violence in protests following the killing of George Floyd.

So this is an area of work that that obviously has already been ongoing, as Mona has said, but one that in particular will be intensified going forward to try to meet that that human rights, new Human Rights Council mandate.

[Other language spoken]

I mean, the problem there is that when you say they they use these weapons as a crowd control system and do you know when there are peaceful parade protests these as I was trying to say these are not non lethal, they are less and they often lead.

So then This is why we are actually focusing a lot on them because this is a growing industry.

There is a lot of work that has been a lot of production in this area.

And I think it's fair to say that they are causing.

I would say the same as lethal weapons, but actually they are causing.

[Other language spoken]

Is about the moratorium?

Is it just for peaceful protests or for example in the use in subways and in not for other public?

[Other language spoken]

By the state.

Are you going beyond?

Just the protest or the?

[Other language spoken]

It's absolutely just exclusively for the.

Purpose of.

Controlling Maya's protest and secondly, if you.

[Other language spoken]

Would like to comment.

We have in Brazil the president himself taking part in Met in protests that requests the closure of parliament.

That is a non.

[Other language spoken]

In in the sense.

How do you see this?

[Other language spoken]

So, Peggy, maybe go first on the moratorium?

[Other language spoken]

The the report itself is about the use of peaceful protest.

So that's, that's the recommendation that's in there.

But the, the language that we're talking about is actually, you know, consistent with international human rights standards across the board.

So we would argue that any use of facial recognition technology has to be necessary and proportionate and that there are many contexts and when that's not happening that that sort of analysis hasn't happened.

And in terms of the standards that we think need to be in place, you know, I do think they are applicable across across the board in terms of the need to protect data, the need to ensure reliability and accuracy and non discriminatory impact, human rights impacts assessments before they're being used.

These are all things that governments should have in place.

But we haven't officially called for a moratorium on those instances.

But it is definitely consistent with the policy we've articulated in this case.

[Other language spoken]

And and do either of you have a a comment on Brazil?

Yeah, yeah, I can say something about that.

But also on the fishery Commission.

I think the problem there is that when you have, when you every, each and every one of us is surveyed everywhere we go in public cases, what is happening there is that this is this is a law enforcement tool.

So a law enforcement turning the public, these public cases as almost like a crime scene, always this mode.

So it encourages a different level of law enforcement.

This is why I think Peggy is stressing the importance looking at things in terms of privacy, necessity, proportion and nondiscrimination and the parameters in which these tools have to be used is to make sure that we are in a, in a normal setting.

We are not always like treated as there is a crime that is about to happen everywhere, each minute, every day.

Now with regard to to the question of demonstration or protest on things that we do not like, you know, against human rights, against rule of law, protest, they don't like somebody, they don't like democracy, they don't like, they don't there are all kinds of examples of, of demonstrations that take place under a goal or an aim which is not necessarily a human rights aim or actually against human rights.

Well, even then we will say the right to peaceful protest, it also is also long as it's peaceful.

The state has to also that beauty in these circumstances to actually protect the counter argument.

So if the state cannot identify just with one side of the of this has to protect also the other side that basically does not agree with the protest that is basically actually met.

And I think that's where I think that the issues from the the issue of freedom of peaceful assembly becomes extremely important because it's not ideological.

It's really it's about how do you express yourself and how the state has to protect you all these circumstances.

[Other language spoken]

I don't see any other hands raised.

[Other language spoken]

And if no other hands, Gabriella, you're back again.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much.

I didn't introduce myself as Gabriella Sotomayor, Mexico, a Mexican journalist.

Do you have any examples of victims already of this facial recognition or a, you know, shot?

I mean, someone that is in gaol right now or abuses?

How many people already are affected were affected in this protest?

Do you have any idea?

[Other language spoken]

I think it's a really important question.

The first part of the answer has to be that there's no way ever to document the number of people who don't exercise their rights because of their fear of being identified and, and being arrested through a tool like facial recognition, right?

So that's that, that chilling effect that I spoke about would be very difficult for us to show, Although you can talk to people who've said, you know, I was going out, but I'm not able to do it now because of the, you know, the prospects of, of this tool being used in this way.

I do think there are cases of misidentification in public assemblies.

I don't have the, the details of those cases right at hand.

It's, it's not, you know, a huge number in the context of the, the recent protests that we're talking about.

But in these broader protests in places like Iraq where there have been an ongoing series of protests and, and lots of people being arrested and detained around those protests, the these issues of misidentification do arise.

Although I have to admit I'm not entirely clear on the issues around use of facial recognition in the Iraqi context, which is where we we have a lot of those statistics.

It's also the case that this this potential for technology to misidentify people, particularly people of African descent has come out even in the recent context of of the US.

But if you'll, if you'll let us, I'd be glad to to myself or one of my colleagues potentially send you some more details on, on some examples with that.

Thanks a lot, Peggy.

[Other language spoken]

Just to give you a few more seconds to think of one.

Just to say, the press release to go out about 12 minutes past three in English, French and Spanish.

And it contains links to the other three official UN languages, that's Arabic, Chinese and Russian.

So all six languages are now available for those of you who don't write in English.

[Other language spoken]

And this is actually a question for Peggy's, which isn't particularly relevant to this topic, but since you mentioned the **** Commissioner's investigation, that will follow up the racism debate the the resolution and the Council.

[Other language spoken]

Action is being taken on that.

What's, what's the sort of timeline?

How is she going to organise a response to that?

[Other language spoken]

What's What's the next step and when will it happen?

What I can tell you, Nick, is that, you know, we're, we've already been meeting on it and having conversations about exactly how to best fulfil the mandate that we've been given, which is a very important one and requires a lot.

It starts with, of course, even at the upcoming session, the, the resolution actually says that she should begin to start talking about these issues in, in, you know, in every oral update to the council.

So, so you know, there and then the next oral update on the overall project that's that's proposed in the resolution will start in September.

And then, of course, the, the, the report and, and resolution is calls for a greater outcome by the June session of next year.

So with one year.

So there's going to be a lot of work under way.

Of course, it also talks about inviting the, the special procedures to provide like inputs and be engaged as well.

And so there's already conversations going on with them about what role they might like to play and, and how we, how we bring that in.

It's a bit too early to, to give you the full scope of, of how we intended to look.

But what I can say is that it's, you know, it's being taken incredibly seriously as it should be.

And obviously there's been a lot of work on on these issues going forward within the office already.

But I think like the rest of the world, the office is also very, very attuned to the fact that this is a moment where there are both new scrutiny, but also new opportunities to really make real change happen with regards to issues of systemic racial discrimination and of course on police violence and and police brutality and excessive use of force in the context of these 4 protests.

Thanks very much.

Any any last questions from anybody?

I don't see any hands.

Peggy, Mona, do you want the last word on on any of the issues?

I don't think anything from my side, Rupert, thank you.

Mona, maybe just for me, just to clarify a bit about these, put it more on the colloquial terms.

Basically we're looking here at rubber bullets and pallets and desks be bean bean bags, rounds and etcetera.

It's this kind of stuff that you all in the media report on on daily basis in context of these protests.

This is where what we are saying that these are many states consider them as you know, less harmful or non harmful, but actually extremely harmful situation.

And so that's that's that's why we are putting the **** we are highlighting them as you would see.

Thank you very much.

So I think we'll close it down there.

Thank you everybody who attended.

[Other language spoken]

Big thank you to Peggy and Mona for presenting the report.

And I think we will be picking up some of the broader tech issues at a later date.

We'll try and ensure the sound qualities a bit better next time.

And hopefully we'll actually be back physically in in press room 3.

But thank you for now and we'll end it down.

[Other language spoken]