Cambodian women in computer class

Another flame is your husband who you stay with forever

You should serve well don’t make him disappointed

Forgive him in the name of woman; don’t speak in the way that you consider him as equal

No matter what happen we have to wait to listen with the bad word (even if he say something bad you have to listen)”

This is an excerpt from the Chbap (law) Srey (woman), a traditional Cambodian proverb, outlining the codes of conduct women are expected to follow in their society.

Sopheap Chak, with the computer notebook on her lap, at Cambodia's first Blogger Summit at Pannasastra University

Sopheap Chak at Cambodia's first Blogger Summit at Pannasastra University Photo Credit: David Sasaki

Sopheap Chak’s ambition is to break this social taboo by using social media to educate Cambodia’s women and youth.

The Clogher [defined as a female Clogger = Cambodian Blogger] uses her blog to mentor other young women, urging them to step out of their comfort zone and get educated.

She also advocates and speaks at conferences for Cambodian youth to work together and make social change. The youth civic mobilization taking hold in the Southeast Asian country is increasingly being arranged as a digital movement.

According to Chak, “Over the past few years, civic mobilization in Cambodia has gained momentum with the emerging power of digital and social media. Unlike in rice production where farmers awaited the rains for a good yield of crop, the young generations no longer await the initiatives from the government or civil society organizations to yield results.”

The Cambodian youth are taking the future into their hands, organizing numerous events and initiatives, to encourage their innovative collaboration to make change.

On June 4, Chak spoke at the Khmer Talks to over 200 attendees. The monthly events are hosted by the Khmer Young Entrepreneurs (KYEs), a group of young emerging Cambodian leaders, who on their website state they believe in, “personal empowerment.”

Khmer Talks is an informal online platform where emerging social and business entrepreneurs gather together in forums and public speaking events, they express unique and innovative ideas in their local Khmer language.

Screen shot of cambodian women in business facebook pageA couple weeks ago on June 10, Chak went to another event organized through the group’s Facebook page called the Cambodian Women in Business.

Their page, established on Facebook in November 2009, imparts experiences of women doing business and networking in Cambodia. A number of formal gatherings have been held for the women with the support of the International Finance Cooperation of Cambodia.

Chek writes, “About 40 network participants showed up at the gathering June 3 to discuss the role of Facebook in facilitating their various businesses. The event was participated by bloggers, e-entrepreneurs, business women, and civil society organizations.”

In addition to the events that perpetuate the cycle of ideas and collaboration, InSTEDD’s first iLab in Southeast Asia, is headquartered in Phnom Penh.

The InSTEDD iLab is a participatory development project launched in Cambodia in 2007. Their goal is to build technological capacity through collaborative learning and cross sector partnerships, to address health, safety and developmental issues in the Mekong Basin.

The Cambodian people, communities, and local organizations know what challenges they face, InSTEDD iLabs merely aim to leverage the technological solutions to help address them.

Social media and technology has revived civic mobilization in Cambodia. Collaborative and innovative solutions help are helping to bring a new kind of digital empowerment to a the tattered Southeast Asian country.

 

 

Youth learning to use GPS in Pitoa, Cameroon (photo: Ernest Kunbega) 

Last Monday I attended Africa Gathering London. The topic was ’Social Media Revolutionizing Africa: How is new media changing Africa, giving voices to the voiceless, improving governance and transparency, and changing narratives?’

The event stimulated thinking and brought up some hot discussions around technology, traditional and social media, aid and development, participation and governance. (Big congratulations to Marieme Jamme for curating a great line up that brought in an interesting and engaged group of participants and to William Perrin of Indigo Trust for keeping things on track and generating good debate!) See the program, the speaker bios and some short video interviews.

Some quotes, thoughts and debates from the day:

  • If your purpose is to bring more people into discussions, remember that radio, Facebook, and Twitter audiences are distinct and be sure you are thinking differently about how to engage them all. Remember that many people in Africa prefer to talk not write.  (from BBC’s Africa Have Your Say – @bbcafricahys‘s presentation)
  • You can’t resolve all of Africa’s issues with one approach. The countries are very different and local context really matters. But you also can’t design something for every tiny demographic. Where is the sweet spot between localized and scale? (discussion after the morning workshop)
  • People should not sit in the UK deciding and develop things for Africans. Develop things with Africans, or support Africans to develop things themselves. This idea got retweeted a lot, with lots of agreement. But H Taylor – @HFTaylor88 also commented via Twitter that this rhetoric has been around for ages within NGOs…. (discussion after morning workshop)
  • It’s great that the market has been able to bring mobile phones to so many people in Africa, but the market can’t do it on its own as many are still left out. There needs to be more incentive to reach remote areas. There needs to be education, cash transfers, government regulation if we want to really realize the potential of mobiles. Mika Valitalo – @vatamik commented that in many African countries, mobiles are still taxed as luxury items, making them more expensive than they should be. (Clare Melamed -ODI – @claremelamed‘s “Is the Mobile Phone Revolution Really for Everyone”.)
  • Any big story today on CNN has a social media component, yet there is still the idea that social media only breaks news and ‘it won’t make the history books until CNN or BBC report on it’. If CNN is not planning to do a story but sees everyone is talking about it on Facebook and Twitter, they will cover may rethink covering it. CNN finds good opinions and stories on social media, but their primary news source will continue to be their correspondents. Emrys Schoemaker – @emrys_s however questioned whether mass media use of citizen journalism is a broadening of voices or if it’s cheap content for big media – or both. (Faith Karimi/CNN/@faithCNN’s presentation and resulting discussions.)
  • Social media gives African youth an uncensored worldwide platform, letting them feel included in shaping Africa’s image, but the youth using social media in Africa are still the middle class and the rich. We need to find ways to include other youth. (Faith Karimi – @faithCNN’s presentation and resulting discussions.)
  • The Guardian’s Global Development Site and Poverty Matters blog are trying to get away from the vision of ‘poor Africa’ and have only been accused of ‘poverty porn’ once in 9 months (which Liz said irritated her to no end as they really try to avoid it). (I remember the case…) They stay away from the typical ‘flies in the eyes’ photos, but sometimes there really is starvation in Africa, and in those cases, a photo of a starving child might actually represent reality. (Someone countered that African newspapers should use photos of drunk, vomiting Brits to illustrate stories about parliament).  (Liz Ford/deputy editor/@lizford‘s talk and discussion)
  • Is the Guardian’s Global Development site one-sided, taking the view that aid is good rather than other ideas on how to best achieve development? Development is much larger than ‘aid’ and when talking about development we need to remember the bigger picture and the alternative views that maybe aid is not the best (or only) way to ‘do development’. The Guardian is quite open to new thoughts and ideas and invites anyone with ideas for blogs or stories to be in touch with them. They consider their site a ‘work in progress’. (Note: I like the Guardian’s site very much as it is one of the few media sources that discusses and seems to really promote and engage in the ‘#smartaid / @smart_aid‘ discussion). (Liz Ford’s talk and discussion)
  • Many African leaders, not to mention the public and the media, will listen when high level people call their attention to something, but problems can’t be solved by the same people who created them, especially if those people are considered morally bankrupt. Karen Attiah – @karennattiah commented in from Twitter that a big part of development work should focus on rebuilding the broken social contract between governments and citizens in Africa. So how can we connect policy makers with ordinary Africans? How to bridge the gap between policy makers and grassroots approaches and implementation. (Panel with Alex Reid/@alreidy and Carolina Rodriguez /@caro_silborn – media heads at Gates Foundation and at Africa Progress Panel)
  • Not all sources are created equal – this is true for traditional and for social media. Social media is not about the technology, it’s about the human need to communicate. You can make traditional media more social also. Even those without access to social media will get around harsh barriers to tell their stories because of the urge to communicate. So the best thing is to create a social experience, not to worry so much about getting ‘jiggy’ with the technology. (from Kevin Anderson/@KevGlobal‘s presentation. See Putting the social in media.)
  • New technologies can impact on public debate, people’s political capabilities, citizen-state relations, relationships with other government actors. Frontline SMS Radio, for example, could be a very useful tool for this because radio is still the main way to communicate with the majority of Africa. Using Frontline SMS Radio, stations can sort through messages they get, understand them better, and use the information to orient their radio programs as well as other things. Radio can play a very strong and useful role in governance. (from Sharath Srinivasan/ @sharath_sri‘s presentation. See FrontlineSMS at Africa Gathering.)
  • Youth can have a big impact on community development if given space to influence. There is money (eg., in Cameroon, at local government level) but it needs to be better spent. Informed and involved youth can hold government accountable for spending it better. Local level advocacy has a greater impact on youths’ lives than global level initiatives because you can make as many laws as you like, but unless people are putting them into place and practice at a local level they don’t matter. Organizations should listen to young people but not make them dependent on NGOs because the real duty-bearers are family, community, government. NGOs need to be models of their own methodologies; eg., if an NGO is encouraging people to criticize the government, the NGO should be ready to receive the same scrutiny around its own work and behaviors. Social media can play a role in this process by showing what is happening at the local level to a global audience. (from my presentation and the resulting discussions. See Youth Empowerment through Technology, Arts and Media)
Julia Chandler (@juliac2) did a great round-up of the day’s presentations and discussions on her blog: Part 1 and Part 2. The Guardian continues the discussion here and of course the Africa Gathering website is a great place for more information.
.
Update – more posts about Africa Gathering:
Great perspective from Tony Burkson – @tonyballu – who I really enjoyed talking with at the post-event drinks: A Day at Africa Gathering.
U.N. Logo with computer and wireless signal next to it

Photo credit: Governify

Amidst the Middle Eastern revolutions and wake of the Arab Spring, the U.N. released a report last month announcing that Internet access is a basic human right, but some people are unconvinced.

The report, which was released May 16, is in conjunction with the ongoing response to the disconnection of Internet access and filtering of content by authoritarian governments around the world.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, presented his report on freedom of expression and the Internet to the U.N. Human Rights Council (OHCHR) in Geneva last Friday.

The report states that the Internet has become an important medium upon which human expression occurs.

photo of Frank La Rue Photo Credit: UN, Jean Marc Ferré

Photo Credit: © U.N.- Jean Marc Ferré

Mr. La Rue made similar assertions on World Press Freedom Day, stating the Internet is a public space that encourages the facilitation of dialogue in civil society. Alternatively, he contended, politicians can use the same channel to repress dissent.

The special Rapporteur warned in the report that fearful governments are increasingly restricting the flow of information on the Internet due to its potential to mobilize people.

“In recent months, we have seen a growing movement of people around the world who are advocating for change – for justice, equality, accountability of the powerful and better respect for human rights,” Mr. La Rue asserted in his speech to the OHCHR in Geneva.

He referred to China’s filtering systems which prevent access to sites containing key terms such as “democracy” and “human rights”; and the “just- in-time” blocking, which denies users access to key information during times of social unrest, such as in the Middle East, as events that are deeply concerning to him.

While noting that the Internet is a relatively new communication medium, Mr. La Rue stressed the applicability of the international human rights framework when assessing whether governments are unduly restricting the flow of information online.

“Legitimate expression continues to be criminalized in many States, illustrated by the fact that in 2010, more than 100 bloggers were imprisoned,” the Special Rapporteur warned. “Governments are using increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, and to monitor and identify activists and critics.”

In the report, he explores key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to exercise their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in “real time” and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through the use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor and identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures.

Mr. La Rue’s reference echoed Hilary Clinton sentiment on Internet freedoms and the U.S. continued interest in upholding the values of Article 19 when she spoke last January.

“The internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that’s why we believe it’s critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them.” Clinton stated in her address.

“This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship.” she proclaimed.

The U.S. has made no comment on the most recent U.N. report.

One new idea featured in the report stresses that a person’s Internet access should remain connected even if an individual violates intellectual property law. This would typically apply to copyright infringers who knowingly download music and videos without paying.

This is one of the more controversial points in the report, as there is clearly a still a divide between how to balance the legal system with an individuals freedom of expression—without crossing the line of using the Internet for criminal purposes.

The Special Rapporteur went on to highlight in the report the need for better protections on intermediaries, which includes Internet access providers, and a person’s right to privacy with the inclusion of data protection

Mr. La Rue emphasized that states should include Internet literacy skills in school curricula, and provide training on how users can protect themselves from harmful content.

While this report provides good insight on how the Internet has increasingly become a vehicle for the freedom of expression and governments who deny access counter that liberty, public opinion has vacillated that the U.N. should deem it as a “universal human right,” but it has its critics.

The influential and outspoken critic, Kentaro Toyama, is one such opponent. “The question is whether the Internet must be actively made available to everyone, which is the implication of something being a human right. There are many things that are desirable, but which cannot practically be provided for all, and are not absolutely critical to dignified human life.”

Gordon Kelly of Trusted Review, starts his article on the report by stating, “Air, water, free speech… there are many things over the years we have come to see as basic human rights. According to the United Nations this week we should all start getting used to another, perhaps more surprising one, Internet access.”

Their points are important and risks becoming redundant in the public’s common notion of what the La Rue is trying to achieve in this report, however, that is not the U.N.’s objective.

By definition, universal human rights are international standards that are set to help guard people around the world from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to engage in political activity.

It this sense, it should be noted that La Rue was not discussing Internet access as a new right, rather as an addition to the underlying importance of the right to freedom of expression. This should also imply access to information and the right to express ideas and opinions.

The human right to the freedom of expression and opinion encourages civil societies participation, associated with other democratic freedoms like freedom of press that creates a safeguard for other freedoms that are critical to leading a dignified human life. A voice to demand basic human rights that are not “guaranteed” by governments can ensure other rights, like minimal nutrition standards and clean water.

Internet access is not a guaranteed human right, rather it is a channel and tool used to fuel further civil liberties that encourage social and economical development in oppressed communities. Citizens’ ability to have their voices be heard is critical to enhancing their livelihoods and quality of life, as they can hold their governments accountable to addressing and meeting their needs.

There are other tools that have been previously used to further citizen’s rights to lead a better life. Take, for example, national government and U.N.’s initiatives in water sanitation centers.

Africans gathered around a water sanitation center

Photo Credit: Pulitzer Center

Water sanitation centers were not declared human right, but they still serve as instruments in creating a clean source of drinking water for citizens to survive on. The centers are not a silver bullet solution for access to water, just like Internet is not an all-encompassing solution to development, but these tools help in its aim.

Internet access should not be thought of as the only tool to be used to enhance these democratic liberties—mobile and radio—are also devices that improve the ability to freely express opinion as a human right.

In addition, when La Rue argued that universal Internet access reducing authoritarian regimes stronghold in oppressing online dissidents, this was also highly criticized.

Toyama writes in response, “…the reality is that any dictator willing to shut down or censor the Internet is already engaged in violating other more important human rights, such as the right not to be shot in the head or tortured by secret police.

Though he is correct that any dictator censoring information is usually engaged in other fundamental human rights violations, extending beyond information control, this is not a valid argument against free speech.

However, there is a core meaning beyond censorship and shutting down Internet access by dictators and authoritarian regimes. As evidenced, in Iran’s proposed internal Internet, and China’s Great Firewall, these leaders recognize the power of communication in fueling the change desired by their citizens.

It also shows that they the Internet is a communicative tool that can be used to channel that change, and dictators are immediately threatened by it.

Although information may not appear at the base of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the freedom of expression and opinion are still protected human rights under Article 19. Public opinion seems to side with the United Nations, or on the BBC World Service survey finding that almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the Internet is a fundamental right.


computer

Last week a State Department official responded to the NY Times article on the “Internet Suitcases,” defending the main goal of the U.S.’s investment on the innovative technology as upholding the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

The Times article cited that the U.S. government is investing in individualized mesh networks, which are networks connected through individual nodes that do not have to rely on a central server to capture and disseminate information.

It was contested that this type of technology is ideal, and being provided by the U.S., for dissidents living in oppressive regimes to subvert censorship and avoid Internet shutdowns.

Acknowledging this, the official maintains, “…to fight against regimes is not the main aim, but rather, leveraging modern communication to uphold the freedom of expression of opinion is.”

Arguably, governments that respect the rights of civil society have nothing to fear in freedom of speech and opinion, further, they have no reason to fear freedom of the Internet.

The official admits that the Internet is not a one-size-fits-all solution and recent grants have been given to developing technology itself along with raining, and have been used on mobile innovation, citing mobile causing a, “pocket phenomenon.”

According to the official, “…the need is not one particular piece of technology or one silver bullet. The need is to be responsive to the ongoing challenges of people who are trying to call out the problems in their societies and give voice to their own future.”

The official referenced a Sudanese blogger writing about a YouTube video of a ballot box being stuffed, commenting that the National Election Commission would not investigate any evidence that was posted on the Internet. Instead, he/she cited, people posting the video were the ones being targeted and investigated.

In cases like these, the official recounted, it is the State Department’s obligation to help aid these freedoms by re-crafting the current model.

“And it hasn’t worked for Mubarak, and it hasn’t worked for Qadhafi, and it’s unlikely to work for Asad, and there are others who eventually will have to deal with either the stark choice of giving people the space to have a role in crafting their own futures or the lack of sustainability of their present model,” the official stated.

However, when asked by reporters which countries or groups this type of technology was being developed for, the official deferred questions about China, only stating that the Great Chinese Firewall and their type of censorship is a “different kind of freedom threat.”

…our goal is to make sure that we are doing what we can to amplify the voices and create the space for free expression and freedom of association and assembly online regardless of who the group is

The State Department’s recent statements are in light of the recent U.N. report declaring Internet access as a basic human right. The mesh networking innovation has the potential to leapfrog connectivity barriers and deliver freedom of expression to the oppressed.

 

 

women in hijab driving

Today on Twitter @ZiaGe, or “Patricia G”, posted a picture of herself behind the wheel of a Lexus dressed in her hijab in act of defiance. Saudi Arabia is a country where women are banned from driving.

She is one of the hundreds of Saudi women using the hash tag #women2drive to mobilize a campaign in an attempt to get a green light on paving the way to this new freedom.

Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country that does not allow women to drive, and although it is not an official law, it is culturally unacceptable. Religious rulings typically enforced by police have the same effect as a ban, and women must rely on chauffeurs or male relatives for transportation.

Al Jazeera English Stream explains the situation:

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world in which women cannot drive. Additional prohibitions against taking buses, riding bikes, and appearing in public alone essentially rule out independent travel for women

In 1990, 47 women took to the streets to challenge this ban by taking their families’ cars out for a drive. They were placed in jail for a day and their passports were taken.

32-year-old Manal al-Sherif, a key figure in Women2Drive movement, faced a similar fate last month.

Women2Drive campaign imageMs. Sharif was arrested for nine days after she drove two times and they were highly publicized on Youtube; she also highlighted them on the Facebook and Twitter campaigns she helped organize.

In the video featured at the end of this article, Al Sharif says women need to learn how to drive in order to protect themselves and their families. Additionally, not all women can afford to hire private drivers, she says.

This all comes in light of the recent Arab Spring uprisings, where social media is a popular tool to help mobilize campaigns and movements.

The Women2Drive campaign encourages Saudi women all across Saudi Arabia to participate in a collective protest scheduled for June 17.

Arab Studies Institute Jadaliyya has some more information regarding campaign plans, which included:

  • Encouraging women with international driver’s licenses (or those from other countries) to drive their cars on June 17.
  • Taking photographs and videos to be posted on Facebook in support of the cause.
  • Adhering to the dress code (hijab) while driving.▪ We will obey the traffic laws and will not challenge the authorities if we are stopped for questioning.
  • If we are pulled over we will firmly demand to be informed of which laws have been violated. Until now there is not one traffic law that prohibits a woman from driving her own vehicle herself.

The campaigns, which had attracted thousands of supporters — more than 12,000 on the Facebook page —have been blocked in the kingdom. In spite this, a few Youtube videos that have been posted, along with gaining national and international support.

 

screen shot of campaign

Screen shot of Facebook campaign

There has been an online petition addressed to King Abdullah, asking him to grant women the right to drive, which gathered signatures from more than 600 men and women; and today, Princess Ameerah al stated in an interview that she herself wants to drive and promises a women’s revolution.

Alternatively, the Saudi Women for Driving, the coalition of Saudi women’s rights activists, bloggers and academics campaigning for the right to drive, sent a letter to Clinton and to her European Union counterpart, Catherine Ashton.

“Where are you when we need you most?” they asked 
in the letter which the State Department told reporters Monday it had just received, it continues: “In the context of the Arab Spring and U.S. commitments to support women’s rights, is this not something the United States’ top diplomat would want to publicly support?”

One reporter questioned that the Secretary is more concerned about not estranging relations with Saudi Arabia when the U.S. needs help on Yemen and Bahrain, more than about defending women’s rights. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland defended Clinton, saying the Secretary “has been engaged in quiet diplomacy.”

More importantly, Saudi women are taking this movement, and their empowerment, into their own hands by coordinating their grassroots campaign using online tools.

picture of cell phone

Photo Credit: MobileActive

Aggregating and collecting data from cell phones is one of the best ways to ensure resources used to help fight poverty are efficiently being allocated, while gaining insight on what policies work the best.

According to Marcelo Giugale, the World Bank’s Director of Economic Policy and Poverty Reductions Programs for Africa, digital data collection is entirely transforming international development and bringing on, “revenge of the statistician”.

This transformation, he cites, have created two separate but interrelated effects in evaluating development projects.

Primarily, digital data collection allows funding from multilateral institutions, like the World Bank,  to be more effective.

Goals set for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are quantified to see if the results are reached. Such as: how many children were treated for malaria, or what proportion of women use contraceptives?

This increased accuracy in household surveys can precisely identify who benefits from each dollar the government spends, also known as “benefit incidence analysis,” then structural adjustments can then be made to funnel funds to the appropriate recipient. Giugale elucidates by providing an example:

Most developing countries spend more bankrolling free public universities than building primary schools. But the main beneficiaries of that subsidized college education are the rich (who could pay tuition) not the poor (who could not)…Statistics lets you quantify these aberrations—and argue that the money should be redirected to those who really need it

Secondarily, he observed that surveys conducted on cell phones provide data to assess human capabilities so future policies and projects can be altered to fit the needs of those living in poverty and make outcomes more useful.

By assessing non-cognitive skills—such as reaction time and social interaction—educational programs can be designed to teach behaviors that will increase people’s productivity.

Photo of Marcelo Giugale

Marcelo Giugale Photo Credit: World Bank

Giugale argues that digital data collection can also measure how personal circumstances affect human opportunity. “We all know that children have no control or responsibility over their gender, skin color, birthplace, or parents’ income,” he contends.

“And yet, those kind of circumstances are sure-shot predictors of a child’s access to vaccination, potable water, kindergarten, the internet and many other platforms without which her probability of success is close to nil.”  Giugale cites the Human Opportunity Index as being a large proponent of this initiative in shaping policy.

The use of cell phones to collect data has broken the once unconventional method of researching people in their communities. These randomized trials are useful in gauging what policies and projects work best, and which are seemingly wasteful.

“As the use of cellular telephony expands among the poor — at flash speed in places like Kenya –the possibility of turning them into data sources becomes real…” he concludes, “How ironic that, in the end, the war against poverty may be won when those who try to help the poor get to literally listen to them.”

In this video, Guigale explains the Human Development Opportunity Index and how it helps reduce poverty:

Crowd up people will cell phones held up

In Kashmir Photo Credit: BBC

A year after the government imposed a ban on Short Message Services (SMS) in the Kashmir Valley for “security purposes,” the numbers of cell phones has decreased,  but the demand for Internet enabled phones to access Facebook continues to rise.

Kashmiris avidly use the social media site, and last Friday it was the catalyst for the arrest of London-based BBC Urdu Services senior journalist Naeema Ahmed Mehjoor by the state.

Compared to June last year when the SMS ban began, the number of cell phone users in Jammu and Kashmir has gone down from 5,155,363 to 4,974,400 in April this year—a decline of 3.5 per cent.

Those Kashmiris who do own cell phones, however, want to use them to exchange messages and access social media sites like Facebook.

“After the ban on SMS services, every customer wants to purchase Internet enabled mobiles so that they can exchange messages on the move. Therefore the demand for the same is on a rise in the Valley as the Internet enabled mobiles are available at very cheap rates now,” says Ajaz Ahmed, an executive at a mobile shop there.

According to a study on social media usage by The Nielsen Company, nearly 30 million Indians are online where two-thirds spend time on social networking sites daily, more time than they do on personal email. 42 per cent of mobile users in India use their phones to go onto Facebook, according to the report.

A local, Jameel Bhat, says using Facebook on mobiles is a cheaper option. “I used to be in touch with my friend in Dubai through SMS but after the ban, I found making calls very expensive. Now, I chat through mobile as I cannot afford a computer and other Internet services,” he says.

Jasmine Kour, another avid Kashmiri Facebook user, also finds the social networking site a ‘good source of acquiring knowledge’ because it is easily accessible on her cell phone.

Access to Facebook on mobile phones has not always been easy though, as the state continually denies citizens access.

The cellular communication in Kashmir has been witnessing sharp ups and down since 2008. The most recent ban being in June 2010 when the government shut down the SMS service for the five month long agitation against killing of teenagers.

BBC World News LogoIncidentally, the BBC journalist, Naeema Ahmed Mehjoor kept the high response from the Kashmir people towards Facebook in view, using the social media platform as source for primary information.

This was until she was arrested by J-K police for “inciting violence and spreading disinformation,” on June 10th.

Mehjoor was booked under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act; using the IT for spreading dissatisfaction against the state.

She was taken in for her comment on Facebook, ‘Why did police kill this man in Lalchowk? Any reason?’ on June 6th. The comment was made the same day a man was killed in Srinagar’s Lal Chowk area by an unidentified gunman.

The man, police claim, was killed in a criminal conspiracy by three armed men and not police.

“As a journalist, I am working for peace,” she claimed.

Well-known broadcaster Mehjoor has been writing articles for local dailies about the 2010 unrest, where she would gain insight on Facebook to reflect the daily happenings. She also went public on her rejection to three-member Kashmir interlocutors’ invitation for a peace conference on the Kashmir problem.

This is another case where the combination of mobile and social media have helped to both push and pull information in civil society. Yet another example of how the oppressive states have attempted to circumvent citizens from accessing new technologies to control their freedom of expression and right to information.

 

 

 

 

Woman holding sign that says "Egyptians creating their future"

© Ramy Raoof (CC BY 2.0)

Throughout Africa human rights violations are being conducted all over the continent, but technology is shifting the power of information into the hands of the repressed.

Leveraging mobile phones and FM radio have been the channels to achieve this objective, according to the 2011 Amnesty International Annual Report.

Political activists and citizens have used other new communications forms, such as Facebook and Twitter, now easily available on mobile phones, to bring people to the streets to demand accountability.

Salil Shetty of Amnesty International

Salil Shetty Photo Credit: Amnesty International

“In many countries in Africa,” says Secretary General, Salil Shetty, “there is now a vibrant civil society, which, although often still repressed, can no longer be ignored by those in power.”

The report states that 2010 may be known as the year where technology aligned both activists and journalists to bring truth to the world of power.

The Secretary General also mentioned that innovative crowdsourcing technologies, such as forerunner Ushahidi.com of Kenya, have opened up a whole new set of possibilities for conflict prevention by tracking and recording abuses.

He acknowledges that they have been tools that have aided the struggle for human rights, despite the adversary from governments, in particular those in the Middle East and Northern Africa, to restrict the flow of information and censor communication.

In this sense, Shetty cautions, that the use of technologies are not a magic bullet solution that can completely determine and end human rights violations: “Technology will serve the purposes of those who control it – whether their goal is the promotion of rights or the undermining of rights,” he advised.

“We must be mindful that in a world of asymmetric power, the ability of governments and other institutional actors to abuse and exploit technology will always be superior to the grassroots activists, the beleaguered human rights advocate, the intrepid whistleblower and the individual…”

Even so, Shetty digressed that these are amazing times for human rights activists who recognize the potential of technology, which provides the context to evade censorship and reveal truth. They also holds the promise, he continued, that we will be, “living in a truly flat world,” where we are all connected by an accessible information that flows across borders and all can provide a voice to help determine major decisions in our lives.

“Fifty years on the world has changed dramatically, but the imperative for individuals to stand together to fight injustice and protect the rights of human beings, wherever they may be, has not,” the Secretary General emphasized.

Assessments of the state of human rights in countries across Africa, Amnesty concluded:

Uganda—law enforcement officers “committed human rights violations, including unlawful killings and torture, and perpetrators were not held to account” and “a number of new and proposed laws threatened the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly”.

Zimbabwe—“police continued to arbitrarily arrest and detain human rights defenders and journalists undertaking legitimate human rights work”. However, there was “some loosening of restrictions on the media and parliament debated a bill to reform the repressive Public Order and Security Act”.

Swaziland—“human rights defenders and political activists were subjected to arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and harassment … Torture and incidents of unjustified use of lethal force were reported. The prime minister appeared to publicly condone the use of torture.”

Sudan—“human rights violations, mainly by the National Intelligence and Security Service, continued to be committed with impunity. Perceived critics of the government were arrested, tortured or ill-treated and prosecuted for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly. Death sentences were handed down, including against juveniles. Women, young girls and men were arrested and flogged in the north because of their ‘dress’ or ‘behaviour’ in public places.”

These summaries were provided on a post on AllAfrica.com

 

map of roads either complete or incomplete

Photo Credit: Rising Voices

In India, fishermen living in the city of Olcott, Chennai have relied on the beach for hundreds of years to earn livelihoods. After the British acquired this three-mile strip of land, members of this fishing community were deemed trespassers in their own homes.

Now, participatory mapping drawn up by Olcott citizens helps to create a visualization of the relationship between the fishermen and the coastline to make the government more responsible and accountable.

This is the objective of Transparent Chennai, a hands-on platform created by The Center for Development Finance, working under a Rising Voices Microgrant.

Aggregating, collecting, and displaying data for public interest use, on Usur and Olcott fishing communities in South Chennai, provides a visual to the gaps where legislation needs to be created. This ensures that fisherman have access to the water and can claim rights to their land.

The statement on the website clarifies their end goal:

Our goal is to enable residents, especially the poor, to have a greater voice in planning and city governance

Residents of Usur and Olcott engage in participatory workshops where they contribute to the map, mark the boundaries of their village, and land use patterns. They can show varying livelihoods within the community, and how space outside of their homes is used, particularly along the water.

The maps identify local resources, points of historical and ritual importance, and gaps in local infrastructure and government services. By providing easy-to-understand information, the maps can better highlight citizen needs, shed light on government performance, and improve their lives in the city, one issue at a time.

Transparent Chennai believes that lack of data has sometimes allowed for the government to evade its responsibilities and to provide basic entitlements to all city residents.

They collaborate with citizen to integrate accurate, first hand information. “We work closely with individuals and citizens’ groups to create data that can help them counter inaccurate or incomplete government data, and make better claims on the government for their rights and entitlements,”

Creating the maps is not limited to just the perspective of adult citizens, though.

Recently, eighth grade students at Olcott Memorial School in Besant Nagar participated in a four-week mapping workshop run by Transparent Chennai. Using Google Earth and Google Maps, along with paper maps, they marked their own important landmarks of the city.

 

Students use paper to figure out how their symbols should look. Red writing with things like bathroom posted on it [Photo Credit: Siddharth Hande

Students use paper to figure out how their symbols should look Photo Credit: Siddharth Hande

Anjney Midhall, who facilitated the mapping workshop describes the scene at the school: “…around me, children of the eighth grade at the Olcott Memorial School in Besant Nagar are busy mapping out their school’s campus in groups, developing their own unique symbols and keys, color schemes and layouts…By the end of the session, maps emerge, each diagram telling a story of its own.”

Through locally generated maps, Transparent Chennai aims to do their part in rectifying a lack of data and the lack of government accountability to meet the basic needs of its citizens. ‘Participatory mapping’, is one of the best ways to do this.

 

 

 

boy with binoculars and man with mac computer in afghanistan

Photo Credit: NYTimes

The State Department is financing the creation of external wireless networks that would enable dissidents to undermine repressive authoritarian governments trying to censor or disable telecommunication networks, according to a New York Times report.

According to the Times story released on Sunday, Internet and mobile phone networks are being created so they can be deployed in an area independent of government control.

The State Department-led project involves the building of a $2-million prototype “Internet in a suitcase”, and independent “shadow” phone networks by a group operating out of a building on L Street in Washington, D.C.

This comes to light after the U.N. and the U.S. proclaimed Internet access and Internet freedoms as central to free speech and human rights.

“We see more and more people around the globe using the Internet, mobile phones and other technologies to make their voices heard as they protest against injustice and seek to realize their aspirations,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote to the Times.

The new technologies made to circumvent oppressive regimes are currently in development by the New America Foundation under their nonpartisan think tank, Open Technology Initiative (OTI). The D.C. entrepreneurial engineers are cultivating both new technologies, and finding ways to utilize the tools from the previous uprisings.

The State Department, for example, is financing projects to create stealth wireless networks, including a $2 million grant to develop the “Internet in a suitcase.” The networking access points are designed to look like regular suitcases that communicate with each other to create mesh networks connected to the global Internet.

Diagram of a stealth network and wireless mesh network

Photo Credit: NYTimes

These suitcases, which contain all the necessary hardware, could be smuggled into a country and deployed over an area to create a service independent of government control in countries like Iran, Syria and Libya, according to participants in the projects.

The other project is even more ambitious, the article states, where the State Department and Pentagon have spent $50 million to create an independent cellphone network in Afghanistan to offset the Taliban’s ability to shut down the official Afghan services.

This all comes after the “Arab Spring” uprisings over the past several months, which have drawn attention to network shutdowns and censorship conducted by regimes under threat like the Syrian and Egyptian governments. They attempt to stifle citizens’ ability to communicate with each other and to inform the outside world of what’s going on in the protest zones.

“The implication is that this disempowers central authorities from infringing on people’s fundamental human right to communicate,” recounted Sascha Meinrath, project director of the OTI, who is leading the “Internet in a suitcase” project.

However, Meinrath cautions that the cultivation of these independent networks also have can have a negative aspect:

Repressive governments could use surveillance to locate and arrest activists who use the technology, or persecute them for simply bringing hardware across the border.

Others believe that the risks are outweighed by the potential impact. “We’re going to build a separate infrastructure where the technology is nearly impossible to shut down, to control, to surveil,” says Meinrath.

The Times specifically discusses the foreign policy implications of these U.S. financed projects. After a decade long struggle in fostering media to evade hostile regimes like Voice of America, these ambitions are grandiose in scale.  Alternatively, the creation of these new tools could be the next step helping to empower civil society.

 

Copyright © 2020 Integra Government Services International LLC