[4]: 3 In the context of cyberspace, privacy means using the Internet as a service tool for private purposes without the fear of third parties accessing and using user data in various ways without their consent.
[4]: 3 The right includes freedom to receive and impart information and ideas and to hold opinions without any state interference.
However, these intergovernmental agreements can lead to misuse and abuse of private data, which in turn can affect many other fundamental freedoms and basic human rights.
[4]: 3 German political scientist Anja Mihr says that cyberspace harbors more individuals than any other country in the world, yet it is without any government, legislative bodies, law enforcement or any other sort of constitution.
This leads to problems wherein those who are willing to commit crimes find it easier to cross borders through the web, as it is unclear where jurisdiction lies.
[3] ISPs may not have the means to monitor content published on their websites, and may be unaware that a defamatory statement exists on their site.
[7] This was demonstrated in the case Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.[8] where it was found that the ISP was acting as a mere distributor and could not be liable for the content posted on its bulletin.
[29] Article 20 of the ICCPR states “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[30] Hate speech is intended to disturb violence or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their ethnicity, race, nationality or sexual orientation.
The danger to human rights becomes apparent when terrorists form together to scheme and agitate people to commit violence towards a common good.
“Al-Qaeda” moved to cyberspace, “the ultimate ungoverned territory” where schools were set up for promotion of ideological and military training and active propaganda arms.
[7] The future of human rights in cyberspace depends on the evolution of the law and its interpretation by national and international governing bodies.
[6] Jon Bing warns that once rules and regulations are automated, they become extremely arduous to subject to judicial review.
[6] Of the three positions, Brownsword claims the first two are popular in the UK, stating that technologies are being developed that treat human subjects as if they lack autonomy and the capacity to choose for themselves.
It remains to be seen whether either of these gatherings hold any lasting impact on the field, which continues to rapidly evolve in lockstep with advancing technology.
The course of action detailed that moves such as Internet shutdowns by government and hacking into devices of dissidents, can lead to serious violation of human rights.
The idea was acknowledged by at least a dozen countries including Estonia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ecuador, Japan, Switzerland, and others.