When Social Media makes you a target

Privacy International has today sent letters to leading social media platforms to ask what they're doing to protect their users' from dangerous surveillance by government immigration authorities. 

The letter comes following the implementation of plans by US authorities to require nearly all visa applicants to hand over identifiers of all social media accounts they have used in the previous five years, or face “serious immigration consequences”.

The move not only represents a gross intrusion into individual’s right to privacy and an infringement on people's freedom to express themselves, but risks normalising and encouraging similar policies around the world.

While Privacy International and other campaigners have been warning about the steps since they were announced, for example within our submission to the formal consultation by the US government, we need the help of the US-based global tech giants who make billions from their users while wielding considerable power, and who similarly have a lot to lose from this move. 

We have asked them to outline what steps they will take to use this power to protect their users worldwide. 

The letter, below, has been sent to Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, LinedIn, Reddit, & Tumblr.

We will update this page with any responses.

@ Social Media

We are writing to urge you to join us in supporting the rights of your users.

As you are aware, social media offers the world valuable resources for connecting, learning, and awareness raising. It allows people across the world to share their experiences, organise for positive change, and express themselves.

But all of this is under threat. Countries around the world spy on your users’ social media activities at border points and as part of entry requirements. In 2017, it was reported that Russia would be requiring certain visitors to disclose social media account details, while new rules in the United States will mean nearly all visa applicants will be required to have their social media histories vetted by the US government.

This massive expansion of social media surveillance is not only a violation of the rights of millions of people around the world who visit countries like Russia or the United States, it will normalise such surveillance of your platforms globally and turns them into digital bodies of evidence to be used to assess your users’ eligibility.

We are writing to ask for your commitment to protect them against such excessive and unlawful surveillance around the world.

The latest case: US Social Media Surveillance

In addition to mass surveillance of foreigners’ internet activity by intelligence agencies, the US government has for several years also monitored the social media use of some potential visitors and immigrants to the US. Such surveillance has recently been expanded as part of President Trump’s discriminatory “extreme vetting” practices, for example to allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to store the social media details of individuals travelling to the US.

However, the most recent expansion – introduced days ago – is the largest yet, affecting an estimated 14 million people each year. As the Department of State has announced, almost all visa applicants to the United States are now required to submit identifiers of all social media accounts they have used in the previous five years. Anybody who failed to do so, a Department of State official noted, would face “serious immigration consequences”7.

As you are aware, social media is particularly revealing and sensitive to individuals, making any collection or retention highly invasive. Currently, there is no justification by the Department of State that this is effective or necessary and proportionate, and as such is an unlawful invasion into privacy. The effect would be unjustified intrusion into the private lives of those affected, undermining their freedom of speech, and affecting everyone in their networks, including US citizens.

By normalising the practice, it will also open the door for other US and foreign government agencies to introduce similar measures. Other countries will not only justify their own vetting of social media by pointing to the US, they may well be encouraged to do so by the US government. Undermining privacy rights in such a way will disproportionally impact people who live in and travel to authoritarian countries, where information taken from social media is used to persecute individuals.

As you know, social media is a space where cultural context is key and where inferring meaning is inherently problematic. The potential use of automated decision-making, including the use of profiling, poses significant risks since derived, inferred or predicted profiles may be inaccurate or otherwise systematically biased, leading to individuals being misclassified or misjudged.

There is also no evidence that monitoring social media in this way is effective. Indeed, evaluations conducted by a DHS component have found that social media vetting has so far produced only a “small number” lines of inquiry despite the intrusion into civil liberties and the resources required, and that no one has as of 2016 been denied entry into the US because of their social media use.

As we wrote in our submission to the U.S. Department of State on the proposal of this policy:

The desire to expand the use of social media intelligence without sufficient justification that this is necessary and proportionate represents a gross intrusion into individual’s right to privacy. At the very least it will cause both immigrants and citizens in the US, together with the millions who interact online, to mistrust social media and cause unease in relation to their online activities. At worse it will have a chilling effect on free speech of all internet users who openly express personal or political views in case such rules could someday apply to them. It erodes the right to private life and personal autonomy whilst expanding unchecked mass surveillance.

We need your help

Policies like those of Russia and the USA are becoming more frequent.
Civil liberties campaigners and your users have already responded to this through petitions, submissions, and other campaigning, but they need your help. As companies which rely on revenue generated by your users’ data, you have a responsibility to protect it, as well as a social responsibility to protect human rights around the world.

We are asking you therefore to confirm:

• Whether you recognize the serious threats to people’s privacy caused by such measures?

• What steps, if any, you have taken to protect your users’ rights in light of such measures?

• What steps, if any, you will take to protect your users’ rights in light of such measures?

• What steps you will take to warn your users about such measures, including telling them about the potential implications and advising them on potential remedial steps?

We thank you for your attention in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Privacy International

Cases of female and gender diverse public figures being targeted with online harassment have become sadly common in the news. Female politicians are particularly affected – although journalists and in particular sports commentators are also frequently targeted as well. In some cases, the harassment goes as far death and rape threat for women and gender diverse people who dare speaking publicly. Beyond the freedom of speech implications – as we risk seeing women and gender diverse people being discouraged from engaging in public life or thinking twice before posting on social media for fear of repercussions – those cases can have a real impact on the health and well-being of survivors.

From this situation has emerged the demand for what may appear as an “easy fix”: the end of online anonymity, as some believe forcing to write under their own names will discourage trolls from harassing women and gender diverse people online.

When engaging in this debate, it is first of all important to acknowledge that this problem is not a new issue. It is merely the latest chapter in a long history of men silencing women and gender diverse people to shut them out from the public discourse.[1] The new element in here is just the medium. This is not to say we should not try and fix the problem but it is important to think about the consequences of the seemingly easy fix that are being suggested.

Anonymity is a key condition for many people in expressing themselves online. In some countries, anonymity is a necessary condition to criticise an oppressive regime or be open about one’s sexual orientation. But in every country, people often find themselves needing anonymity. It might be because they do not want their employer to see what they post or because their occupation requires them to refrain from publicly engaging on social media, as is the rule for civil servant in the UK.  Or it might be because they wish to have a different gender identity online. Interviews with transgender individuals in various countries conducted by Privacy International for our report “From Oppression to Liberation: Reclaiming the Right to Privacy” has shown that trans people often choose to explore their gender identity first on online platforms before they commit to transitioning in the physical world.

Anonymity can also be essential to survivors of domestic violence. Considering that the metadata associated to social media accounts can often be enough to track someone’s location accessing online services without leaving an abuser hints of their activities or locations can be an essential step towards a life free of abuse. In fact, even for survivors of online harassment, having an anonymous account can be an easy way to carry on engaging on social media without having to face the torrents of abuse that defines online harassment.

For those reasons we see anonymity as an essential tool for women and gender diverse people and this is why we are dedicated to defending it. Real-name policy online is an obstacle to allowing people to define themselves in their own terms and to protect themselves from abuse, be it from governments, corporations or individuals.

Furthermore, while we do not dismiss the reality of the abuse coming from anonymous trolls, more and more research shows there is no real evidence that trolls act differently under their real name. In fact, there appears to be a “performative element” to trolling: trolls are “proud” of their behaviour, act openly, and want it to be tied to their identity, as they feel rewarded. This is especially true when the trolling is part of a wider political campaign and trolls feel legitimised by the public discourse and the actions of other trolls.

Adequately addressing online harassment therefore means addressing its root causes. Yes, it is easier to hope for a quick technical or a legal fix than attempting to smash patriarchy. But implementing a real-name policy would in fact be no easy-fix. Not only would it be difficult technically but, as we highlighted above it would have a significant impact on everyone’s right to privacy. So unless we tackle the very structure that allow men to go after women and gender diverse people online in an attempt to silence them, we will carry on seeing this pattern of behaviour repeating, not only on social media but on future platforms and in the physical world as well.

Gender and human rights experts, including the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, have developed recommendations to address harassment and threat of violence of women and gender diverse persons on line. Based on their work and our own research, Privacy International makes the following recommendations:

Recommendations to companies:

• Companies should allow for the creation of anonymous accounts
• Companies should avoid opting for real name policies and registration using an already existing social media should be kept optional.
• Companies should commit to prioritising the issue of online gender-based violence and allocate resources to inform and educate about the impact of online gender-based violence.
• Companies should provide efficient tools in local languages for reporting abuse.
• Reporting tools should be accessible, user friendly and easy to find. There should be full transparency regarding the processing and outcome of the complaint mechanism.
• Companies should commit resources to promptly take down content that amounts to threat and incitement to violence against women and gender diverse people.

Recommendations to state actors:

• States should commit to protecting online anonymity, ensuring that regulations on internet companies respect the international human rights framework and commit to fighting gender-based violence online
• States should ensure there is a comprehensive legal framework that holds perpetrators of online gender-based violence liable, without relying uniquely on criminal or punitive sanctions, by prioritising measures that protect survivors, repair the damage done, make perpetrators aware of their wrong behaviour, and prevent them from repeat their offences.
• States should allow survivors to obtain protection orders (for example, restraining orders) in family or civil courts to prevent their abusers from posting or sharing intimate images without their consent or engaging in other form of harassment or violence, whether online or offline.
• States should provide reparation measures, which should not, however, rely on compensation only. Such measures should include forms of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, combining measures that are symbolic, material, individual and collective, depending on the circumstances and the preferences of the victim.
• States should ensure the funding of helplines, shelters and specialised support for survivors of online gender-based violence.
• States should ensure that law enforcement agencies are adequately trained on matters related to online gender-based violence and understand that online violence is a form of gender-based violence that warrants a serious, trauma-informed response.
• States should ensure that law enforcement agencies and prosecution bodies are adequately trained and equipped to effectively investigate online gender-based violence, without infringing on human rights of the survivor or those who are being investigated.
• States should focus on preventing online gender-based violence by addressing the underlying causes that causes it, providing education, outreach and gender-sensitive training for Internet users on online and ICT-facilitated violence against women and girls in schools and communities.

[1] Beard, M. Women & Power – A Manifesto, Profile Books, 2017

Privacy International's submission to the Human Rights Committee on a future General Comment on Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In this submission, Privacy International aims to provide the Committee with information on how surveillance technologies are affecting the right to peaceful assembly in new and often unregulated ways.

Based on Privacy International’s research, we provide the following observations:

• the relationship between right to peaceful assembly and right to privacy;

• right to peaceful assembly and new surveillance technologies;

• right to peaceful assembly online.