by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

2

DispatchBulletinOpinion

by The Republic of Deerfenland. . 7 reads.

Position Paper

Communication and technology consistently changes year-by-year in many different and distinct ways. For example, in just nine short years, the world went from the iPhone 4 to the iPhone XR. Communication in the 2000s improved from the first computer, which was around twenty-three pounds to the modern-day laptop which ranges to around five pounds. Social Media emerging in the past few years has also made it clear that communication and the sharing of information have been improved and developed. Since the United Nations named the Right to Privacy as number twelve on the list of human rights, it is expected that the right to privacy will be followed by all states involved in the United Nations. However, digital privacy has not been looked at in the same light as personal privacy. For example, “in 1974, the United States government passed a bill called the “Privacy Act” which gave the government the ability to have control over the maintenance, use, and the authorization to the US government to spread personal data of patrons on the internet” (What are some of the laws regarding internet and data security). Despite technology and ways of communication altering the past decades, the right to digital privacy should not change.

The United Nations has addressed this before. For example, on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, they attempted to pass a bill that was supposed to protect the privacy of world citizens online and a way for citizens to seek assistance if their privacy was violated. And despite not being mandatory to abide by the laws that the resolution passed, it still grew international recognition and numerous nations began to follow it since the right to digital privacy was filed under “the Right to Privacy” which is a human right. However, despite passing the resolution, it still led to an “intense and heated” (New York Post) debate in Switzerland in the following Spring when the resolution went through the Human Rights Council (HRC). Beforehand, man Privacy spokespeople tried to request a special United Nations diplomat to represent them with Brazil and Germany leading the charge. Their respective leaders, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Dilma Rousseff, were heavily disappointed when they found that the United States of America was spying on their communications while noting the surveillance over American citizens. While speaking on the issue, the German ambassador at the time could only say “Without the necessary checks, we risk turning into Orwellian states, where every step of every citizen is being monitored and recorded in order to prevent any conceivable crime.” While this resolution was backed by sixty-five nations, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada or New Zealand did not back it and were opposed to it.

This was not the first time that a resolution like this was proposed. A year ago (in 2013), there was a similar resolution proposed, but it went more in-depth with Private Businesses. The resolution also mentioned that nations should respect the privacy of their citizens’ privacy, but then it mentioned that businesses would not fall under that resolution’s condition and that businesses only had to make it a “priority” to protect the digital privacy rights of their patrons, not a legal obligation. Not only this, but the United States had also blocked a bill beforehand to restrict the nation’s ability to monitor American citizens that were phone and internet users as well as tracking phone calls. The only form of justification that the entente came up with when asked about this bill was that the United States believes in privacy, but security concerns would be a problem, but they recognized the proposed resolution. The United States had its senior human rights adviser, Kelly L. Razzouk, speak at the podium. “The resolution’s recognition that concerns about security may justify the gathering of certain sensitive information, in a manner consistent with international human rights obligations,” she said on the issue.

The way that the Federal Republic of Nigeria has handled digital privacy is that there is no official law enforcing data and online privacy. However, many important laws include privacy inside of them. So, while there is no official law enforcing digital privacy, there are laws that make sure that Nigerians are not spied on twenty-four hours a day for three-hundred-sixty-five days. For example, in 1999’s Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 37 says that Nigeria protects its people’s privacy in “homes, correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications” (Data Protection Laws of the World; Nigeria). The only problems with such are that “privacy” is not explicitly defined and there are no specific provisions defined in Section 37. Then in Section 8, also known as the Child Rights Act, which was made to protect the rights of children through privacy. The bill was not widely accepted within the borders of Nigeria and only a select few groups of states adopted the proposed bill.

The Digital Privacy component became more evident and clear in 2016 with the Consumer Protection Framework. This proposed plan had provisions to keep banks from disclosing clients’ personal information and demands that institutions have systems that could protect personal information from alteration, loss, and fraud as well as staff training programs as preemptive measures. Financial institutions upon the passing of this framework were required to get explicit permission from the person they have received information from before disclosing their personal details to third-parties or advertisements. Then came the Credit Reporting Act of 2017 which adds another layer of financial protection for citizens but with this time adding credit and adding the protection to credit information of Nigerian citizens.

But then came the Cybercrimes Act of 2015. While it may have not been much compared to what the United States has done in terms of privacy, it still allows the Nigerian government to spy and lay tabs on its citizens just to seek and shoot down any cybercrimes or plans for premeditated crimes. However, it still notes the rights of citizens for credit and personal information and doesn’t interfere with the laws of the previous acts passed regarding digital privacy. Many more acts were passed by Nigerian legislation like the Freedom of Information of 2011, and the Nigerian Communications Commission Regulation. The Nigerian Communications Commission Regulation just allowed people to update their personal information in the Nigerian Government’s database, but the information was still not leaked or disclosed to foreign ententes. However, the most recent law passed by the Nigerian government was called the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act which requires the Nigerian Communications Commission to protect the information of all people within their borders regarding business. The only flaw with this bill was that civilians were not mentioned so it is difficult to see if they are included in this bill as protected.

Despite technology and ways of communication altering the past decades, the right to digital privacy should not change. This is a heavy concept that is relevant to all the world’s citizens no matter of race, religion, or identity. Everyone is entitled to their own privacy whether that means physically or digitally. The list of Basic Human Rights include Privacy on the description for the right and it does not discriminate between digital privacy or physical world privacy. Privacy is privacy and the way that nations are heavily monitoring their citizens does not show compliance to the right to privacy. Resolutions and bills have passed through the United Nations, but the select few that referenced digital privacy did not make it a legal obligation for the ententes involved in the United Nations, rather just a recognition of the bill and optional compliance. Nigeria has done an absolutely outstanding job in protecting the right to privacy inside their borders. Whether it is from Section 37 to the most recent bill, the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, the data of Nigerian citizens are safe within the borders of Nigeria and their government has done a tremendous job of supporting the right to privacy inside their borders even with a few occasions regarding security and having to overhear conversations that may threaten lives.


-
-
-
-

--
-
-
-
-
-
-

Citations


-
-
-

      1. “United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Summary: Youth For Human Rights Video.” Youth for Human Rights. Accessed October 14, 2019. https://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-1-15.html.

      2. NortonOnline. “What Are Some of the Laws Regarding Internet and Data Security?” What Are Some of the Laws Regarding Internet and Data Security? Accessed October 14, 2019. https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-privacy-laws-regarding-internet-data-security.html.

      3. Sengupta, Somini. “U.N. Urges Protection of Privacy in Digital Era.” The New York Times. The New York Times, November 26, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/world/un-urges-protection-of-privacy-in-digital-era.html.

      4. “Right to Privacy in the Digital Age.” OHCHR. Accessed October 16, 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx.

      5. “Law.” Law in Nigeria - DLA Piper Global Data Protection Laws of the World. Accessed October 16, 2019. https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=NG.

RawReport