Content uploaded by Richard Hayman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Hayman on May 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Human Rights Software:
Information Support Solutions For Social Justice
An article by Richard Hayman
ABSTRACT
Human rights centres and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have
crucial information support needs, many of which can be met by the existing and
ongoing development of information technology software applications. For
communication and Internet use, the psiphon program allows for secure and
anonymous information exchange and distribution, including firewall
circumvention. For data collection, organization, encryption, and storage, Martus
software can be deployed to help protect sensitive information and identities.
Based on documented projects and websites, the following research examines
these emancipatory tools to determine: the technologies in use, emergent, and
under development; their possible usage in the critical arenas under discussion;
and, the greater effects of these technologies as they relate to social justice and
information access in the global information society. The purpose is to raise
awareness within human rights communities and information centres about the
existence and availability of these tools, so that these groups may find
appropriate and accessible solutions that match their information support needs.
Further, it is hoped that the information presented here will generate open,
intercultural, and international discussions of human rights policy development,
strategic planning, and implementation.
INTRODUCTION
Preliminary research suggests that human rights centres and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) deal with specialized information types,
particularly when one considers the vast amount of information and data
collection they oversee on a daily basis: testimonials and affidavits, video and
audio reports, abuse analyses, basic survival needs (e.g., tracking water or food
shortages), and evidential documentation for legal tribunals. Some of these
varied information support needs are met by readily available computing
software technologies: word processing programs, database applications, email,
Web browsers, etc. Other software solutions are less known, despite their
potential to help solve some of those sensitive and specialized information
needs. Specific software applications have been designed with the intent that
they be used in human rights work of one kind or another, such as secure
communication and information dissemination, data encryption, and information
storage and retrieval. These needs are all incredibly relevant for the human
rights area, particularly for those organizations and NGOs operating in unstable
locations or under hazardous conditions (resultant from natural disasters and/or
human-made problems). While the research presented here should not be taken
as complete or exhaustive, it is hoped that the accessible information presented
here will promote an awareness of the tools and technologies available. This will
have the primary benefit of improving human rights information work, ever more
critical in the growing global information/knowledge and digital society and
during an era of mass registration and surveillance. Ideally, increased adoption
and awareness of these solutions with have the benefit of driving further
development in this area, increasing the information and technology support
given to human rights work.
LIBRARIANSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS
This research springs from the understanding that freedom of information
and information access are core values of librarianship, and takes these values
as guiding principles. Drawing together the rights to intellectual freedom,
information access, and basic human dignity, and approached with a concern for
the social values and responsibilities of society at large, librarians themselves
have recognized the connections between their work and the protection and
promotion of human rights. Here in Canada, support for human rights in
librarianship can be found within the rhetoric of the Canadian Library Association
(CLA), particularly in the CLA Code of Ethics (1976) and official position
statements on Intellectual Freedom (1985) and Diversity and Inclusion (2008)
(CLA Position Statements). A core value of Canadian LIS includes the belief that
“principles of intellectual freedom and free universal access to information are
key components of an open and democratic society” (CLA Mission, Values, &
Operating Principles). In the United States, advocacy and activism have long
been part of the work of the American Library Association (ALA) (see Samek
2001 for a historical perspective). The ALA is the oldest and largest individual
association of LIS professionals, and its advocacy and activist roles are found
most particularly in its Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT). Founded in
part from a “[c]oncern for human and economic rights ... [SRRT] believes that
libraries and librarians must recognize and help solve social problems and
inequities” (“Welcome to SRRT”). Among the greater ALA directives, support for
basic human rights has been recognized in the ALA Policy Manual, with policies
about human rights abuses (policy 9.5), by situating human rights among its
overarching policy objectives (58.1), and confirmation of support for the United
Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (58.4, 58.4.1).
At the international level, the International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions (IFLA), a joint organization of library and
information organization from across the globe, advocates the promotion of
human rights through librarianship, information ethics, and global information
justice. The IFLA/UNESCO Public Library Manifesto (1994) recognizes that
“[f]reedom, prosperity and the development of society and individuals are
fundamental human values,” and views the public library as “a living force for
education, culture, and information … for the fostering of peace and spiritual
welfare through the mind of men and women.” Other prominent arguments for
the connections between librarianship and human rights include Phenix and
McCook (2005), Byrne (2007), and Samek (2007). Additionally, ongoing
discussions can be found through serials such as Progressive Librarian and
Information for Social Change, as well as through many blogs and listservs, such
as Librarians for Human Rights (http://justicelibraries.blogspot.com/) and
HRLibs (Human Rights and Librarians, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRLibs/).
Ultimately, the ideas of social responsibility, human rights, and the freedoms
guaranteed by the UDHR serve as guiding principles for librarians as
professionals and as individual world citizens. In our global information society,
quickly becoming a global knowledge civilization, librarians and information
specialists are uniquely poised to help shape the future of information ethics and
social responsibility in word and action, and to advocate for social change
through continued improvement and development.
THE INTERNET AND ICT
Representing the view of LIS professionals at the international level,
IFLA’s Internet Manifesto reaffirms the fundamental human right of access to
information with a direct reference to Article 19 of the UDHR. The Manifesto,
unanimously ratified by the IFLA Council in 2002, recognizes the power of the
Internet as a tool of information and communication, and directs libraries and
information centres to act as Internet gateways and venues of free, public
Internet access. It is unapologetic in its professed values, arguing vehemently
for the roles of both libraries (and their librarians) as information access and
support centres. Further, in calling for international understanding of and
participation in the Internet and the online world, IFLA challenges governments
to recognize that unfettered and unfiltered information flow is a right that should
be granted to all citizens, regardless of nationality, and that assisting efforts of
information accessibility and support among developing nations is an
international duty. In 2003, a joint steering group formed by IFLA and the
International Publishers’ Association (IPA) released a statement on “Freedom of
Expression on the Internet.” Also drawing upon Article 19, this statement echoes
much of the earlier IFLA statement. It also draws together the library and
publishing worlds, recognizing that both services have interests in promoting
free expression, information access, and places responsibility on the
international community to maintain and promote the Internet as an unfettered
information tool.
Issues of intellectual freedom and the Internet are most prevalent with
regard to filtering technology. Years after popular acceptance of the Internet as
an information tool, the questions surrounding who exactly is responsible for
monitoring Internet behaviour of users (and especially of children) in public
libraries continues to provoke vigorous debate. As a publicly funded institution, a
public library is often held accountable to the community at large for every dollar
in its budget, and so in many ways is expected to reflect the values of the
community at large. On the other hand, as a site of information access and
intellectual freedom, the same library should be opposed to censorship and
Internet filtering. The result is that many will libraries leave it to Internet users
(or their parents or legal guardians) to monitor online behaviours. Much of this
comes from the realization that Internet filters simply do not work in the ways
one would expect. Schrader (1999) shows that many of the commercially
available filtering programs are typically too discriminate, and perhaps anti-
competitive, in their deselection algorithms. For example, Internet filtering
software will block sexual health websites and sites that are critical of the
software itself. In other cases, these programs filter much too broadly, such that
entire resources and websites simply disappear, becoming “utterly invisible to
searchers, leading to the conclusion that no information even exists on the topic
of interest” (10). Ultimately, it is up to individual librarians/institutions to make
the decision of whether to employ filtering technology. However, if the core
ethics and values of the LIS profession call for open and free information access
at national, international, and transnational levels, we can feel confident
suggesting that the use of filtering software should be the exception, rather than
the rule.
The literature discussing the intersection of information issues, human
rights, and technology is engaging and varied. It is interdisciplinary in nature,
and its diverse sources include grassroots communities, business and economics,
research centres, the academy, and government. Given the explosion of
information sharing seen since the advent of the Internet and the rise of the
World Wide Web (WWW), it is not surprising that much of the research in this
area focuses on the effects this communication tool has brought to the human
rights sphere. For instance, Collins (2007) illustrates the effects that Internet-
based and other technology-based efforts have generated results at human
rights abuse testimonies, such as the ease with which digital video recordings
can be captured and reproduced to help prevent rights abuses, and to document
those abuses when they do occur. Collins suggests that such technology-based
information resources can speak for the oppressed, often in absentia, against
the authorities who commit such crimes against humanity.
In other areas, the researchers at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab
have drafted an online guide that instructs users on how to circumvent Internet
filters and firewalls (2007). Written in a straightforward, approachable language
aimed at the everyday user (as opposed to being overly technical), the guide
presents detailed descriptions and case studies that briefly instruct the reader in
various ways he or she might employ technology to avoid authorities, bypass
Internet filters, and surf the Web privately and anonymously. This and other
guides are not in themselves library-related, but as information resources, their
promotion of circumvention tools can empower the reader to find the same
rights and goals as those promoted by LIS institutions. The Internet age has
enabled new means of communication, and has thus also created a new
generation of reporters that respond to the challenges of our particular
information age. Armed with their laptop computers, digital cameras, and
smartphones, a generation of bloggers, cyberjournalists, and hacktivists (an
amalgam of hacker and activist, such as a computer hacker who illegally hacks
for social or political reasons) have heralded a new age in citizen journalism and
activism. They can be found operating online and based anywhere in the world,
though of greatest interest are those living or working in countries where
censorship is the norm and state-run media is the primary (and often only)
source of information about the outside world. Often labelled as dissidents and
subversives by their governments, such individuals and activists are regularly
persecuted (within and outside the bounds of law), while their blogs and
websites are monitored, sabotaged, filtered, shut down, or defamed by
authorities. A release from Reporters Without Borders/Reporters sans frontiers,
Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-dissidents (2007), instructs online individuals
on ways to avoid detection, to more easily disseminate information, and to
counteract the information barriers constructed by their oppressive regimes.
With regard to information access, it is typically in those countries and
regions already known to be rights abusers that print and broadcast journalism
are just as stifled as their online counterparts. Often controlled directly by or run
on behalf of the government or state power, many media outlets practice
various forms of censorship, self-censorship, or inside censorship, while also
disseminating propaganda. This practice contributes to the erosion of human
rights both informational and physically tangible. In a region where journalists
fail to report or record an event that obviously violates guaranteed rights, this is
no better than ignoring the problem: the journalists appear complicit with
authorities, their silence equates to censorship, and so the violations and abuses
continue. A recent study unsurprisingly revealed that countries that actively
censor and otherwise limit information access exhibit lower human rights
standards and practices than those countries with greater information freedoms
(Apodaca 2007).
The example of the “Saffron Revolution” in Myanmar/Burma is particularly
relevant in this context. There the information flow through both traditional
media and the Internet is controlled by the ruling military junta. Yet during the
2007 citizen revolt by Buddhist monks and the common citizenry, the power of
these new technologies was evident. Through the use of technology and new
citizen journalism, dissidents subverted the state media by turning the flow of
information on its head. As the military response to the revolution grew more
violent, the Burmese people were so effective in spreading news of the revolt
and the military crackdown that the images and videos sent to the international
community drew attention to their plight. These images and videos were so
effective that the ruling military junta was forced to take drastic action. The
government controlled the only Internet service providers (ISPs) in that country,
and so it disconnected the Internet, effectively severing the electronic flow of
information in and out of the country. In language of the report issued by the
OpenNet Initiative (2007), a collective of research institutes that focus their
efforts on Internet filtering and surveillance, the Burmese military junta “pulled
the plug” on the Internet, disconnecting the country’s Net access. Shortly after,
the revolution lost much of its popular momentum, while widespread military
and police action against citizens, monks, journalists, and reporters crushed the
remaining dissidents. While misinformation and information loss are not the only
factors contributing to the chaos, the resulting crackdown included citizens who
were arrested without cause, “disappearances” and missing persons, and
multiple deaths. At the beginning of the revolution, information communication
technology (ICT) and Internet connections helped prevent abuses; once
disconnected, images and documentation no longer escaped, and so the junta
was able to continue its attack without international oversight. The revolution
ended, and little has changed in the country.
We know that technology is in and of itself mostly benign and that, like
any tool, it is in the application of the technology that can make it seem good or
evil. In many cases, the same software that is used to prevent harm in school
libraries, such as filtering applications, are used to commit human rights
violations. Faris and Villeneuve (2008) show that Internet filtering is rampant in
locations where other human rights infringements occur, particularly when the
government is interested in controlling citizen uprisings and other forms of
popular dissent. They note that the practice of filtering is most on the rise in
developing nations, especially among oppressive regimes in Asia and the Middle
East (the Great Firewall of China and the censoring practices of Syria and Turkey
are commonly used examples). Citing the expansion of Internet usage in these
regions, the authors discuss how a government’s original investment in
hardware infrastructure and software can be easily adapted to enhance their
censorship efforts. Those of us who have uninhibited access, particularly in the
(mostly) democratic regions of the Western modern and developed world, must
be conscious that we are using technologies that exist at a level beyond the
scope and abilities of what is typically available in the developing world. The
populations of developing nations can employ technology to help level the
playing field between themselves and the people of the developed world.
However, doing so is difficult when governments are actively subverting those
tools to use against the citizenry.
Many Internet-based supporting tools for human rights work exist, but
harnessing the power of the Internet alone is not enough. While blogs, forums
and wikis can empower cyberdissidents, hacktivists and citizen journalists, these
tools alone cannot meet the dynamic, complex, sensitive, and varied information
support needs of human rights information centres and workers. Additionally,
the Internet does not fill the needs gap left by common computer applications
(e.g., productivity suites or email applications) that cannot or do not do what
NGOs and rights organizations need them to do. Whaley (2000) notes that
where technological trends are concerned, “NGOs often find that their needs are
different from the interests of commercial infrastructure and software
developers” (38), and that compared to many businesses, the technological
needs of NGOs can be fairly simple and straightforward (38-39). It is a matter of
understanding those needs, finding the will to act, and creating the technological
tools to help solve them. Whaley makes a recommendation that will no doubt be
important for future research projects, arguing that “NGOs need more forums in
which human rights leaders can exchange ideas with IT leaders about what kind
of technology would best support the spread of equality and civic discourse”
(39). Here at least is one specific need expressed in clear terms: there must be
communication about and understanding of the needs of rights information
workers who are to use human rights technology if the technology itself is to
have any value.
As for how human rights and ICT come together as projects in action, a
number of existing examples show that there are technologies in the sector that
attempt to meet the information support needs of rights groups. For example,
Rezaian (2007) highlights a statistical review and policy analysis of information
and communication technology usage in Sub-Saharan Africa, with emphasis on
specific countries where ICT project implementation is used to combat poverty.
In some locations the deployment of ICT-based poverty-defeating projects has
served to decrease destitution levels while simultaneously increasing local
educational and information literacy levels. While technology cannot solve all
problems, Rezaian argues that ICT projects can and do have positive effects on
communities, when deployed in conjunction with other socially responsible
initiatives, such as education programs and housing projects. He presses the
need for further research in the area, as evidence of these beneficial effects
have already been seen to influence national poverty-reduction policies and
decisions about increasing international aid.
HUMAN RIGHTS SOFTWARE
Progress has been made with the open source software and free software
movements. Within these groups we can find community-driven models of
development, pushed by volunteerism and the altruistic or philanthropic desire
to improve on or replace existing applications, to create solutions where none
exist, and to provide programs with open code, instilling a sense of
accountability. In this regard, open source and free software stand in contrast to
the typical models of software development in the for-profit arena, where the
bottom line and pleased shareholders are major concerns. While innovation can
be slowed by disagreements over intellectual property and copyright in both for-
profit and open source arenas, extra delays in development of solutions for
human hit the NGO and rights sectors particularly hard. When those delays are
compounded by the lack of financial return on resource investment, not to
mention the potential risks to human lives that are not seeing the benefits of the
technology destined to help, there is little incentive for for-profit companies to
contribute to human rights software projects. On the other hand, the positive
effects of GNU General Public Licenses (GPLs) are being noticed (Vucic 2006).
These licenses recognize and credit the program developers while still allowing
for the free distribution and use of open source applications, diminishing the
controversy while spurring future development. Similar to the Creative
Commons licenses often used for sharing media, GNU GPLs can drive innovation
for the sake of innovation, without worry for the bottom line. This approach
recognizes that technological solutions have a wider reach than we might first
imagine, and helps account for different cultural contexts, particularly those
based in communitarianism and interest in the betterment of society as a whole.
What is needed now is the necessary next step between understanding
the power that ICT projects can have on human rights and moving forward to
full-fledged electronic information support for human rights work, NGOs, and
other areas of the non-profit/not-for-profit sectors. We know that technological
developments can be used to improve information collection and dissemination.
Due to current advancements in human rights software implementation, the
time is right for further research into the connections between human rights and
technology, research that can inform future developments on both the
information management and technical application sides. By focusing such
research directly on information centres and workers, both the rights
organizations themselves and the developers can make connections and assist
one another, through software connections and ICT resource sharing. It is hard
to see such collaboration in a negative light, when we know that human lives
may be saved, rights violations prevented, and rights abusers exposed and
brought to justice. Thus, the phrase “human rights software” refers to “the
applications developed for use in rights information centres and field offices,
NGOs and other organizations”.
There are a number of software tools already available or under
development for use in the field. Some have received media attention and been
employed for specific projects, while others are little-known or are for use in
specific projects or areas. This list, organized alphabetically, names some of
these projects, and their URLs available at the time of writing:
• Analyzer, http://www.hrdag.org/resources/software_projects.shtml
• FrontlineSMS, http://www.frontlinesms.com/ (with mobile phone
technology)
• ICA-Atom, http://ica-atom.org/
• Karapatan-Monitor, http://code.google.com/p/karapatan-monitor/
• Martus, http://www.martus.org/
• NGO-in-a-Box, http://ngoinabox.org/
• OpenEvsys, http://www.huridocs.org/tools/monitoring/openevsys
• psiphon, http://psiphon.ca/
• Sahana, http://www.sahana.lk/
When armed with one or more of these software tools, humans rights
organizations will increase their information support abilities, all freely and
without fear that the software has been subverted. Unfortunately, there is little
opportunity here to completely detail all of these projects, so instead I highlight
five of the most significant. This is not intended as a comprehensive, mutually
exclusive, or detailed analysis or breakdown of these systems, or as a complete
set of documentation. If the reader is looking for more information, the best
resources are to be found on the website or project page to the software itself.
My interest is in raising awareness about these programs, primarily so that those
individuals and groups working in these arenas will be able to identify, find and
use the tools built to assist in the fight for human dignities and development.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
The five projects described below represent significant attempts to
reshape the information support landscape for human rights work. Most are
currently available and active, while other development efforts are ongoing. Of
these, the last one described stands out because it is not specific software, but
rather a software suite collected for use by NGOs and rights organizations. For
each, I have provided basic information on the project and its operations, as well
as a description of its uses, operating environment, and languages available.
These programs vary in their complexities and capabilities, but they all fit the
definition of programs developed for use in or for furthering human rights and/or
NGO work.
Analyzer
URL: http://www.hrdag.org/resources/software_projects.shtml
Developer: Human Rights Data Analysis Group/Benetech
Availability: Free, open source; code available under GNU General Public
License (GPL)
Basic description:
Analyzer is a database program that can be used to collect and store information
regarding human rights violations for later analysis. Based on the "Who did what
to whom?" model of human rights documentation (see Ball, 1996), it helps
organizations draw together disparate pieces of information to help form a larger
picture of a violation or set of abuses. The program includes various means of
data analysis.
Detailed information:
The Analyzer software is in use by a number of groups and organizations, and
draws on the principles that influenced the Martus project (described below).
Analyzer can link to Martus for increased operability. The code is freely available
online, though the website for this project suggests that the developer should be
contacted before full deployment. The software can help keep records of various
abuses and violations that occur during an event of interest to the NGO, records
that are collected and entered by the user. It employs a controlled vocabulary
system that compensates for the vast number of information sources used to
gather information on abuses. This system helps provide specificity when
recording abuses, making data management that much easier. This level of
control also permits the program (and therefore the organization) to count and
map relationships between different violations, helping connect the links
between the abuser, the victim, and the events themselves. The program
includes an "Inter-rater reliability" (IRR) tool that helps users maintain
consistency when applying the controlled vocabulary by monitoring the terms
being used.
Additional functionality allows the program to match and track different
accounts of the same or similar abuses and violations. It can then generate
statistics and reports reflecting the information gathered in the system about
those related events. These documents can be further analyzed to track and
understand connections along the “Who did what to whom?” model. Such
reports can be customized to show general or specific data. Finally, the Analyzer
database is searchable, and will accept multiple user accounts, each with its own
secure and user-created password.
Technical requirements:
Analyzer is available for Windows, Linux or Mac OS X operating environments,
and requires an Internet connection for full operation.
Languages:
English, French, Spanish
Martus
URL: http://www.martus.org/
Developer: Benetech (Beneficent Technology)
Availability: Free, open source; code available under GNU General Public
License (GPL)
Basic description:
Benetech describes Martus as the “Human Rights Bulletin System.” This software
is used to collect and organize information on human rights violations, and is
used by NGO or rights groups to create an encrypted database of violations,
victims, and abusers. This information can be archived on remote Martus
servers, which helps protect against data loss through seizure by unfriendly
authorities, neglect, or damage, for improved information security. Information
in the password-protected database is searchable, and the program is informed
by an open source philosophy.
Detailed information:
Benetech consulted human rights groups and NGOs (including the United
Nations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) to discuss the
software needs of these groups. The beta version was tested in various locations
across the globe, and improvements were made before the complete version
was publicly released. According to Martus documentation, the developers
wanted input from these test groups in order to develop the program according
to user needs. Thus, Martus meets the four criteria set by the field testers and
consulting organizations: usability, security, searchability, and transparency.
Martus can be installed across multiple computers, and each computer can
host multiple accounts. Each account relates to an individual user, and each user
has password-protected access. The system permits the headquarters of an
organization to create a public account that is accessible from field offices so
that remote workers can access the entire database and upload their own
bulletins. This is significant for easing communication and information
dissemination, and ensures that key stakeholders have access to important and
up-to-date information. Once logged-on, users can create and save bulletins
documenting new abuses, or modify and update existing bulletins with additional
information collected since the last update. Bulletins are organized into folders
for ease of access and findability, and the program automatically generates
certain folders for users based on sound organization principles. The folders
feature also permits the user or NGO to create unique folders (for documenting a
specific case for example); this allows the NGO to organize the database using
the in-house information management practices already in place. Finally, while
specific details within bulletins remain private (to protect victims, for obvious
reasons), some bulletins can be publicly shared both within the organization and
externally. This means that other rights groups, journalists, researchers, and
activists can access the information in the bulletins by searching using the
Martus Search Engine.
Technical requirements:
Martus is available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X environments, and
requires an Internet connection for data backup and retrieval.
Languages:
English, Spanish, French, Russian, Thai, Arabic, Nepali
psiphon
URL: http://psiphon.ca/
Developer: Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of
Toronto
Availability: Free, open source; code available under GNU General Public
License (GPL)
Basic description:
psiphon is a specialized anonymizing proxy that helps the user (client)
circumvent Internet firewalls and filters. It intended for use by those living in
countries that are known to censor Internet transmissions, and would be of
particular use to journalists, cyber-dissidents, and any individual or organization
requiring unfettered Net access for research and communication while operating
in arenas where Internet traffic is monitored and/or filtered.
Detailed information:
Most anonymizing proxies and proxy servers/services have publicly available
Internet protocol (IP) addresses that can be easily tracked and blocked by
countries and organizations that employ oppressive firewalls and filters. psiphon
differs from other anonymizing proxy options (e.g., Tor) in two main respects: it
is software-based rather than Internet-based, and it relies on trusted social
networks. Regarding the first difference, psiphon is not installed in the manner
typical to most computer software, i.e., on the user’s computer. Instead, a
trusted administrator such as a friend or family member located outside the
firewall/filter installs psiphon on his or her computer, creating an access point
referred to as a psiphonode. The administrator configures the software, and then
supplies the user (a psiphonite) inside the firewall with a URL specific to that
particular installation, along with a username and password. When the
psiphonite (the user) has this information, he or she navigates to the URL set by
the psiphonode administrator. The site at the URL will require the psiphonite to
authenticate, after which he or she may surf the Internet as usual. Thereafter,
all Internet transmissions occur in the same manner as they would over a
normal proxy: requests are transferred from the user’s computer to the
psiphonode, then to the website or resource requested by the user. The
psiphonite computer receives the information requested from the destination
website, then forwards it back to the psiphonite computer for the user to read or
use.
psiphon’s reliance on trusted networks and secured transmissions is what
allows it to function best. In this scenario, the information passing through the
firewall is directed to the psiphonode’s IP address, rather than to a ‘suspect’ site
that targeted by the firewall or filter, thus avoiding the censors. Since continued
access requires that the proxy site supplied by the administrator remains
unfiltered (and undetected by the authorities controlling the firewall), both the
user and the psiphonode administrator must trust the other not to reveal the
URL, its related IP address, or any username/password combinations that allow
access to that proxy. If that trust is broken and/or the IP address revealed to
the censors, then the tool is no longer effective. In such cases, the psiphonite
may need to find a new psiphonode to grant proxy access, since the original
psiphonode (and his/her related IP address) may end up on a blocked list.
Technical requirements:
The administrator side requires a Windows or Linux environment (a Mac OS X
compatible version is under development) and Internet connection. Further, the
administrator’s computer must be powered and running with an active Internet
connection if it is to accept requests from the client. Specific configurations of
routers and firewalls on the administrator side may be necessary. The client
requires a web browser and Internet connection.
Languages:
English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic
Sahana (Sahana Free and Open Source Disaster Management System)
URL: http://www.sahana.lk/
Developer: Lanka Software Foundation
Availability: Free, open source; code available under GNU Lesser General Public
License (LGPL)
Basic description:
Sahana is intended as an information management tool for disaster zones. It
sprang from relief efforts after the earthquake and subsequent massive tsunami
that hit Sri Lanka and other parts of Asia in 2004, and has since been deployed
in other troubled areas. It is designed for use by aid workers and organizations,
but can also be used by victims and relief volunteers, government officials, and
others operating to help ease human suffering.
Detailed information:
The project website and related documentation details seven primary
applications of the Sahana software:
• A missing person registry to help track/find missing individuals, including
the ability for hosting photographs online;
• An organization registry, to assist coordination of various relief groups,
organizations, and government support;
• A request management system that can match the needs of the various
aid groups to the financial, material, and human resources that have been
donated to the relief effort;
• A camp registry that maps the locations and facilities of refugee camps
housing displaced disaster victims;
• A volunteer management system, registering volunteers working in
specific areas and tracking their skills to help match and allocate those
abilities in the most appropriate areas;
• An inventory management system to help track and accounting for
different types of material aid received, based on the standards set by the
World Health Organization;
• A situation awareness overview that can be updated to reflect the most
current conditions in the disaster area for quick information dissemination,
including a mapping feature.
Additional modules are available for advanced functions, including a registry for
disaster victims, an application for emailing/instant messaging, an aid catalogue,
and a means of synchronizing across various installations of Sahana.
The Sahana software can be deployed over a variety of platforms
depending on situational needs. Large-scale setups can allow access by multiple
organizations and groups, all synchronized so that each has access to the same
set of information and resources. This kind of advanced setup requires slightly
more technical sophistication (such as a central server), but otherwise the
software functions in the same way as the basic single-point installation (such as
that used by just one organization). For events requiring less coordination, or
when limited technology is available, a scaled-down version of Sahana can be
used for satellite operations. The project website even shows the software
running on a version of the minimalist computer developed for the One Laptop
Per Child (OLPC) program, which is another interesting innovation of ICT for
human rights and social development. Sahana has been deployed in several
locations, and is the recipient of a number of awards.
Technical requirements:
Sahana is available for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X environments. It can be
run using a web-based interface, can be adapted for portability.
Languages:
English, Sinhala
NGO-in-a-Box
URL: http://ngoinabox.org/
Publisher: Tactical Technology Collective (software is not developed by Tactical
Tech)
Availability: Free, open source software collected on CD or DVD; some
downloadable disc images.
Basic description:
NGO-in-a-Box is unique from the other solutions discussed here in that it is not
in itself computer software. Instead, NGO-in-a-Box is a software suite that has
been drawn together to create a set of programs that are of interest to NGOs
and others who work in the area of human rights. The software in each suite has
been peer-reviewed and handpicked by experts and others with experience in
human rights advocacy and human rights information work. The suites collected
by NGO-in-a-Box epitomize the power of free and open source software.
Detailed information:
The Tactical Technology Collective has organized the software suites into a
number of separate editions. Since the programs bundled into each suite vary
depending on the edition, it is difficult to document all of the features available
through the NGO-in-a-Box program. Instead, I describe the software boxes
currently available:
• Base Box: This set of software that is primarily for day-to-day operations
and productivity. This includes office suite software (such as word
processing tools), programs for project, staff, and financial, management,
web-browsing, email, and instant messaging, and others.
• Security Edition: This suite collects software tools for password protection
and maintenance; secure data storage and destruction, encryption,
firewall and anti-virus protection, and safe communications. Free and
open source programs primarily comprise this suite, though a few trial
versions of other programs are included.
• Audio/Video Edition: This edition contains a number of programs that can
be used to create audio and/or video as part of an organization’s advocacy
campaign. Its audio components include programs for editing, streaming,
and podcasting, and for creating audio CDs. Its video programs can be
used for editing and vodcasting (video podcasts), as well as for creating
playable DVDs. It also includes a release of Dyne:bolic, a Linux
distribution that is specialized for producing multimedia.
• Open Publishing Edition: A set of software for publishing and
disseminating information and content. It includes tools for desktop
publishing and graphic design, as well as for creating webpages, blogs and
wikis. This version pairs naturally with the Audio/Video Edition.
Since each suite offers a unique set of software applications, it is up to the
individual NGO or rights group to determine which box will best meet their
needs. However, to help facilitate such decisions, each suite listed above is
accompanied by documentation that explains the installation and use of each of
the included programs. Many also have tutorials that take the user through basic
use of some of the included applications. Finally, the Tactical Tech team and
their partners try to ensure that the technologies are entry-level tools, not
overly technical or sophisticated. While this may mean reduced functionality in
comparison to professional applications available on the market, the NGO-in-a-
Box suites are intended for general users. By drawing upon already-available
free and open source software, the NGO-in-a-Box suites offer ready-made
solutions to some of the most crucial information support problems.
Technical requirements:
The technical requirements for each suite vary depending on the individual
programs offered. Most are for Windows and/or Linux operating environments,
and some include an installable distribution of a Linux version with the disc or as
part of the download.
Languages:
This too varies across the different programs, though collecting English versions
of all programs for the various suites seems to be the primary focus.
CONCLUSION
These project descriptions are based on information and associated
documentation that is readily available on developers’ publicly accessible
webpages. In some cases, that documentation was detailed and specific, while in
others it was necessary to delve a little deeper to find and better understand
what the applications did and how they worked. I find it interesting that the
phrase “human rights software” leads to approximately 800 Google hits (at the
time of writing), and that most of those are repetitions of stories about Martus
or psiphon. To me, this seems an awfully small figure given the number of
human rights and non-governmental organizations, institutions, research
centres, not-for-profits, advocates, activists and other groups and individuals
that can be found online. What is missing from the literature (popular and
academic) to date is a single information resource that brings together
descriptions of these software solutions in one location. I hope that the
treatment here begins to fill that gap. I see the necessary next step to be a
formal assessment of the information support needs of rights information
workers in light of these findings. When we know that technological
developments can improve information collection for human rights work, it
makes little sense that those needs remain unexamined or misunderstood. I
suggest that future research should focus on understanding those needs, which
in turn can direct researchers and programmers toward improving or creating
the technological tools to meet the needs. By focusing future research on the
ICT needs of information centres and workers themselves, we can create new
opportunities for development and innovation in the field of human rights
information support, innovations that can be informed by and based in practical
research evidence.
These and other free and open source software solutions can be of great
benefit to human rights and NGO work. The transparency of open source means
accountability for the programmers, but also for the agency or group using the
software. This provides and additional level of data security, as all stakeholders
can be assured that both data/information and its technical manipulation occur
under controlled and verifiable conditions. In this vein, Oram (2002) give the
example of a rights organization presenting its findings to a government or other
power-holder. In this situation, when reporting abuses and violations, “[a] lot of
an organization’s credibility lies in its process for collecting data and its use of
statistics, but the software [it uses] has to be certified to be trustworthy.” Along
with those other standards, Oram also notes that open source and free software
poses fewer problems for organizations when it comes to the transferability of
software licenses and copyright, because none can question whether the
organization legitimately “owns” the software being used.
These valuable software solutions are born of the ingenuity and dedication
of socially conscious individuals the world over. In and of themselves they are
only tools, but the human application of these programs has the potential to help
solve rights crises and abuses both seen and unseen. Human rights software
programs are specifically designed to help those who help others, and contribute
to social justice solutions and the betterment of humankind. By calling for
increased attention to, and by raising awareness of, these ICT solutions for
human rights, those who need these tools have a chance of discovering them,
and those who develop these applications will know that their work is both
important and needed. It is hoped that this will encourage greater
communication and sharing between the communities, and will encourage
community feedback about what works, what does not work, and where there is
room for improvement and new development.
I am not suggesting that these programs are the technological panaceas
for all information support needs in NGO and human rights arenas, nor that open
source or free software will help everyone, everywhere, in every situation.
However, consider that these programs are the creative output of select
individuals or groups that, when taken together, are fed by and in turn feed into
the open source and free software movements. This is a new locus for sharing
and collaboration, not just of technology, but sharing of knowledge of and about
the processes that can improve human rights. These communities are dedicated
to finding useful, workable, and free technological solutions to some of our
civilization’s most pressing problems. Meanwhile, across the world numerous
groups and private citizens have dedicated their time and efforts toward finding
and providing aid on the front lines of human rights and NGO work; toward
tracking, documenting, and preventing abuses; toward saving human lives. My
goal here is to encourage continued discourse and awareness between these two
spheres. If as a concerned society we can emphasize and commit ourselves to
the kinds of ideals that influence the open source and free software movements
— community, collaboration, inclusion, diversity, choice — we have in front of us
the opportunity to direct efforts toward building a information society and
knowledge civilization where information freedom and human dignity are strong
realities. This utopia may be an ideal not to be realized in our lifetimes, but the
necessary struggle toward that goal lies with us here and now.
WORKS CITED
American Library Association. 2007. ALA policy manual.
http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/
governingdocs/policymanual/policymanual.htm (accessed Nov. 25, 2008).
American Library Association Social Responsibilities Round Table. 2002 Welcome
to SRRT. Social Responsibilities Round Table. http://libr.org/srrt (accessed
Nov 25, 2008).
Apodaca, Clair. 2007. The whole world could be watching: Human rights and the
media. Journal of Human Rights 6.2: 147-164.
Ball, Patrick. 1996. Who did what to whom? Planning and implementing a large
scale human rights data project. Washington, DC: American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Human Rights Program.
http://shr.aaas.org/Ball/cover.htm (accessed Jan. 28, 2009).
Benetech. 2007. http://www.benetech.org/ (accessed Nov. 27, 2008).
Byrne, Alex. 2007. The politics of promoting freedom of information and
expression in international librarianship: the IFLA/FAIFE project. Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Press.
Canadian Library Association. Various dates. Position statements.
http://www.cla.ca/AM/
Template.cfm?Section=Position_Statements&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.c
fm&ContentID=4912 (accessed Nov. 25, 2008)
Citizen Lab. 2007. Everyone’s guide to by-passing Internet censorship for
citizens worldwide. Toronto: Citizen Lab/Civisec/University of Toronto.
http://deibert.citizenlab.org/Circ_guide.pdf (accessed Nov. 28, 2008).
Collins, Clay. 2007. Disseminating truth to power: Human rights, information
and the Internet as court of last/only resort. Information for Social Change
25, (winter),
http://www.libr.org/isc/issues/ISC25/articles/DISSEMINATING%20TRUTH
%20TO%20POWER.pdf (accessed Nov. 26, 2008).
de Silva, Chamindra. 2006. Sahana: Free and open source disaster management
system: Project overview,” draft 0.9. 20 Dec. 2006.
http://chamindra.googlepages.com/Sahana-Project-Overview-0.9.pdf
(accessed Nov. 26, 2008).
Faris, Robert, and Nart Villeneuve. 2008. Measuring global Internet filtering. In
Access denied: The practice and policy of global Internet filtering, ed.
Ronald Deibert et al, 5-27. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. 2002. The IFLA
Internet manifesto. http://www.ifla.org/III/misc/im-e.htm (accessed Jan.
19, 2009).
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions/International
Publishers’ Association. 2003. Joint statement on freedom of expression on
the Internet. IFLA Publications, (June 26). http://www.ifla.org/V/press/ifla-
ipaf03.htm (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions/United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1994. IFLA/UNESCO public
library manifesto. http://www.ifla.org/VII/s8/unesco/eng.htm (accessed
Nov. 25, 2008).
NGO-in-a-box. 2003. http://www.ngoinabox.org (accessed Dec. 12, 2008).
Oram, Andy. 2002. Why human rights requires free software. Platform
Independent, (Oct. 11). O’Reilly Network.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/10/11/platform.html
(accessed Jan 12, 2009).
OpenNet Initiative. 2007. Pulling the plug: a technical review of the Internet
shutdown in Burma. http://opennet.net/research/bulletins/013/ (accessed
Nov. 20, 2008).
Phenix, Katharine J, and Kathleen de la Peña McCook. 2005. Human rights and
libraries. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 45.1, 23-36.
psiphon. 2006. http://psiphon.civisec.org/ (accessed Dec. 12, 2008).
Reporters Without Borders/Reporters sans frontièrs. 2005. Handbook for
bloggers and cyber-dissidents.
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=542 (accessed Dec. 8,
2008).
Rezaian, Bobak. 2007. Integrating ICTs in African development: Challenges and
opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Information communication
technologies and human development, ed. Mila Gascó-Hernández, Fran
Equiza-López, and Manuel Acevedo-Ruiz, 23-56. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Samek, Toni. 2001. Intellectual freedom and social responsibility in American
librarianship, 1967-1974. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
---. 2007. Librarianship and human rights: a twenty-first century guide. Oxford:
Chandos.
Schrader, Alvin M. 2000. Internet filters: Library access issues in a cyberspace
world. IFLA Committee on Free Access to Information and Freedom of
Expression (FAIFE) papers (January 1),
http://www.ifla.org/faife/papers/others/schrader.pdf (accessed January 23,
2009).
United Nations General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Resolution 217 A (III), adopted December 10, 1948.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (accessed Nov. 26, 2008).
Vucic, Vedran. 2006. Free access to open content and the role of NGOs in the
use and design of free software and open hardware in developing countries.
First Monday: Proceedings of FM10: Openness: code, science and content,
May 15 – June 30, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA.
http://eprints.rclis.org/6375/ (accessed Jan. 31, 2008).
Whaley, Patti. 2000. Human rights NGOs: Our love-hate relationship with the
Internet. In Human rights and the Internet, ed. Stephen Hick, Edward. F.
Halpin, and Eric Hoskins, 30-40. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
