Human Rights Must Anchor The Digital Age, Says UN's Türk
Digital technologies have the potential to drive progress and strengthen rights, including connecting people, improving access to health and education, and much more.
But the pace of their evolution also poses serious risks, warned Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – from restrictions on free expression and privacy violations to discrimination and growing threats to our shared sense of truth and reality.
' It is precisely in the face of massive change, that we need more human rights, not less,' he said on Monday, addressing a high-level event on the twentieth anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva.
Prioritising rights
In this time of sweeping change, human rights must be prioritised and used as the blueprint for action.
' States' legal obligations and companies' duties to respect human rights offer guidance to tackle disinformation and protect our data from illicit use,' Mr. Türk stressed.
Such guidance also helps counter algorithmic bias, digital hate speech, and fosters trust and inclusive digital decision-making.
Role of WSIS
Founded in 2001, the inaugural WSIS was held in two phases in December 2003 (Geneva) and November 2005 (Tunis, Italy).
Since then, the forum has brought together diverse stakeholders to collaborate on digital governance and promote a digital landscape that is people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented.
'[The WSIS] helped create a space for States, technology companies, civil society, and others to harness the power of information and communication technologies for development,' said Mr. Türk.
Looking forward
The High Commissioner stressed that the coming months will see critical decisions on regulating the digital sphere, including new UN mechanisms on AI and data governance.
' We have a window of opportunity to make a difference,' he concluded.
'We must join forces – States, technology companies, international organizations, civil society, and others – to work towards an inclusive and open digital environment for everyone, everywhere.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
How Are Designated Terrorist Entities Selected In New Zealand? Here's What You Need To Know
Explainer - Who are the terrorist groups listed under New Zealand law, and who decides who names them? With news last week that the American far-right group the Proud Boys had been removed from the terrorist entity list, there are questions about exactly how such a designation works. Here's what you need to know about how terrorist entities are designated in New Zealand. What is a designated terrorist entity and how are they decided upon? A designated terrorist entity decision is made by the government against groups or individuals known for violent actions. Once an entity is on the list, it greatly restricts their financial activities, participation and efforts to recruit new members. John Battersby is a specialist on terrorism and counter-terrorism and a teaching fellow in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University. Entities can end up on the list "broadly speaking, if an individual or group is active in perpetrating terrorist acts, and are internationally recognised as doing so," he said. This includes groups designated by the United Nations, "as well as any which the NZ prime minister (acting on advice) has 'good cause to suspect' have participated in committing a terrorist act". Who is on the list? There are basically two kinds of terrorist entities - ones that are listed by the United Nations which New Zealand is obliged to include, and ones that New Zealand has designated on its own. New Zealand has international counterterrorism obligations under a number of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions. These came after the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. That act established a legal framework for the suppression of terrorism. Those on the UN list also on New Zealand's list include the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Da'esh), Al-Qaida, the Taliban and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities. The second set of entities designated in New Zealand are associated with UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which obliges us to outlaw the financing of, participation in and recruitment to terrorist entities. The UN's resolution leaves it to member states to identify the entities against which they should act. The New Zealand-designated group includes groups such as the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Real Irish Republican Army and The Shining Path. The only individual listed is the convicted Christchurch mosque shooter. "Designating the offender is an important demonstration of New Zealand's condemnation of terrorism and violent extremism in all forms," former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in making that call in 2020. What happens if you're on the list? Once a group is on the list, it means it freezes their assets in New Zealand and it's illegal to deal with the entity's property or provide such an entity with property, financial or related services. It is also an offence to knowingly recruit for a group on the list, or participate in a group for the purpose of enhancing its ability to carry out a terrorist act, knowing, or being reckless as to whether the group is a designated entity. Action can be taken against designated entities' property, and Customs can seize and detain goods or cash they have "good cause" to suspect are tied to designated entities. However, "simple membership of a designated entity is not an offence," police say. Who makes the call who is on the list? Ultimately, the prime minister has the power. "The Prime Minister may designate an entity as a terrorist entity under this section if the Prime Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the entity has knowingly carried out, or has knowingly participated in the carrying out of, one or more terrorist acts," the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 says. However, there's a lot of support and intelligence given before making that call. A Terrorist Designation Working Group chaired by New Zealand Police does the work of considering entities. It includes officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the National Assessments Bureau, the New Zealand Defence Force, Crown Law, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. The working group then refers their information to the National Security Board, who make a determination whether or not to proceed with forwarding a recommendation to the prime minister. The prime minister also has to consult the Attorney-General before making the designation. Letters of recommendation are then given to the Commissioner of Police to be acted upon. "No specific factors are identified for the Prime Minister's consideration when exercising his discretion," police say. For example, in November Prime Minister Christopher Luxon designated the armed and political group Hezbollah a terrorist entity. "For any organisation [to be designated] ... we have to have evidence and we go through a number of tests under our legislation, that that organisation has knowingly undertaken terrorist activity," Luxon said then. "It's a standard process." How do you get off of the list? Any entity on the list or a third party can also apply to the prime minister to make a case to get the designation revoked. Of course, whether or not that happens is up to the government to decide. The designations on the list are made for a period of three years, and can simply expire if not renewed. Judicial reviews of the decisions are also possible, police say. So how did the Proud Boys get removed? The government's New Zealand Gazette notification on the Proud Boys delisting is extremely brief - it simply says their designation expired on 19 June, and any person who deals with the property of the group cannot be prosecuted under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Ardern designated the Proud Boys and another known white supremacist group, The Base, in June 2022. The Base designation was renewed in June and remains on the terrorist entity list, but the Proud Boys no longer do. Byron Clark, a researcher into right-wing extremist groups, pointed out that US President Donald Trump pardoned the group's leader Enrique Tarrio earlier this year along with many others involved in the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot. "They operate as an unofficial, but tacitly acknowledged, militant wing of Trump's Make America Great Again movement, and I think that makes it politically more difficult to designate them terrorists now that that movement holds power in the United States." Battersby agreed the changing political situation in the US may have played part in the expiration. "If 'the good cause to suspect' case against the Proud Boys and The Base was founded on convictions following the 2021 US Capitol Hill riot, the presidential pardons - from a legal perspective - could remove those grounds." The prime minister's office told Stuff journalist Paula Penfold, who has extensively investigated the Proud Boys, that the group "remain on the radar ... and if any new information comes to hand, they will consider it." In the past, a separate terror watch list of individuals the New Zealand Security and Intelligence Service was kept. That list had been reported to be around 30 to 40 individuals. In a statement to RNZ, NZSIS said it "does not discuss specific numbers of individuals who may be at risk of undertaking a violent extemist attack" and that it no longer keeps what could be called a "watchlist." "The concept of a 'watchlist' does not reflect how NZSIS assesses information about individuals, or how they are triaged and managed for follow up actions if required." NZSIS said attacks are still seen as likely to happen "with little or no warning". "The NZSIS continues to assess that another terrorist event in New Zealand remains a realistic possibility, with the most likely threat actor being an individual who has been self-radicalised, uses readily available weapons and seeks to avoid detection." "Most people on watchlists turn out to be incapable or unwilling to do any real damage," Battersby said, but noted "it's excellent that police and the NZSIS pay attention to suspect individuals, this is valuable and necessary work." Are these methods going far enough? Will they keep us safe? "New Zealand isn't safe - we have never been safe," Battersby said. "We have been fortunate in that we are politically insignificant globally - so no international terrorist group will waste any time here, and that anyone in New Zealand who has actually wanted to undertake acts of political violence has been mostly isolated and alone, largely unsuccessful inspiring any successive action." "Watchlists are one tool - they will catch the careless, lazy and unlucky; it is much more difficult to intercept a security conscious, careful planner (or group) which keep their heads down, or who play along legally (as the mosque shooter did) looking to exploit vulnerabilities which frankly exist everywhere." Battersby noted that both the Christchurch mosque shooter and Ahamed Samsudeen, who attacked shoppers at Auckland's LynnMall in 2021, were lone actors. "These people represent singular acts, so designation - in my opinion, is a largely unproductive exercise." Samsudeen had been under scrutiny for some time yet was still able to pull off his attack, while the mosque shooter "demonstrated what is possible when the risk is not identified," he said. "I think government terrorist group lists have some significant limitations," Clark said. "The Christchurch terrorist communicated extensively with far-right groups around the world, and even supported some financially, but wasn't formally a member of any, and the LynnMall terrorist was Isis-inspired but not actually a member of the organisation." Clark said it is still important that groups of concern in New Zealand continue to be monitored. "I do think there needs to be more scrutiny on far-right and Christian nationalist groups, the recent demonstrations by Destiny Church members targeting numerous minority groups demonstrate the threat they pose to social cohesion." Clark said that last year's defunding of research into violent extremism research being done at the He Whenua Taurikura research centre in Wellington was also troubling. "The defunding of He Whenua Taurikura means we've lost the other side of counter terrorism, which is researching these groups and their beliefs in order to have a more informed public, and greater awareness of where potential threats could come from. Less of that work is being done now, and I don't think adding more groups to terrorist designation lists could make up for that loss." Still, New Zealand remains less vulnerable to terrorism than many places, Battersby said. "It is important to keep all of this in perspective, however - terrorists or violent extremists pose a risk, but a very small one in statistical terms when you consider something like our road toll. The most dangerous thing you will do today is drive to work, and drive home again - you are vastly more likely to be killed doing that, than you ever will be by a terrorist in New Zealand."
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
‘Cooperation Is Humanity's Greatest Innovation,' UN Chief Declares At BRICS Summit
7 July 2025 Speaking at the 17th BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, he emphasised the human impact of environmental devastation and climate change. And as environmental disasters increase, the sustainable development goals are also being left behind. "Across the world, lives and livelihoods are being ripped apart, and sustainable development gains left in tatters as disasters accelerate," Mr. Guterres said. "The impact on human health is atrocious... The vulnerable and the poorer pay the highest price." BRICS was founded by Brazil, Russia, India and China in 2006. South Africa joined in 2011 and Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the group since. Collectively, these eleven States represent over half of the world's population and approximately one-third of the world's GDP. Artificial intelligence must benefit all On Sunday, Mr. Guterres addressed a session on strengthening multilateralism, economic-financial affairs and artificial intelligence, where he called for efforts to 'minimize the risks and maximize the potential' of the breakthrough technology. 'Artificial intelligence is reshaping economies and societies. The fundamental test is how wisely we will guide this transformation, how we minimize the risks and maximize the potential for good,' he said. To maximize the potential, the Secretary-General argued that AI cannot be 'a club of the few but must benefit all,' calling for the 'real voice' of developing countries to be included in global AI governance. He also said that human rights and equity must be the guiding principles which shape any international governance structure for AI. 'We cannot govern AI effectively – and fairly – without confronting deeper, structural imbalances in our global system,' he said. Collaboration is key UN Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the need for peace amid conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and Myanmar. He called for urgent reform of global institutions, noting that bodies like the Security Council and international financial systems were 'were designed for a bygone age, a bygone world, with a bygone system of power relations.' 'The reform of the Security Council is crucial,' he said, highlighting also calls from the recent financing for development conference in Sevilla. Priorities include greater voice for developing countries in global governance, effective debt restructuring, and tripling multilateral bank lending – especially in concessional and local-currency terms. Call for reform Mr. Guterrs concluded his remarks highlighting the power of cooperation and trust. 'At a time when multilateralism is being undermined, let us remind the world that cooperation is humanity's greatest innovation,' he said. 'Let us rise to this moment – and reform and modernize multilateralism, including the UN and all the systems and institutions to make it work for everyone, everywhere.'
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Human Rights Must Anchor The Digital Age, Says UN's Türk
7 July 2025 Digital technologies have the potential to drive progress and strengthen rights, including connecting people, improving access to health and education, and much more. But the pace of their evolution also poses serious risks, warned Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – from restrictions on free expression and privacy violations to discrimination and growing threats to our shared sense of truth and reality. ' It is precisely in the face of massive change, that we need more human rights, not less,' he said on Monday, addressing a high-level event on the twentieth anniversary of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva. Prioritising rights In this time of sweeping change, human rights must be prioritised and used as the blueprint for action. ' States' legal obligations and companies' duties to respect human rights offer guidance to tackle disinformation and protect our data from illicit use,' Mr. Türk stressed. Such guidance also helps counter algorithmic bias, digital hate speech, and fosters trust and inclusive digital decision-making. Role of WSIS Founded in 2001, the inaugural WSIS was held in two phases in December 2003 (Geneva) and November 2005 (Tunis, Italy). Since then, the forum has brought together diverse stakeholders to collaborate on digital governance and promote a digital landscape that is people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented. '[The WSIS] helped create a space for States, technology companies, civil society, and others to harness the power of information and communication technologies for development,' said Mr. Türk. Looking forward The High Commissioner stressed that the coming months will see critical decisions on regulating the digital sphere, including new UN mechanisms on AI and data governance. ' We have a window of opportunity to make a difference,' he concluded. 'We must join forces – States, technology companies, international organizations, civil society, and others – to work towards an inclusive and open digital environment for everyone, everywhere.'
