This writing aims to emphasize and highlight the issue of human rights within social media. Social media platforms are one of the most important tools for communication and interaction between various figures. However, the rights and identities of people are often humiliated there; many users are subject to breaking into their accounts. The main problem is that users’ rights often remain unprotected within social media platforms. Although such media platforms as Twitter and Facebook try to implement various protection policies on Google and IOS systems, the social media users’ vulnerability remains a problem (Jorgensen et al. 2017). Considering a recent scandal with Facebook’s failure to protect people’s data in the Cambridge Analytica breach, it is feasible to dwell on the topic of human rights protection within the Internet. Long studies concluded this fact, and my stance is that users of social media should be secured better. I propose and recommend proper protection policies for media platforms to secure the organization’s policies and users.
Background
The scandal concerning Facebook and Cambridge Analytica resulted in a mass breakout of personal information of Facebook users on the net. What is more, the Facebook was sued for its inability to protect users’ private data (Criddle 2020). A massive data leak affected 87 million people, including users from the United States and Great Britain (Criddle 2020). Moreover, their data was used during the elections, which could directly influence the results of elections. Furthermore, this breakout could lead to the leak of personal opinions on election preferences. As multiple sources on human rights on the Internet say, the company should respect the user’s security. Thus, Facebook’s leak is a mass violation of human rights on protection of their private data.
In turn, Facebook’s representatives tried to deny the claim and reported that no information would be received concerning this matter. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) claimed that Facebook violated the rights of its users (Criddle 2020). The stance of the U. S. Federal Trade Commission was similar; therefore, Facebook had to pay its record 22, 5 million dollars (Criddle 2020). In addition, its representatives were accused of security failures by multiple social media users. It becomes apparent that an insufficient protection of users’ data led to undermining people’s confidence in using Facebook and its subsidiaries. It would be feasible to appeal to the Human Rights Watch, the organization, which is competent in human rights violations. This organization calls on other intergovernmental (Roth 2004) and corporate organizations (Jorgensen et al. 2017), so it can be appropriate to send the request to them.
Analysis
As the policies of multiple organizations state, the user has a right to be protected employing opened sources of information. It includes the data that can be publically observed (name, location, etc.) The information obtained illegally is excluded (Mehandru & Koenig 2019). Considering these factors, it becomes clear that personal information (including data on chats) is illegal and should be protected by companies’ policies. One of the excluding aspects can be the help of intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations in investigating the crimes. For example, if the person aims to commit an illegal action towards other people or governmental structures, the information he/she obtains in social media may be a facilitator. Sometimes people openly declare their intentions on genocide, discrimination, crimes against humanity (Mehandru & Koenig 2019). In this case, their private accounts are considered by outside organizations to prevent or investigate the crime.
Moreover, many social media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter give users the right to appeal to higher authorities, including the Human Rights Watch (Das 2017), in case of noticing something threatening to society. The legal system can provide people with a perfect security (Silvergate 2001), thus, it should be implemented to the social media scope as well. Additively, this organization manifests in warning and protection from genocide (Power 2001). After considering this, it is possible to: 1) Propose intervention in users’ personal information in case of real necessity of multiple complaints towards the account. Therefore, the argument is the following: the Human Rights Watch should approve a stricter protection policy towards social media platforms. 2) In case of occurrence of suspicious activity within the account, the users might appeal to the abovementioned organization to prevent the possible crime. 3) In turn, the Human Rights should make sure of complaints’ credibility, and in case multiple condemnations might trace and gather the data from the user’s account. In my opinion, the proposal on this policy might receive multilateral and domestic political support of many countries, as each Internet user with kind intentions wants to be treated politely using any media platform. If there will be no leaks, including private and politically charged information, this will prevent scandals on the governmental level.
Recommendation
To sum up, this proposal aims to implement a specific protection policy for Internet users, which will protect their personal data with limited options of information tracking. For example, suppose the user should have an option to disable tracking, however, in case of suspicious complaints towards the Human Rights Watch. In that case, the organizations such as police departments or Central Intelligence Agency may access and scrutinize the account’s data. It may benefit users’ security and welfare within the net and give a possibility to prevent crime intentions via the Internet.
References
Criddle, Cristina. Facebook sued over Cambridge Analytica data scandal. BBC News, 2020. Web.
Das, Siddarth. International Organisations on Social Media 2017 – Twiplomacy. Twiplomacy, 2017. Web.
Jorgensen, Rikke Frank, et al. Human Rights in the Age of Platforms. Amsterdam-Netherlands, Netherlands, Amsterdam University Press, 2019.
Mehandru, Nikita & Koenig, Alexa. Icts, Social Media, & the Future of Human Rights, 17 Duke Law & Technology Review, 129-145, 2019.
Power, Samantha. Bystanders to Genocide. The Atlantic, 2001.
Roth, Kenneth. War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention. World Report, 2004, 1-9.
Silvergate, Harvey Allen. Torture warrants? (continued). News/Features, 1-3, 2001.