Yeni Teknolojilere İnsan Hakları Bakış Açısıyla Yaklaşmak: Kişisel Özerklik ve Ayrımcılık Yasağı

Year 2022, , 281 - 305, 31.12.2022

Saadet Yüksel

https://doi.org/10.26650/JPLC2022-1213410

Abstract

Bu makale, kişisel özerklik ve ayrımcılık yapmama ilkeleri temelinde internet ve çevrimiçi iletişimin yeni biçimleri gibi günümüzün yeni teknolojilerini insan hakları hukuku merceğinden ele almaktadır. Bu çalışmada ilk olarak yeni teknolojiler, ifade özgürlüğü ve çevrimiçi içerik moderatörlüğü arasındaki ilişki; ikinci olarak da internetin ayrımcılık yapmama ilkesi bağlamında ortaya çıkardığı zorluklar Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi perspektifinden ele alınarak incelenmektedir. Bu çalışma yeni dijital teknolojiler ve kişisel özerklik kavramlarını ele alırken, ilk olarak çevrimiçi içerik denetiminde kişisel özerklik ve ifade özgürlüğü arasında kurulması gereken dengeye odaklanmaktadır. Daha sonra, kişisel verilerin toplanması ve kitlesel gözetlemenin kişisel özerklik üzerindeki etkileri insan hakları perspektifinden ele alınmaktadır. Son olarak yeni teknolojilerin ayrımcılık yapmama ilkesi bağlamında ortaya çıkardığı zorluklara dönen makale, çevrimiçi ortamda ayrımcı davranışları ele almanın doğurduğu benzer nitelikli sorunlar olan internete erişim ve dijital bölünme meselelerini incelemektedir.

Keywords

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Kişisel özerklik, Ayrımcılık yasağı, Dijital teknolojiler, Dijital bölünme

New Technologies through a Human Rights Lens: Reflecting on Personal Autonomy and Non-Discrimination

Abstract

This article seeks to put new technologies, namely the internet and new forms of online communication, under a human rights lens, with a view to reflecting on the issues of personal autonomy and non-discrimination. In particular, the article utilises the perspective of the European Convention of Human Rights to examine firstly, the relationship between new technologies, freedom of expression, and online content moderation, and secondly, the challenges posed by the internet to the principle of non-discrimination. In reflecting upon new digital technologies and personal autonomy, the article firstly focuses on the balancing of personal autonomy and freedom of expression in online content moderation. It then explores the implications for personal autonomy of the collection of personal data and mass surveillance from a human rights perspective. Turning to the challenges posed by new technologies to the principle of non-discrimination, the article deals with the twin issues of addressing discriminatory behaviour online, and access to the internet and the digital divide.

Keywords

Personal autonomy, Non-discrimination, European Court of Human Rights, Personal autonomy, Non-discrimination, Digital technologies, Digital divide, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, Kişisel özerklik, Ayrımcılık yasağı, Dijital teknolojiler, Dijital bölünme

References

• Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey (no. 3111/10, 18 December 2012) google scholar
• Barbulescu v. Romania (no. 61496/08, 5 September 2017) google scholar
• Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom (nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, 25 May 2021) google scholar
• Buturuga v. Romania (no. 56867/15, 11 February 2020) google scholar
• Cengiz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, 1 December 2015) google scholar
• Centrum For Rattvisa v Sweden (no. 35252/08, 25 May 2021) google scholar
• Delfi AS v. Estonia (no. 64569/09, 16 June 2015) google scholar
• Egill Einarsson v. Iceland (no. 24703/15, 7 November 2017) google scholar
• H0iness v. Norway (no. 43624/14, 19 March 2019) google scholar
• Jankovskis v. Lithuania (no. 21575/08, 17 January 2017) google scholar
• Kalda v. Estonia (no. 17429/10, 19 January 2016) google scholar
• Klass and Others v. Germany (no. 5029/71, 6 September 1978) google scholar
• K.U. v. Finland (no. 2872/02, 2 December 2008) google scholar
• Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008) google scholar
• Pihl v. Sweden (no. 74742/14, 7 February 2017) google scholar
• Privacy International and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 46259/16, 7 July 2020) google scholar
• Renaud v. France (no. 13290/07, 25 February 2010) google scholar
• Sanchez v. France (no. 45581/15, 2 September 2021) google scholar
• Savva Terentyev v. Russia (no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018) google scholar
• Szabo and Vssy v. Hungary (no. 37138/14, 12 January 2016) google scholar
• Tamiz v. the United Kingdom (no. 3877/14, 12 October 2017) google scholar
• Volodina v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 40419/19, 14 September 2021) google scholar
• Willem v. France (no. 10883/05, 16 July 2009) google scholar
• Roman Zakharov v. Russia (no. 47143/06, 4 December 2015) google scholar
• B. Table of International Materials google scholar
• CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 35 on Gender-Based Violence, updating General Recommendation No. 19, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/35, 26 July 2017. google scholar
• CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 36 on the Right of Girls and Women to Education, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/36, 16 November 2017. google scholar
• Committee of Experts on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies (MSI-DIG), ‘Content Moderation: Best Practices Towards Effective Legal and Procedural Frameworks for Self-Regulatory and
• Co-Regulatory Mechanisms of Content Moderation’ (Guidance Note, 21 May 2021) 25 https://rm.coe.int/content-moderation-en/1680a2cc18. google scholar
• Committee of Ministers, ‘Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries’, 7 March 2018. google scholar
• Council of Europe Steering Committee for Media and Information Society (CDMSI) ‘Content Moderation: Best Practices Towards Effective Legal and Procedural Frameworks for Self-Regulatory and Co-Regulatory Mechanisms of Content Moderation’ (Guidance Note, adopted 19-21 May 2021), available at: https://rm. coe.int/content-moderation-en/1680a2cc18. google scholar
• GREVIO, ‘General Recommendation No. 1 on the Digital Dimension of Violence against Women’ GREVIO(2021)20, adopted on 20 October 2021, available at: https://rm.coe.int/grevio-rec-no-on-digital-violence-against-women/1680a49147. google scholar
• Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression’, CPR/C/GC/34, 29 July 2011. google scholar
• OECD, ‘Bridging the Digital Gender Divide’ (Report, 2018) 24-25 https://www.oecd.org/digital/bridging-the-digital-gender-divide.pdf. google scholar
• UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Statement by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet at the 13th Session of the Forum on Minority Issues: Hate Speech, Social Media and Minorities’ (19 November 2020), available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2020/11/statement-united-nations-high-commissioner-human-rights-michelle-bachelet-13th?LangID=E&NewsID=26519. google scholar
• UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, ‘Report on the Adverse Effect of the Surveillance Industry on Freedom of Expression’, UN Doc A/HRC/41/35, 28 May 2019. google scholar
• UNGA Human Rights Council, ‘Disinformation and Freedom of Opinion and Expression: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression’, UN Doc A/ HRC/47/25, 13 April 2021. google scholar
• UNGA Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression: Note by the Secretariat’, UN Doc A/HRC/38/35, 6 April 2018. google scholar
• UNGA, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression’, A/66/290, 10 August 2011. google scholar
• C. List of References google scholar
• Barendt E., ‘Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy: The Jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court’ (2009) 1 Journal of Media Law 49. google scholar
• Benesch S., ‘But Facebook’s Not a Country: How to Interpret Human Rights Law for Social Media Companies’ (2020-2021) 38 Yale Journal on Regulation Bulletin 86. google scholar
• Breyer P., ‘French Law on Illegal Content Online Ruled Unconstitutional: Lessons for the EU to Learn’, Patrick Breyer (19 November 2020), available at https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/french-law-on-illegal-content-online-ruled-unconstitutional-lessons-for-the-eu-to-learn/?lang=en. google scholar
• Brunner L., ‘Digital Communications and the Evolving Right to Privacy’ in Molly K Land and Jay D Aronson (eds), New Technologies for Human Rights Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2018) 217-42. google scholar
• Callamard A., ‘The Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors’ in Rikke Franke J0rgensen (ed), Human Rights in the Age of Platforms (MIT Press, 2019) 191. google scholar
• Chander A., ‘Googling Freedom’ (2011) 99 California Law Review. google scholar
• Chinkin C. and Yoshida K., ‘CEDAW: Global leader in Tackling Violence against Women and Girls’ (2020) 4 European Human Rights Law Review 347-358. google scholar
• Douek E., ‘Governing Online Speech’ (2021) 121 Columbia Law Review 759. google scholar
• Douek E., ‘The Limits of International Law in Content Moderation’ (2021) 6 UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 37. google scholar
• Facebook Community Standards, available at: https://transparency.fb.com/fr-fr/policies/community-standards/. google scholar
• Humble K.P., ‘International Law, Surveillance and the Protection of Privacy’ (2021) 25 International Journal of Human Rights. google scholar J0rgensen R.F., ‘Human Rights and Private Actors in the Online Domain’ in Molly K Land and Jay D Aronson (eds), New Technologies for Human Rights Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2018) 243. google scholar
• Joundi T., ‘Freedom of Expression, Discrimination, and the Internet: Legislative Responses and Judicial Reactions’ (2015) 13 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 191. google scholar
• Joyce D., ‘Internet Freedom and Human Rights’ (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law 493. google scholar
• Korupp S.E. and Szydlik M., ‘Causes and Trends of the Digital Divide’ (2005) 21 European Sociological Review 409. google scholar
• Land M., ‘Toward an International Law of the Internet’ (2013) 54 Harvard International Law Journal 393. google scholar
• Langvardt K., ‘Regulating Online Content Moderation’ (2008) 26 Georgetown Law Journal 1353. google scholar
• Marshall J., Personal Freedom through Human Rights Law? Autonomy, Identity and Integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff, 2009). google scholar
• Milanovic M., ‘The Grand Normalization of Mass Surveillance: ECtHR Grand Chamber Judgments in Big Brother Watch and Centrum for Rattvisa’ EJIL:Talk! (26 May 2021) https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-grand-normalization-of-mass-surveillance-ecthr-grand-chamber-judgments-in-big-brother-watch-and-centrum-for-rattvisa/. google scholar
• Nunziato D.C., ‘The Death of the Public Forum in Cyberspace’ (2005) 20 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1115. google scholar
• Oliva T.D., ‘Content Moderation Technologies: Applying Human Rights Standards to Protect Freedom of Expression’ (2020) 20 Human Rights Law Review 607. google scholar
• Paré D., ‘The Digital Divide: Why the ‘The’ is Misleading’ in Matthias Klang and Andrew Murray (eds), Human Rights in the Digital Age (Routledge-Cavendish, 2004) 85-97. google scholar
• Pollicino O., ‘The Right to Internet Access: Quid Iuris?’ in Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken and Mart Susi (eds), The Right to Internet Access (Cambridge University Press, 2020). google scholar
• Sanders C.K. and Scanlon E., ‘The Digital Divide is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing Social Inclusion through Social Work Advocacy’ (2021) 6 Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 130. google scholar
• Satariano A., ‘Europe is Reigning in Big Tech Giants. But Some Say It’s Going Too Far’, New York Times (6 May 2019) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/technology/europe-tech-censorship.html. google scholar
• Sears A., ‘Protecting Freedom of Expression over the Internet: An International Approach’ (2015) 5 Notre Dame Journal of International and Comparative Law 171. google scholar
• Segura-Serrano A., ‘Internet Regulation and the Role of International Law’ (2006) 20 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 192. google scholar
• Shandler R. and Canetti D., ‘A Reality of Vulnerability and Dependence: Internet Access as a Human Right’ (2019) 52 Israel law Review 77. google scholar
• Spano R., ‘Intermediary Liability for Online User Comments under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2017) 17(4) Human Rights Law Review 665-679. google scholar
• UN, ‘Don’t Let the Digital Divide Become the New Face of Inequality: UN Deputy Chief’, UN News (27 April 2021) https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1090712. google scholar
• Watt E., ‘The Right to Privacy and the Future of Mass Surveillance’ (2017) 21 International Journal of Human Rights 773. google scholar
• West D.M., ‘Techlash Continues to Batter Technology Sector’, Brookings (2 April 2021) https://www.brookings. edu/blog/techtank/2021/04/02/techlash-continues-to-batter-technology-sector. google scholar York J.C. and Zuckerman E., ‘Moderating the Public Sphere’ in Rikke Franke J0rgensen (ed), Human Rights in the Age of Platforms (MIT Press, 2019) 137. google scholar