8/4/03

These articles originally appeared on we!, our weekly newsletter.

In this issue, we will continue featuring the different statements that were released and delivered during the WSIS Intersessional Meeting which took place in Paris, France from 15-18 July 2003.

The importance of having these statements read in the Meeting relates to how information and communication advocates, as well as civil society organisations (CSO), will be heard in the upcoming Summit this December 2003. As it is, there have been many developments in the different fields that encompass the information society (IS), and it is worth noting that these developments may not have the benefits that are supposedly for the "good of all." Transnational ICT corporations still control the development and distribution of information and communication technologies while governments are still planning or enacting laws that will curtail civil liberties of citizens all over the world. Thus, the statements presented in this issue could provide some important points that both governments and CSOs could study and work with.

Below is the statement from the Human Rights Caucus which was delivered during the last day of the Meeting. It is followed by the intervention made by Richard Stallman on behalf of the Free Software Movement.

Stallman is the founder of the Gnu Project, launched in 1984 to develop the free operating system GNU (an acronym for "GNU's Not Unix"'), a free software that everyone is free to copy and redistribute. Today, Linux-based variants of the GNU system, based on the kernel Linux developed by Linus Torvalds, are in widespread use. There are estimated to be some 20 million users of GNU/Linux systems today. His speech is also available in this link: http://prepcom.net/wsis/1058357510866/view.

----

Human Rights Caucus on Behalf of the Plenary of Civil Society
Speech before the Intersessional Meeting of WSIS, July 15-18, Paris
July 18, 2003

On the last day of this Intersessional meeting, the assembly of civil society organisations present here in Paris mandated the Human Rights Caucus to speak on their behalf, to express our general impressions about this week's meeting.

We are well aware of the extensive work that has been accomplished. We truly appreciate the opportunity that civil society organisations, in all their diversity, have had to intervene in the plenary. We would have liked today to share our detailed reactions to the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action. Unfortunately, the discussions underway and the current status of the texts that have been negotiated, have left us with a profound sense of disappointment and frustration.

Our participation in the WSIS process has been intense, in both human and financial terms, and many people of course have been unable to participate, notably from the poorest countries. Despite these constraints, civil society has produced many contributions to this meeting. We have offered diverse and practical recommendations. We have spoken about our suggestions with you, but we do not have the feeling we have been heard, or even listened to. Our legitimacy is not the same as yours, and we do not claim to be representative. Our legitimacy is anchored in our expertise, our field experience and our defense of a vision with public interest at its centre. We do not feel that this has been recognized or taken into account thus far.

The result of this lack of openness is particularly worrisome. We fear that the Draft Declaration of Principles will represent a major setback with regards to rights and principles, which have previously been agreed upon in international fora.

In Paragraph one, you state as representatives of the world's people, your wish to build "a new kind of society." We are asking you to clearly re-affirm your commitment to building an information and communication society that is based on human rights and human dignity. We are asking you to re-affirm in this context the principles of the universality and indivisibility of all human rights, and their centrality for democracy, the rule of law and sustainable development.

Our worst fears are confirmed in reading paragraph 21-22, in which Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is re-written, with no reference to its source, amputating the section that guarantees that freedom of expression shall be exercised without interference of any kind, regardless of frontiers. This threatens not only the rights of all individuals to freedom of expression, information and communication, but also press and other media freedoms.

We note a similar regression with regard to several other rights. What is meant by the rule of law (38A) if it must be accompanied by "flexible" regulation, "taking into account national realities"? We support the call for strengthening gender equality and are astounded that this is even a debate. Likewise for the right to privacy, a right that is clearly identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 12 ). With regards to intellectual property, we are very concerned to note that the Declaration of Principles, in keeping with the tendency of the TRIPS agreement, breaks the delicate balance of article 27 of the UDHR between the rights of authors and the rights of all people to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Worse still, the Declaration does not even refer to authors or creators, but only to rights owners.

We do not have time here to detail all our worries with regard to rights, which in the context of this Summit can be characterized as communication rights. Organizations from civil society will continue to express their views and to propose language that we think meets international human rights standards in the hope of being able to effectively contribute to your discussions.

We remind you that in 1948, a little more than 50 years ago, a very strong vision of the future was adopted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today, with the information and communications techniques we have available to us, we have important tools to help us realize that vision. Rather than express our enthusiasm for your work, we are obliged to express our fear that you are abandoning that vision, replacing it with technical and technocratic considerations. Instead of progressing towards the full realization of already recognized rights, we are warning you of the danger of real regression.

As we prepare for the third and final Preparatory Committee meeting of this Summit, we hope that the vision of 1948 will not be betrayed and that heads of state will be proud to proclaim in December 2003 a true project for the future, one that fully respects all human rights.

----

Speech by Richard Stallman
WSIS Intersessional Meeting
Paris, 16 July 2003

The benefit of computers is that it's easier to copy and manipulate information. Corporations are using two kinds of imposed monopolies to deny you this benefit.

Software patents restrict how you use your computer. They restrict developing software. A big program combines dozens or hundreds of ideas. When each idea can be patented, only IBMs and Microsofts can safely write software. Bye bye to any independent local software industry. Software patents must be rejected.

Copyrights restrict using and sharing information--exactly what your computer is for. It was fine to trade away the freedom to copy when only publishers could copy; the public lost nothing. Today peer-to-peer sharing must be legal. WSIS should not teach people that sharing is wrong.

Copyrights block access to scientific publications. Every university should be free to make an open-access mirror for any journal, so no one is excluded from access.

Then there's the economic effect. When companies have power over you, they bleed you dry. Copyrights and software patents increase the digital divide and concentrate wealth. We have too much scarcity in the world; let's not create more. TRIPS is bad enough, but software patents and the WIPO copyright treaty go beyond TRIPS, and WSIS should reject them.

Computer users need software that respects their freedom. We call it "free (libre) software", meaning freedom, not gratis. You have the freedom to run it, study it, change it, and redistribute it.

Free software means you control your computing. With non-free software, the software owners control it. They put in spy features, back doors, restrictions.

With free software, you can make the program do what you want. "You" could mean an individual programmer, a company, or a group of users with similar needs. Non-programmers can convince or pay programmers to make changes for you. With free software, you're free to make it handle your language. Free to adapt it for your disability.

Software owners deliberately make programs incompatible. With free software, users can make it follow standards.

You need free software to train master programmers. Non-free software is a secret, so nobody can learn from it. Free software gives talented young people in Africa the chance to learn how to work on real software. School should also teach students the spirit of cooperation. All schools should use free software.

Free software is necessary for sustainable development. If everyone in your country uses a program that's secret and controlled by a single company, that's not development, that's electronic colonization.

(Copyright 2003 Richard Stallman. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire text are permitted without royalties in any medium provided this notice is preserved.)