such surveillance severely undermines citizens ability to enjoy a private life, freely express themselves and enjoy their

other fundamental human rights.

State surveillance severely threatens individuals rights to privacy, free expression and free association; impedes an open and democratic society; hinders a free press; breeds conformity and undermines innovation; and strikes at the heart of human dignity and autonomy. t must only be conducted in the most exceptional circumstances, under the !atchful eye of an independent judicial authority and strong oversight mechanisms."

#ithout stronger protections for online privacy, !e are $uickly headed to!ard a !orld !here pervasive surveillance is the norm and privacy disappears the second !e go online. %s mobile and nternet adoption expands globally, every government should ensure people can use these technologies !ithout fear of invasive and disproportionate intrusions into their private lives."

more efforts must be done to regulate and monitor the export of surveillance technologies to countries !hich utilise them to identify and track do!n dissidents, human right defenders and journalists, !ho are disclosing public interest information. #ithout the adoption and implementation of ade$uate protection mechanisms of these individuals, the right to information is challenged and investigatory journalism is at risk."

member states to assess their national surveillance la!s and bring them into compliance !ith the &' benchmarks. #e must put an end to unchecked, suspicionless, mass spying online and !orld!ide. (rivacy is a human right, and needs to be protected as fiercely as all other rights". n %ccess ) an organization that defends and extends the fundamental rights of digital users at risk ) !e are extremely concerned !ith the massive surveillance practices perpetrated by States, from authoritarian regimes to those !ith democratic institutions. %s such, !e enthusiastically join this proactive effort to place a frame!ork for States to fulfill their human rights obligations under international la!."

*(rivacy and security should not be set off against one another. % robust and trusted internet needs both, and they are mutually reinforcing. +he same cannot be

said for privacy and mass surveillance. ,ass surveillance undermines privacy in every possible sense of !hat the term means- from a human rights perspective and the perspective of a robust, secure and trusted internet.*

#e believe these principles outline the essential elements for applying human rights to communications surveillance and look for!ard to collaborating !ith human rights institutions and human rights advocates to promote these principles globally." .ach of these acts threatens both an individuals freedom to express themselves, and their right to maintain a private life and private communications. n this !ay, privacy and free expression are t!o sides of the same coin, each an essential prere$uisite to the enjoyment of the other. +o freely form and impart ones political, religious or ethnical beliefs one needs an autonomous, private space free from interference, from the State, private sector or other citizens. .$ually, infringements on the right to privacy / physical or online surveillance, monitoring of communications or activities, State intrusion into private, family or home affairs / prevent an individual from exercising their freedom expression.

0S%

Recommendations and the road ahead

The Special Rapporteur concludes the report by making a number of recommendations to States, including the following:

Communications surveillance must be regulated by legal frameworks, must be strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and must be subject to the principle of proportionality; llegal surveillance by public or private actors should be criminali!ed; The provision of communications data by the private sector to the State should be sufficiently regulated and monitored by an independent authority; "nonymity online should not be outlawed, nor should encryption; #easures must be taken to prevent the commerciali!ation of surveillance technology, considering their ability to facilitate human rights abuses$

%ith each new piece of technology, a dangerous cat&and&mouse game emerges ' increased connectivity also leads to a greater chance of a breach of confidentiality$ That is why the Special Rapporteur calls upon the () human rights mechanisms to update their conceptualisations of the right to privacy in the conte*t of new technologies$ %ithout this, e*isting protections will not just become outdated$ Rather, inaction to reconceptualise how our privacy is protected will leave the door wide open for States to abuse

new technology, violating our rights in the process, all because those with the power to do so refused to act$

,odern surveillance technologies and arrangements enable States to intrude into an individuals private life, threatening to blur the divide bet!een the private and the public spheres. ndividuals are no longer able to even kno! that they have been subjected to such surveillance, let alone challenge it.

+"s the private sector collects progressively larger amounts of varied data that reveal sensitive information about peoples, daily lives, and individuals and businesses choose to store the content of their communications, such as voicemails, e&mails and documents, with third party service providers, access to communications data is an increasingly valuable surveillance techni-ue employed by States$. %ith the proliferation of mandatory data retention laws across the globe, States now have a treasure trove of data to filter and analyse$ "dvances in surveillance technology and techni-ues are particularly concerning given the global trend towards deteriorating legal safeguards, notes the report$ The Special Rapporteur observes that generally, legislation has not kept pace with the changes in technology, creating gaps that deprive individuals of protection and allow for the e*tra&legal use of surveillance$