WUNRN
Direct Link to Full 5-Page Document &
Communication Contacts:
Call
for Participation: IGF Best Practice Forum
Defining
Practices to Counter the Abuse of Women Online
I.
Introducing the BPF on
Practices to Countering the Abuse of Women Online
“More inquiry is needed about the use of technology,
such as computers and cell phones, in developing and expanding forms of
violence. Evolving and emerging forms of violence need to be named so that they
can be recognized and better addressed.”
– UN Secretary General, in-depth study on all forms of
violence against women (2006)[1]
Great
strides have been made to improve connectivity and internet access around the
world, which have resulted in increased opportunities for advancing rights and
interests of different sections in society, including for women. However, at
the same time, increased access has also resulted in the use of technology to
perpetrate acts of violence against women (VAW).
Online
VAW has increasingly become part of women's experience of violence and their
online interactions, encompassing acts of gender-based violence that are
committed, abetted or aggravated, in part or fully, by the use of information
and communication technologies (ICTs) such as phones, the internet, social
media platforms, and email. Examples of online VAW include (but are not limited
to) online harassment, cyberstalking, misogynistic speech, privacy invasions
with the threat of blackmail, viral ‘rape videos’ that force survivors to
relive the trauma of sexual assault, and the non-consensual distribution of
‘sex videos’.
Violence
against women and girls online limits their ability to take advantage of the
opportunities that ICTs provide for the full realisation of women's human
rights, and also often violate women’s human rights. Over the past six years,
there has been increasing attention paid to understanding the nature, harm and
consequences of violence against women online by the media, governments and
women's movements. This is evidenced in the formal recognition of violence
against women online in significant women’s rights policy spaces and the focus
on secure online practices for women and women human rights defenders. However,
this concern has arguably not been adequately taken up by various stakeholders
within the Internet governance ecosystem. There is still a significant lack of
awareness regarding what kinds of online conduct constitute abusive and violent
behaviour and the variety of actions that can be taken to address and prevent
such behaviour in the future.
Taking
efficient and effective action to countering the growing phenomena of online
VAW is not only important in ensuring that the Internet fulfils its potential
as a positive driver for change and development, but also in helping to
construct a safe and secure environment for women and girls in every sphere of
life. Due to the nature of the Internet as a distributed network of networks,
addressing online VAW requires considerable input and cooperation from a
multitude of stakeholders, including the technical community, private sector,
civil society advocates and organizations, governments, international
organizations, academic community, users, and young people.
To help
address this challenge, this Internet Governance Forum (IGF) initiative is
bringing together multiple stakeholders from diverse communities to investigate
the types of conduct online that potentially constitute abuse of women, the
underlying factors that contribute to enabling environments for abuse, the
impact that such abuse has in communities, other related contentious issues, and
the solutions, responses and/or strategies that constitute good and/or best
practices for countering the abuse of women online.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ONLINE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
The Philippines - Country Situationer
and Cases
Internet penetration in the Philippines
is now over 40% of the population (roughly 40 million of the over 100 million
population). The young are most active when it comes to online activities, and
Facebook is the most popular social media in the country. More and more, online
space is becoming the gathering space of people, where they meet, discuss,
transact business, or do advocacies.
At the same time, the Internet is a
risky space for some. Cases of harassment, abuse and crimes using ICTs have
been reported. The Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA), a partner of the
Association for Progressive Communications (APC) in its FLOW project collects
cases of technology-based violence against women. The cases are available in
ph.takebackthetech.net.
In the reports compiled by FMA, majority
are those that involve the uploading of images and videos without consent.
However, there are no official documents that can say if this is the trend in
the country.
Over the last two decades, several laws
for the protection of women and children were passed in the Philippines. The
Philippines has an anti-violence against women and children law (Republic Act
9262), the expanded anti-trafficking in persons act (RA 10364), the anti-sexual
harassment act (RA 8353), anti-rape act (RA 7877), Responsible parenthood act
(RA 10354), and the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710), the country’s localized
version of CEDAW, among others. However, it was only recently that policies and
laws relating to ICTs are being put in place. In 2009, the case of an actress
whose intimate video with her boyfriend landed and became viral on the internet
(See case of “Ruby” below) was one of the more visible cases that tested
whether the Philippines was ready to respond to cases of violence against women
committed online. It was also one of the more visible cases that exposed how
people view sexuality in the country.
To curb and
address the emerging incidences of online abuse hurled against women and
children, laws such as the Anti Child Pornography Act[1]
and the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act[2]
have been passed. The latter is seen as a deterrent to criminals trading on
non-consensual sex-related images. The former however, though well intentioned,
includes provisions, which may erode Internet rights. Herein lies therefore the
dilemma of content regulation of the Internet.
The
Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) provides another example of the on-going
debates in regulating cyberspace. It was passed in 2012 to address crimes
committed against and by means of a computer system, amidst broad debates as to
its scope and effect on human rights.[3]
A watered-down version has been since declared constitutional by the Supreme
Court, which simultaneously struck down several problematic provisions.
One
particular provision problematic for women and gender advocates was retained.
This refers to the “cybersex” provision. “Cybersex” was defined as “the
wilful engagement, maintenance, control or operation, directly or indirectly,
of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid
of a computer system, for favour or consideration.”[4]
Women’s
rights groups and advocates were almost unanimous in criticising the provision
for its vagueness and overly broad scope. In a statement, they pointed out that
“the law fails to consider the transnational nature of sexual violence in
cyberspace where site owners or operators and buyers are beyond the
jurisdiction of the Philippines” and as such may pose “more harm to
women who are usual victims of sexual violence in cyberspace.”[5] Further, the statement says that the
law “focuses solely on criminalisation, unmindful of its possible effects
and without clear understanding of the inherent nature and characteristics of
ICTs relating to violence committed against women.”[6]
Rather than recognise a person’s agency to express sexuality online, sexual
behaviour would be effectively criminalised. Also, they stated that the
provision failed to address the underlying causes of VAW and failed to harness
ICT’s potential to promote women empowerment.
FMA believes
that there is still the need to look at the existing laws and policies in the
country and see how relevant and applicable they are to existing realities. It
is also necessary to evaluate the existing environment and see if these are
responsive to the needs of those who have experienced online violence. For
instance, the length of time that cases are heard and decided upon should be
looked into because in many instances, women who file cases withdraw them or
become disinterested in pursuing the case if it takes years before a hearing,
much less a decision is reached by court.
FMA is also
reaching out to women’s organisations, government, the youth sector, and
students, among others, to raise awareness about the issue of
technology-related violence against women. Currently, we are also talking to
game developers and encourage them to develop games that are gender-responsive
and those that do not tolerate violence. We are also scheduling a
hackathon/game jam (this October) to develop a game that will feature stories
of women survivors of VAW, and their strategies to curb online VAW.
The
Internet is still new in the Philippines and access to it and to other forms of
technology is still developing. Even some prosecutors, lawyers and judges have
yet to fully understand it and apply it to technology-related cases they
handle.
Online security and safety are also necessary. This is
not to say that women should not let themselves be photographed or filmed in
compromising situation. It is important to support women’s bodily and sexual
autonomy. If taking intimate photos and videos for personal use, best practices
should be developed around keeping such photos and videos secure.
Additionally,
based on the cases that we have, we also recommend the following:
•
Address
the root cause of the problem, of VAW
•
Review
the country’s development agenda vis-à-vis women, focusing not only on
reactionary measures but also proactive and preventive ones, and
contextualizing the experiences of women and the manner by which these
experiences interconnect and intersect along a wider continuum of violence
•
Strengthen
women’s networks and transforming the gender unequal ICT infrastructure for
women, capacity bldg. and training on ICTs and the creation of relevant apps
and digital content for women
•
Address
the continuum of violence that women face all over the world, including through
structural changes
CASES
The cases
below are examples of how women are experiencing online abuse and violation of
their rights. Similar cases can be accessed at ph.takebackthetech.net
Infringement of privacy: Accessing private data
without consent
In
2012, five female high school students from a Catholic school in Cebu City had
their photos taken clad only in their undergarments. The photos were uploaded
on her Facebook account by one of the girls, and this resulted in the students
being banned by their school to join the graduation march.
Apparently,
a computer teacher at the school where the girls were enrolled learned from
other students in the school that there were such photos posted online. Using
the school computers, her students logged into their respective FB accounts and
showed the photos to the teacher, including other photos showing the girls
smoking and drinking alcohol inside a bar. According to the teacher, there were
times when access to the photos were confined to the FB friends of the girls,
but at times they can be viewed by any FB user (i.e., it was public).
The
teacher reported the matter to the school’s Discipline-in-Charge, who then
found the girls to have violated the deportment prescribed by the school (e.g.,
engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene and lewd acts; smoking and drinking
alcoholic beverages in public places; posing and uploading pictures on the
Internet that entail ample body exposure; etc.)
The
students involved were summoned to see the school principal and they were
castigated for their behavior. Further, as penalty for their behavior, they
were barred from joining the graduation exercises in March 2012.
The
mother of one of the girls filed a petition in court to allow her daughter to
join the commencement exercises, and the court issued a temporary restraining
order allowing the students to attend the graduation ceremony. Despite the
issuance, the school nevertheless barred the students from participating in the
graduation ceremony.
Thereafter,
the petitioners filed before the court for the issuance of a writ of habeas
data claiming, among others, that accessing the photos of the girls was an
intrusion of their privacy, and that these were obtained illegally. The
petition was denied by the court and thus, it was brought to the Supreme Court.
Basically ruling in favour of the school, the High Court essentially
declared that nothing is ever private on Facebook, thus putting the burden of
safeguarding one’s privacy online with the users. The doctrine of “reasonable
expectation of privacy” on Facebook now seems to be eroded.
See Supreme Court decision: Vivares and Suzara
vs. St. Theresa’s College, GR No. 202666
Defamation: (sexualised) images, audio clips or video clips taken
or distributed without consent
“Ruby”
(not her real name) is a model, actress, and brand endorser who lives in the
Philippines. Like many celebrities, Ruby sought cosmetic treatments, and in
2007, a man named “Dr. Yu” treated her at a well-known cosmetic clinic. Not
long after, Ruby and Yu became lovers. Like most secret loves, their affair was
carried out in a hotel room. The relationship soon fizzled out, but in 2008,
Ruby received a tip from a reporter: a sex video involving her and Yu would be
released. Sure enough, in December 2008, three videos of Yu and Ruby depicting
their time together at the hotel were published online. Subsequently, people
began downloading the videos and selling them as DVDs. Ruby maintains that she
was unaware she was being recorded, whereas Yu contends that she knew there was
a camera, but he was not responsible for uploading the images.
The
videos went viral, and each time the videos were reposted, Ruby felt she was
being violated again and again. Moreover, having already been labelled a ‘sexy
actress’, she faced acute harassment and verbal abuse online following the
release of the videos. One commenter writes, ‘I really don’t pity Ruby because
she did it on herself…She gave a signal to the whole world that she’s not the
type of woman whom you will respect.’ In fact, because at the time of their
affair Yu was in a relationship with the owner of the cosmetic clinic, many
believed that it was the owner and Yu who were the real victims. Another
commenter states, ‘Don’t you all think that she maliciously has done a great
harm to her own gender…Ruby is such a slut!’
Following
wide circulation of the video, Ruby was diagnosed with depression and began to
undergo psychotherapy. She says, ‘I felt like I lost something - perhaps my
confidence. For one year, I did not talk to people. I felt like there was
nothing for me to say.’ Ruby felt deeply betrayed by Yu, who she had once
trusted. During this time, Ruby began to lose modelling assignments and product
endorsements as a result of the video scandal.
Alongside
the 3 videos of Ruby that were released, other videos containing sexual content
featuring Yu and other women were uploaded as well. Ruby was the only one who
took the case forward; however, instead of being lauded for her bravery, she
was seen as airing her dirty laundry in public, and received further abuse.
In
May 2009, 6 months after the videos were made public, Ruby and her two lawyers
filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation, which recommended
the case to the Department of Justice. Here, a criminal case against Yu was
filed under the Anti-Violence against Women and Children Act, where Yu was
charged with videotaping sexual intercourse and uploading the video without
Ruby’s consent. Simultaneously, Ruby filed a civil medical malpractice lawsuit
against Yu, and a libel case against Yu’s mother for slanderous statements she
made in a TV interview. In December 2009, the criminal court dismissed
Ruby’s case on the grounds that Ruby was aware of being filmed, and that the
uploading of the video could not be traced back to Yu. One possible
reason for the dismissal was that there was no legal provision for ICT-based
violence against women at the time, which weakened Ruby’s case. Furthermore,
the accused was not required to testify, which Ruby believed biased the courts
against her. However, in November that year, following Yu’s suspension by the
Philippine Medical Association, the Professional Regulations Commission revoked
Yu’s medical licence, securing at least partial justice for Ruby.
In
their attempts to discover who originally published the leaked video (it turned
out that the clinic owner and others had access to Yu’s hard drives), the NBI
tracked down the first website that uploaded the video - fleshasiadaily.com, a porn site based in Cavite. The website owners
claimed they received the videos from an unknown address; however, because
intermediary liability law is unclear, they were not compelled to share the
address with law enforcement.
The
most crucial and empowering element in Ruby’s fight for justice was the support
she received, which included her then-estranged father, a friend who helped her
with financial expenses, and perhaps most importantly, other people from the
acting industry who publicly supported her. Another source of support for Ruby
was a women’s organisation, which provided her with counselling and allowed her
to share her story with other women survivors of violence. The support and
strength of other women who could relate to her story made Ruby realise that
‘If [I did] not confront it now, it will hound [me] later.’ Alongside her
family, friends and colleagues, two provinces in the Philippines declared Yu as
persona non grata, giving Ruby further confidence to pursue justice.
Indicative of her strength, Ruby was quoted as saying, ‘I intend to fight, win
or lose. Whatever happens, at least I have fought for my rights. At least
people are realising that what was done to me was wrong…if you keep quiet for
life, more women will be victimised.’
Ruby’s
courage to speak and fight was not in vain. Just before Ruby filed her case, a
Senator delivered a speech on the issue, and later that year, the Senate
conducted a related inquiry. One Congressman was quoted saying, ‘If not for
Ruby who fought for her right, people would not have noticed the importance of
the law.’ The law he was referring to was still awaiting approval by the
Senate, but by early 2010, the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act was signed
into law.
Case summary taken from http://www.genderit.org/sites/default/upload/case_studies_phil2_1.pdf
Repeated harassment through unwanted messages &
contact; Direct threats of violence, including sexual and physical violence;
Doxxing (researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about
an individual without consent)
A woman who wrote to FMA said she
was informed by her sibling that someone saw her photo wearing bikini in a
certain website Reddit. At this time, she called up her former boyfriend (who
had photos of her in his mobile phone; but according to the boyfriend his phone
got stolen). Her reputation was slightly destroyed seeing as how her photos
were published without her consent or approval. She emailed and reported
to the website administrator the person responsible for uploading the link and
shortly it was taken down. However, the online harassment was repeated. A
friend contacted her informing the same scenario. With disappointment, she just
decided to say that the photo was edited and not her.
The
same woman said she also received an email from someone with abusive and
threatening comments.
“"I know what you want you slut" and also two photos
of p****, when I asked "Who are you?" the reply was "Someone who
would give you what you deserve" and then also sent one photo of me in a
private nature and threatened that if I didn't reply, he would spread it in the
internet. I did not reply after that.”
She got paranoid that those photos
would surface in the Internet. She decided to look for the source of these
email. She made use of the available email trace headers and IP and reported
it. However the IP address came from California, USA and she was not sure if
the email really came from there or if the abuser made it so. After that, she
found a site where she can search a name, email address, so the results would
show a list of people. She then used the a certain cite to search for used
email and was link to another site where she apparently found her Google+
account with the picture of her wearing a bikini. She was added to a person’s
circle and that person named “Rey Pinyoko” (pun for Rape Me) then proceeded to
post more private photos of her with lewd captions and malicious comments.
The woman said she was emotionally
disturbed and did not know who was really responsible for this. She wanted her
photos removed but she said she did not think that Google+ is acting on such
abuses.
Damaging reputation, credibility; Infringement of
privacy
On July 10, 2015, alleged videos of a 12-year old female young actress masturbating were posted and went viral online. According to reports, they were first uploaded in a Facebook fan page until they spread and went viral. Sources said that the videos of young actress were taken in different areas of their house. One was taken in the bedroom while the second video was taken inside the bathroom. There were those who claimed that the girl in the video just looks like the actress. However, there were photos allegedly proving that the bedroom in the video is the same bedroom shown in the photos of young actress’ Instagram account. Netizens reacted and believed that it was not the young actress, but her older sister. Photos circulated in other social media accounts show that the two sisters really look-alike.
Majority of the netizens are still puzzled whether the alleged scandal is true or just made up by someone to destroy her reputation. To date, it is not known yet who uploaded the videos. There was also a report that the young actress’ mobile phone was stolen two months before the videos went online.
There is still no statement from the young actress’ side about the videos but her fans are continually giving their support and urging people to stop sharing and spreading the said videos.
Sources: http://www.manilalink.com/2015/07/star-andrea-brillantes-scandal-video.html; also http://www.tahonews.com/girl-on-andrea-brillantes-scandal-video-is-not-her-but-her-older-sister-photo/
Abusive comments; Verbal online abuse; Hate speech
targeted on gender and sexuality; Mobbing
A
female human rights advocate posted a photo of her on Facebook with the hashtag
#OOTD (outfit of the day) and the question” Is my dress provoking you?” This is
actually an experiment she was doing to document street harassment of women.
She shared that she received catcalls and stares from men for wearing the
dress. The same post received over two thousand shares and 115 comments. The
comments showed a thread of discussion where some men were somehow “defensive”
saying not all men treat women as sexual objects. She received criticisms for a
thought provoking post and was called names. The one who posted the photo
replied to all comments and even blogged about her experience. She also had
other women sharing similar experiences.
“Ever since that post I made was shared over a thousand times, I
have gotten several comments from men saying I am sexist, saying if I want to
be respected I should always wear decent clothes, saying not all men, saying I
am just a feminist who hates men, saying I judge people, saying I don’t listen
to their side, saying I don’t empower women because I portray us as victims of
society. They have tweeted me, messaged me, tagged me in posts...”
“One man told me I am trying to make every woman a victim, but
aren’t we all are? And is there shame in being a victim? Isn’t one way to be
empowered is to acknowledge that you are a victim and rise above it? Because we
have to recognize that we are victims in order for us to understand what
victimizes us and how to tackle it, which in this case is a sexist and
patriarchal society.”
See reneekarunungan.com
Sexualised blackmail or extortion
The National Bureau of
Investigation arrested 13 suspects in a series of raids against alleged
cybersex dens engaged in online sextortion. The
NBI authorities explained that the suspects were engaged in sextortion. Men or
women who patronise the services of the operator’s cybersex website are
unknowingly recorded. After which, they are threatened with online exposure
unless they pay off the cybersex operators. The extortionists can ask for huge
amounts, depending on the victim’s profile. According to the report, the
suspects also allegedly used minors to advertise their website.
It was not reported however, if
those luring clients, mostly foreign clients, were coerced into the work that
they are doing.
See
also http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/philippines-cybercrime-suspects-sextortion-swoop
[1] RA 9775 punishes those
responsable for the production, advertising and promotion, sale and distribution,
purchase and access (even for personal use) of pornographic materials that
involve children (Section 3).
[2] RA 9995 penalises the
taking of photo or video of a person/s performing sexual acts or similar
activities or capturing the image of the private area of the person/s without
consent; and also the selling, copying, reproduction, broadcasting, sharing,
showing or exhibition of such coverage or recording
[3] The passage of the law met
with opposition from different groups. Fifteen petitions were filed before the
Supreme Court to declare the said law as unconstitutional.
[4] Section 4(1)(c) of Republic Act No. 10175
[5] In “Delete, Undo, Retrieve,” Statement on the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 which was signed by several women’s rights groups and
advocates
[6] Ibid