***

From the Arab Spring to Occupy, the events of 2011 highlighted the potential of new technologies for advocacy. But new tools are more likely to facilitate social impact if they’re used by people with the right training and support.

This isn’t happening as much as it could. Why? I think it’s because of a few big challenges facing the field of support for digital advocates. First, there’s a lack of information from the ground about what is actually needed. Second, trainers are too often flown in from thousands of miles away for a few days of workshopping with no incentive to remain in contact with the advocates they trained. Third, remote training resources (like guides) often sit on the web without reaching those who might be able to benefit from them.

Part of why we founded the engine room was to address these challenges. Our first project, the Social Tech Census, aims to map the best resources for integrating digital media into advocacy work in order to inform the work of the communities of practice that we work with: advocates, support organizations and technologists.  The Census is an important foundational step for us and (if all goes according to plan) will also be a useful tool for our partners.

But how, exactly, will it be useful for them? We decided to ask, and here’s what we found out. There are four main ways that groups we partner with will be able to act on the information that we’re gathering.

1.   New program ideas based on empirical evidence for who needs what and where

Any attempt to compile an exhaustive database of resources will ideally end up spotlighting gaps in what’s out there. We suspect this will be the case with regard to regions (where are all the francophone tech trainings on mapping tools?), issues (say, digital security versus strategy for online video) and types (ad hoc communities built on email lists or formal organizations) of support.

By shedding light on these gaps the Census should make it easier for our partners to better identify and understand demand in order to meet it. Here’s an example: say WITNESS is writing a proposal for a training program in a region that they’ve never worked in before. They could use the Census to identify and include hard data about the relevant training gaps in order to underline the importance of the proposed program.

2. Adapting existing training programs to on-the-ground contexts

The first step in launching any capacity building program (technology-focused or otherwise) is often to identify local stakeholders. You need these networks to engage with the most nuts and bolts aspects of your training effort (for example, identifying the right participants). This process is both time consuming and expensive. The Census aims to allow trainers to identify local actors – and get necessary information from the ground in order to maximize the impact of their projects.  New Tactics in Human Rights, for example, could use it to connect on the ground trainers with people who are already there providing support – helping both to maximize their impact.

3. Getting resources for remote learning into the right hands

A lot of our partners have put quite a bit of very laudable effort into creating resources for remote learning so that they can help more people to become effective digital advocates. Take WITNESS’ Video Advocacy Toolkit, Access’ guide to addressing DDoS attacks or the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Surveillance Self Defense project. If they’re going to have as much impact as possible, these resources need to get into the hands of those who need them most.  Partners should be able to use the Census to identify outreach partners who clearly understand information needs in target communities.

4. Working together to enhance the current model by which advocates get tech support

Will the the Census minimize the degree to which trainers have to be parachuted into new contexts in the first place? We hope so. The best thing we heard from one of our partners was that they didn’t want to fly across the world to give a training (or send one of their staff). They’d rather use the Census to connect local need to local support.

Do you work with an international organization or network that supports technology use in advocacy? We’d love to get your opinions- take this survey- it only takes 5 minutes.

***

By Susannah Vila, also posted on engine room’s blog as well as by  WITNESS, Small World News and other engine room partners

Susannah used to run outreach and training content for Movements.org, where she spent a lot of time developing online resources for digital advocacy and speaking with other support organizations and advocates in the field about their work.  She co-founded the engine room to address needs that were made clear through this work and through a series of in-depth interviews that she conducted with advocates in Cairo in the summer of 2011.

Image from infographic on IHub Nairobi (startupafrica.com)

You may have heard about SOPA, the innocuously-named yet frighteningly over-broad Stop Online Piracy Act. If you believe in the power of technology as a social and economic good, and think that due process of law is a good thing, now is the time to take action against this noxious bill that’s zooming through the US House of Representatives. If you are an American citizen, you can call your representative now to voice your opinion on it: http://engineadvocacy.com/voice/ 

This past year has demonstrated the astonishing power of Internet technology to effect change for the better, and shown the potential for more to come. From Arab Spring to the Occupy movement and beyond, we’ve seen policy brutality exposed on YouTube, movements organized on Facebook, and conversations and events “broadcast” in real time through novel live-streaming technologies. None of this would have been imaginable just a few years ago.

As an employee of a tech company and a member of Digital Democracy’s advisory board, I’m terribly concerned that if SOPA were to become law, this blossoming of empowerment through web-based innovation would grind to a halt. In the name of copyright enforcement, SOPA gives corporations outsized and unchecked power to stop the business of perfectly respected sites, without due process of law. (For a bit more detail, here’s a good infographic and a great video.)

The chilling effect on innovation on the Internet could be awful in two major ways. First, entrpreneurs would be severely discouraged from creating any website that hosts user-generated content; one errant link out to a site that illegally distributes copywritten content offshore, and they could be shut down in a week without any court involvement. Second, SOPA would institute a censorship regime on the Internet in the US, both by effectively compelling individual websites to review all their user-generated content, and also by empowering the US Attorney General to rework the plumbing of the web and block access to sites.

The recording industry says that SOPA’s opponents are overreacting, that we can trust them to judiciously apply these unprecedented powers of corporate thuggery to go after only really bad guys. But their track record of intimidating helpless individuals with huge lawsuits says otherwise. Plus, the way the law is written, just about anybody could make spurious claims or even outright lies about a site and still get that site shut down.

A broad base, from web entrepreneurs to news editors to human rights organizations to even the recording industry’s hometown LA Times, has slammed this bill as a huge step backwards for freedom, due process, and innovation. If you’re in the US, add your voice to the chorus, and tell your congressperson right now that they need to vote against SOPA. Just put in your name, phone number, and zip code and you’ll be connected directly to their office: http://engineadvocacy.com/voice/

I’ve joined Digital Democracy because I believe in the need for technology tools to be harnessed to empower the voices of marginalized groups and ordinary citizens to fight for their human rights. I hope you’ll join me and millions of others in working to keep the web a safe and healthy place for innovation and political action by voicing your opposition to SOPA today.

Jesse Friedman is a member of Digital Democracy’s advisory board. He leads marketing for Google Politics & Elections, and is part of the company’s team resisting SOPA. 

Live With Design, a group of designers, design thinkers, social entrepreneurs gathered at a MeetUp on Thursday September 16th; invited by Digital Democracy’s Co-Director, Mark into a process of participation and open collaboration. What ensued was a compelling glimpse of the challenges and opportunities that face DigiDem’s programs in Haiti.

Design thinking begins by asking big questions. How can we communicate Digital Democracy’s commitment to prevention of gender-based violence in Haiti? Who is it important to communicate it to? Where will it have the biggest impact?  How can design’s role as a visual medium bridge stakeholder’s across various groups? For example, can information graphics be used to train a team on the ground in Haiti and paint a picture of the situation to activists in New York.

When asking these questions the challenge is twofold. Broad questions allows room for innovation and to move beyond assumptions. While asking abstract questions can lead the group away from results.  That’s where Martha Denton, a visual communication strategist came in to keep us on track. By the end of meeting the group had several motivating takeaways to consider for the direction of this project.

Design thinking is a constructive and optimistic framework. Martha reminded the group the difference between design thinking and problem solving is that: if a solution does not already exist, a solution can be created. In other words the invitation is to be open to what one cannot imagine in the present. So can design transform data into action? Stay tuned as we unleash this exciting collaboration and find new areas to expand the impact of Digital Democracy’s work.

Guest Post by Brielle Maxwell, Creator and Innovator. Brielle is a social entrepreneur who dwells in the South Bronx and hails from Detroit. Brielle developed a passion for using design thinking while obtaining a B.B.A in Design and Management at Parsons the New School for Design. Brielle developed Live With Design to pursue opportunities at the intersection of design, technology and social innovation. Say hi to Brielle on twitter:@briellenyc

The Unfortunate Simplicity of Freedom

By Sean Martin McDonald

On January 21, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gratified a legion of us geeks by giving a rousing speech announcing the United States’ new policy on, “Internet Freedom.” The term Internet Freedom, unfortunately, oversimplifies and amalgamates complex international issues such as ‘Access to Information,’ ‘Intellectual Property,’ and ‘Internet Regulation,’ under a single, amorphous banner. This may have been necessary to inclusively address these issues in Secretary Clinton’s speech, but by lumping these together, without preemptively establishing a refined definition, cohesive implementation plan, or coalition of supportive constituencies, we’ve endangered the common enterprise of defining normative behavior among civilized people.

Secretary Clinton's Internet Freedom Speech in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton’s speech, delivered without the explicit or implied support of partner states, unilaterally framed access to the Internet as a basic human right, provided for under a penumbra of principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As with many discussions about affirmatively stated human rights, however, the interpretation of those principles varies widely. As Rebecca MacKinnon explained in a recent Guardian article, the US’s traditional human rights allies, such as France, Italy, and the UK have different approaches to foundational component issues of Internet Freedom, such as intermediary liability. While the United States ought to be commended for taking a boldly principled stance on access to information, it is difficult to underestimate the value of multilateralism on issues so global in scope.

Perhaps as concerning, by identifying the growing host of countries that constitute our greatest counter-polarities, we have created a de facto coalition aligned against the American conception of Internet Freedom. As important as it is to engage states like China, Cuba, Iran, and Burma, there are many more states that practice middling forms of information restriction, such as soft censorship. It is in places like Poland that important victories are quietly being won, incrementally demonstrating how to move toward free access to information. Conversely, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who had remained comparatively (and uncharacteristically) quiet on access to information issues, has started saber rattling about the need for increased Internet regulation. In these middle ground countries, the United States’ evangelical branding has the potential to limit the availability of moderate or politically convenient progress.

On February 17, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Mike Posner, in an unprecedented move, convened a meeting of American civil society leaders to consult about the ways the US Government should implement Internet Freedom. I, representing Digital Democracy, was honored to be in attendance, as the Assistant Secretary thoughtfully sought input from the group.  The discussion, as framed by the attendees, focused on four major points (pardon the paraphrasing):

1. Leading the charge for Internet Freedom by example, focusing on the digital chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (European Digital Rights answers FAQ here), the controversy over NSA’s Policy for Surveillance Programs, intermediary liability, and other flashpoint issues.
2. Engaging the business community through corporate social responsibility avenues, such as the Global Network Initiative, in order to prevent the spread of technologies and services with potentially negative applications.
3. Leveraging diplomatic channels to build international support for the definition and enforcement of Internet Freedom principles, using common points of disagreement to frame the debate.
4. Providing education and technological support to civil society organizations in contravention of oppressive regimes.

The common thread through these four priorities was a growing unease about the ability of the United States to embody Internet Freedom or rally enough support to leverage it over others. There is no need to panic, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, will likely join us in similarly conceived leadership- if not on regulatory policy, than at least in resisting repressive regimes. Europe’s robust support, however, would have been more apparent, were they on-hand to participate in the announcement of this policy.

In the meantime, promoting circumvention technologies to civil society in repressive regimes is absolutely necessary, but it is only an interim solution. As has been said by others, the escalation of censorship and circumvention technologies is rapidly becoming the arms race of this era. This arms race, however, is arguably the most multi-lateral in history, involving sovereigns, private interests, and the crowd. Nevertheless, as Assistant Secretary of State Posner recently testified before the Senate and Representative David Wu demonstrated by introducing the Information Freedom Act of 2010 to the House, it is an arms race in which the United States is rightfully determined to run. Circumvention technologies, however, will not effectuate the social, political, or economic changes envisioned by the United States.

If we are to truly progress toward a global Internet culture, we will need to multilaterally address each component issue individually and lean less on words like freedom, altogether.