How do we protect human rights in an increasingly digital world?
Session 3 of the NetMission Academy 2026, titled “Digital Rights and Justice,” was held on January 22, 2025. Moderated by Khushbakht and presented by Sub group # 1 fellows, the session combined participant perspectives with insights from Gyan Tripathi, Palash Srivastava, and Athena Tong:
Tripathi, Strategic Advisor at the Forum on Information and Democracy, and a co-author of the book Information Ecosystems and Troubled Democracy, specializes in platform governance and information integrity;
Srivastava, Analyst at Centre for Communication Governance at NLU Delhi, focuses on technology regulation, human rights protection, and the impact of digital systems on marginalized communities; and
Tong, Visiting Researcher at the University of Tokyo, Research Associate and Program Lead at the China Strategic Risks Institute, Non-resident Vasey Fellow at the Pacific Forum, and a former Hong Kong civil society activist, brings expertise in digital rights across East Asia contexts.
The session emphasized harm-based, proportionate regulation, due process safeguards, and multi-stakeholder governance involving governments, civil society, youth, technical experts, and platforms. As Tripathi aptly put it, safeguarding digital rights requires one to “show up, be critical, and contribute back” – a mission that the NetMission Academy embodies.
The discussion was opened by SoHee Park, who outlined two contrasting dynamics in the fulfillment of digital rights and justice in the APAC region, operating from both bottom-up and top-down perspectives. Evasana Pradhan examined bottom-up digital exploitation through the mass hacking of home IP cameras and CCTVs, while Emaan Yasin Malik explored top-down repression through Internet shutdowns in authoritarian regimes.
Case Study 1: Mass Hacking of Home IP Cameras & CCTVs
This case study examined large-scale hacking incidents across Asia where over 245,000 home IP cameras and CCTV systems were compromised and used for sexual exploitation, with footage from homes, clinics, gyms, and maternity wards illegally accessed and sold online. These were systemic violations of privacy, dignity, and digital personhood, enabled by weak security settings, lack of encryption, delayed updates, and poor regulatory standards.
The discussion highlighted the human rights implications, particularly gendered harms, and called for stronger security standards, regional cybercrime cooperation, encrypted data transmission, and human-rights-centered accountability. Recommended measures included baseline security for consumer cameras, multi-stakeholder rapid response teams, and policies prioritizing human rights protection.
Case Study 2: Internet Shutdowns in Restrictive Political Contexts
This case study analyzes Internet shutdowns in Myanmar and Afghanistan as top-down mechanisms of digital repression that threaten digital rights and justice in the APAC region. In Myanmar, shutdowns after the 2021 coup suppressed protests, restricted information, and concealed violence, causing economic losses and disrupting humanitarian aid. In Afghanistan, a nationwide blackout cut off access for millions, affecting communication, education, and economic participation.
The study highlights that shutdowns disproportionately affect women, for whom the Internet is vital for accessing information. These incidents also undermine governance, human rights, and societal resilience, emphasizing the need for policies that protect digital access as a fundamental right.
Guest Speakers’ Sharing and Q/A Session
This segment addressed critical questions around AI, online regulation, and digital rights. When asked about preventing bias, misuse of AI like deepfakes, and ensuring transparency, Tong emphasized the need for a broader perspective in AI governance, arguing that it is not only a technical issue but also concerns the creation of a safe digital ecosystem and fair representation for diverse communities. She also introduced four pillars for examining the balance between platform responsibility and user rights: clarity of the law, transparent and well-explained due process, independent oversight, and proportionality that highlights safe and meaningful engagement.
Tripathi underscored the tension between national security and freedom of expression, advocating for transparency, rational justice, civic engagement, and sustained multi-stakeholder collaboration to prevent authoritarian drift. He acknowledged the roles of governments and digital platforms, yet pinpointed how they can misuse or neglect their responsibilities at the same time. This led to his assertion regarding “engagement” – that increased participation and critical thinking at the grassroots level can effectively address these systematic trust issues.
Srivastava explained that while licensing and regulatory measures can enhance accountability, careless application often enables surveillance, censorship, and silencing of marginalized voices. Digital rights regulation is deeply tied to broader democratic struggles, and advocacy should focus on narrowly defined standards, targeting unacceptable content like hate speech or gendered violence while avoiding vague terms such as “public order” or “security.” He emphasized that repression often originates in larger systems, so sustained engagement and keeping resolutions grounded in human rights are essential.
Highlights from Breakout Group Discussions
During the breakout group discussions, participants engaged with policy questions concerning digital human rights violations across different political regimes. At the heart of these inquiries was a fundamental challenge: how to stay connected without being manipulated. Each of the policy questions was foundational yet ambitious in scope; nevertheless, speakers and participants grappled with these challenges to seek collective solutions.
- According to Dahyun Chung, an important debate emerged between structural solutions and individual responsibility, particularly regarding how people can remain connected and informed without being manipulated. The group also stressed that restrictions must be clearly defined and grounded in human rights to prevent misuse.
- Taruna Kaur Bamrah highlighted that government control of Internet access varies across political and economic contexts, while warning against excessive state dominance. The group called for multi-stakeholder governance and transnational solidarity to safeguard digital rights through a shared understanding of these challenges.
- Dhirendra Singh Dhami summarized the discussion by focusing on the importance of decentralizing policymaking process and concluded that robust freedom of expression, media pluralism, and civic responsibility are essential for sustaining democratic digital spaces.
In sum, all three groups highlighted that both grassroots and structural interventions are necessary for digital rights protection.
Editors:
SoHee Park, Maulidya Alhidayah, Yashika Sharma
Contributors:
SoHee Park, Maulidya Alhidayah, Yashika Sharma, Shiang Yen Eow, Emaan Yasin Malik, Zakia Rahimi, Evasana Pradhan, Dahyun Chung, Amrita Adhikari
Reviewers:
Khushbakht, Sherry Shek, Nawal Munir