j human rights practice 2010 gregory 191 207_001

8/6/2019 J Human Rights Practice 2010 Gregory 191 207_001

1/17

Cameras Everywhere: Ubiquitous VideoDocumentation of Human Rights, New

Forms of Video Advocacy, andConsiderations of Safety, Security, Dignityand Consent

SAM GREGORY*

WITNESS

80 Hanson Place

Brooklyn NY 11222

[email protected]

Abstract

Peter Gabriel and other allies created WITNESS nearly 20 years ago shortly

after the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles. At the time, our founders asked:

What if every human rights worker had a camera in their hands? What would

they be able to document? What would they be able to change? Since 1992

WITNESS has engaged with the risks, opportunities and possibilities for action that

emerge from the power of moving images training and supporting human rights

activists worldwide to create real change through our methodology of video advo-

cacy. Yet now an increasing number of people worldwide have cameras.

Participants, witnesses and perpetrators are all filming. Videos (particularly mobile

video) make it possible to document and publicize human rights struggles from

monks marching for freedom in Rangoon and the election protestors in Tehran,

to individual voices speaking out against injustice on YouTube. However, despite

the growing online circulation of images of human rights violations, of victims and

survivors, there is limited discussion of crucial safety, consent and ethical concerns

particularly for people who are filmed. Issues around consent, representation

and re-victimization and retaliation have emerged even more clearly in an open

and networked online environment. Video is being reworked, remixed and recircu-

lated by many more people. New possibilities for action by a global citizenry have

arisen, but these carry with them real dangers. The human rights and technology

communities can help lead the way in confronting these challenges. The article

concludes with suggestions for approaches based on norms, technology solutions,

and other ideas that could be deployed to begin to address these emerging issues.

* Sam Gregory is a video producer, trainer, and human rights advocate. He is Program

Director at WITNESS, which trains and supports people to use video in human rights advo-

cacy. He has worked with human rights activists particularly in Latin America and Asia,

including the Philippines, Burma and Indonesia, integrating video into campaigns on humanrights issues. He was lead editor of WITNESSs book Video for Change: A Guide for

Advocacy and Activism (Pluto Press, 2005). He developed WITNESSs Video Advocacy

Institute, an intensive two-week training program, and has taught on human rights advocacy

using video at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Journal of Human Rights Practice Vol 2 | Number 2 | 2010 | pp. 191207 DOI:10.1093/jhuman/huq002Advance Access publication May 21, 2010

# The Author (2010). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

byguestonJune17,2011

jhrp.oxfordjournals.org

Downloadedfrom
http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/


2/17

Keywords: digital technologies; ethics; informed consent; representation;video advocacy; web 2.0

In shaky footage, police officers strike a man lying on the ground with their

batons and then begin kicking him.

With minor variations, this footage could have been (and indeed, hasbeen) filmed in multiple places around the world in the past year. As I writethis, a clip has come to light of policemen in East Timor punching andkicking a suspect they are arresting in broad daylight on a beach on theisland of Atauro, near Dili. However, the case I am describing above is theRodney King incident filmed in March 1991 on a street in Lake ViewTerrace, Los Angeles, by a citizen observer, George Holliday.

WITNESS was created just under 20 years ago, arising out of that moment.Captured by Mr Holliday from his apartment window, the footage ofRodney King an African-American man being beaten by officers of theLos Angeles Police Department following a traffic violation is familiar acrossthe world. To our founders Peter Gabriel and the Lawyers Committee forHuman Rights it confirmed the power of video cameras in the hands of abystander/witness. At the time, they asked the question: What if everyhuman rights worker had a camcorder in their hand? What untold stories,what visual evidence, would be captured and shared? Our assumptions were

that you could enable a new way of mobilizing action for genuine changeif you could place the capacity to film in the hands of the people who choseto be in the wrong place at the right time and were not just accidentalobservers that is, human rights advocates and activists around the worldliving and working with communities affected by violations.

Lessons Learned from the Past; Meeting Present Challenges

Our work since 1992 has focused on how best to enable human rights defen-ders to use video in their advocacy and activism, and has integrated trainingand intensive support to local groups on their campaigns, as well as develop-ing multimedia platforms for informed dissemination of human rightsmedia. Along the way we have learned that the technology in itself is insuffi-cient in the absence of the capacity to film capably or to tell stories effec-tively with the resulting material. Without technical training you can shootraw video, but you cannot create the finished narratives that are of value inmost advocacy contexts outside of providing direct eyewitness material tothe news media or circulating it to existing communities of interest. We havealso had initial assumptions challenged that television would be as amenableand open to most human rights footage as it was to the Rodney Kingmaterial and that evidentiary usages of video would predominate. As aconsequence, we have had to think about different audiences for advocacyvideo. We have seen that seeing is believing does not necessarily apply in all

Sam Gregory 192



Downloadedfrom


3/17

instances, and that nuanced storytelling and incorporation of video intoother advocacy strategies often produces the most effective results. Trainingon the strategic structuring, distribution and use of video documentation isas important if not more important than technical skill sets.

As a consequence of the difficulties of using video in the media and in judi-cial processes, WITNESS and its human rights partner groups have lookedfor new advocacy audiences for visual evidence and testimony. The majorityof our work has focused on incorporating video into a range of humanrights advocacy and organizing venues that have hitherto seen little use ofvideo. We have done this in partnership with a range of locally-based humanrights groups, which we support through the process of developing cameraand production skills, and in developing and implementing plans for effectiveaudience targeting, messaging, storytelling, and advocacy distribution.WITNESSs work has always blurred the line between amateurs and pro-fessionals in terms of using video training human rights workers, andnow, increasingly, concerned citizens, to use video as an everyday facet oftheir work, a vernacular for effective communication, rather than attemptingto turn them into high-end documentary film-makers.

Frequently our approach has focused on smart narrowcasting (McLagan,2006) speaking to a particular audience at a particular time, and seeking adistinct change in policy, behavior or practice. We work with partners tocraft videos for sequenced and targeted distribution, and always as part of acontinuum of action and as a strategy rather than a stand-alone productor event. Primarily the work has been in the middle ground between theextremes of undifferentiated mass media attention and direct evidence in thecourts. These potential audiences might include:

(1) evidentiary settings such as a courtroom or international warcrimes tribunal, where video could function as direct, contextualizing, orcircumstantial evidence;

(2) quasi-judicial settings, including many of the bodies that monitorcompliance with international human rights law but have limited enforce-ment power, including the UN Human Rights Committee, or other UNcharter and treaty bodies, as well as institutions at a regional level. Forexample, WITNESS recently worked with a group in Kenya, CEMIRIDE,to produce the first-ever video submission to the African Commission onHuman and Peoples Rights on a land rights case affecting the Endoroispeople of Kenya;

(3) direct-to-decision-maker contexts, meaning that in some cases videoneeds to be shown directly to a key decision maker or decision-making bodyso that they can witness human rights violations or meet the victims. Forexample, our partners have done screenings with senior officials of theInternational Criminal Court to convince them of the need to prioritize therecruitment of child soldiers in the eastern Congo in their investigations;

193 Cameras Everywhere: Ubiquitous Video Documentation of Human Rights



Downloadedfrom


4/17

(4) community mobilizing campaigns in which video is shown withina community to mobilize it to take action on a specific issue, or to demon-strate the capacity of individuals and communities to challenge abusesand alter the context in which these abuses happen. An example herewould be showing a video on voluntary recruitment of child soldiers invillages across eastern Congo to stimulate community dialogue aroundthe circumstances in which this occurs, and the consequences for thechildren recruited;

(5) activist and participatory organizing within a community or virtualcommunity of solidarity, increasingly via the internet, and integrating par-ticipant creation of video content.

Videos always provide a space for action by the audience, encouraging

them to participate in solving the problem.Fundamental to all this campaign partnership work as well as our exten-

sive training work with broader human rights networks has been a focuson three elements of video usage in human rights contexts: a) that it beethical in its creation, storytelling and distribution; b) that it be effective inits advocacy usage; and c) that it does not recklessly endanger those whoparticipate in creating it or who are filmed.

These concerns which could also be expressed in terms of questions ofauthenticity, efficacy for action and safety have only been magnified in an

environment of radically increased participation in visual documentationand testimony of human rights violations.

It is this final element of safety, security and consent that this paper pri-marily explores in a new environment of radically increasing numbers ofcreators of human rights content.

A Billion Potential Observers to the Rodney King or Tiananmen

Tank-man of 2010

In 2010 we can reconsider the Rodney King moment, and WITNESSsgenesis, in a new light. The growing reality of this decade is the possibility ofnot only every human rights defender having a camera in their hand, butthat a significant and growing minority ofallpeople have on their person thecapacity to document or record human rights violations.

If we think back to March 3, 1991, multiple elements came together fortui-tously to create what we now know as the Rodney King incident. Therewas George Holliday, the accidental witness, with a camera to hand. Whenhe came to distribute the material, its graphic nature and its media saliencywas of interest to the gatekeepers of distribution at that time the networkand cable television stations.

If 20 years ago a camera was a luxury item, now many mobile phonescome with a video-camera built in and the most recent statistics show thatthere is now one cell phone account for every one and a half people on

Sam Gregory 194



Downloadedfrom


5/17

earth.1 As a consequence, in many industrialized countries and in much ofthe Global South a growing number of individual citizens now possess thetechnological capacity to film using a cell phone or mobile device whichthey carry with them at all times. Many other activists worldwide even inless cell phone friendly environments could be empowered with a devicesuch as a Flip Video camera that records reasonably high-quality videoimages for less than $100.2 Were in a world of a billion potential observersto the Rodney King incidents of 2010, or to the contemporary equivalent ofthe brave man confronting the tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

As a consequence, technological capacity and the ready witness are nowcommonplace. Simultaneously, the ability to share material without as manygatekeepers (at least around choice of issue gate keepers still exist aroundgraphic nature or controversial political content) has increased with the adventof both online video-sharing networks like YouTube and DailyMotion, andsocial networking sites like Facebook, Orkut, Twitter and others, as well asthe i-witness appeals of networks from CNN to the BBC. Not to be underes-timated, there is also growing media literacy among certain sectors of ayounger generation about how to create and share moving images.

This potential presence of a camera in every concerned citizens handcreates powerful opportunities for the future of human rights video andhuman rights advocacy. At the same time, it raises significant questions ofagency, action and audience. As we anticipate a continuing growth ofcameras in the hands of potential witnesses and observers, it is time for thehuman rights community to work out how to grapple with, harness andengage with the potential of these tools to contribute to effective documen-tation and advocacy.

WITNESSs founder Peter Gabriel has repeatedly talked of his vision ofBig Brother in reverse. This is a situation where, rather than Big Brotherwatching, there are a million Little Sisters and Little Brothers each withthe capacity to have their voice heard, to let no human rights abuse goundocumented, and to hold their oppressors accountable.

So what is out there now in terms of human rights material? Im going todraw many examples from a recent WITNESS project the Hub,3 a pioneer-ing participatory media website for human rights launched as a subsectionof the Global Voices blogging site in September 2006, and operated byWITNESS since late 2007. The Hub was conceived as an online humanrights community focused around safety, context and action, as well asknowledge-sharing on what worked in using video and related tools forhuman rights advocacy.

1 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) figures. http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspx (referenced February 4, 2010).

2 For example, the Pure Digital Flip cameras that WITNESS currently provides to some

trainees.

3 http://hub.witness.org.




Downloadedfrom
http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://hub.witness.org/http://hub.witness.org/http://hub.witness.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://hub.witness.org/http://hub.witness.org/http://hub.witness.org/http://hub.witness.org/http://hub.witness.org/http://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspxhttp://www.itu.int/net/itunews/issues/2009/09/04.aspx


6/17

A selection of some of the online videos which surfaced in both the pilotand the last two years of the project gives a flavor of the human rights videodocumentation that is starting to be created as a result of technological ubi-quity and electronic peer-to-peer and online distribution opportunities.

In Malaysia, in what has been called Squatgate, police filmed the humilia-tion of a semi-naked young woman of Chinese-Malaysian origin andemailed it to each other.4 In Egypt, police sodomized and slapped detaineeson cell phone cameras and shared it.5 In China, anonymous watchersdocumented the scale of protest in small towns challenging state controlof public knowledge about dissent.6 In Canada, First Nations protestorsfilmed their stand-off with government officials while in repressiveGuinea-Conakry in West Africa, footage showed the army firing on studentprotestors.7

In the United States, passersby on a subway platform used cell phones tocapture the shooting of an unarmed African-American man by police.8 InGuatemala and Cambodia, communities facing displacement from their landby mining and commercial development videoed their moments of resist-ance.9 Activists attending key UN meetings took advantage of a digitalcamera to provide daily updates from the field to campaigners back homewho were unable to be present demystifying the process.10 Leaders of themonks protest in Burma spoke directly to the camera to share mobilizingmessages one year on from the Saffron Revolution11 and a survivor of astill unpunished prison massacre in Brazil made an impassioned call foraccountability 16 years on.12 Sex worker advocates from Southeast Asiaremixed and reworked popular songs and images from anti-trafficking

4 Malaysia: Cellphone Video Captures Police Excess, posted April 9, 2007. http://hub.

witness.org/en/node/18 (referenced February 4, 2010).

5 See, for example, Egypt: Bloggers Open the Door to Police Brutality Debate, posted

December 9, 2006. http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33 (referenced February 4, 2010).

6 China: Governments Video-Censorship Foiled, posted April 9, 2007. http://hub.witness.

org/en/node/32 (referenced February 4, 2010).7 Massacre in Guinea Conakry, 2007, posted September 17, 2007. http://hub.witness.org/

en/node/619 (referenced February 4, 2010).

8 Mobile Phone Footage Shows Police Shoot and Kill Unarmed Man in California, posted

January 9, 2009. http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825 (referenced February 5, 2010).

9 Violent Evictions at El Estor, Guatemala, posted September 16, 2007. http://hub.witness.

org/en/node/620 (referenced February 4, 2010). 7NG Company and Phnom Penh

Authorities Intent on Inciting Disorder in Cambodias Capital, posted January 9, 2008.

http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1 (referenced February 4, 2010).

10 Eric Tars of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, CERD Day 2 - Feb

18 2008. http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064 (referenced April 9, 2010).11 Burma: Leader of Monks Alliance on the Saffron Revolution - Pt 1, posted September

26, 2008. http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864 (referenced February 4, 2010).

12 Brazil: Survivor of the Carandiru Massacre on 16 years of Impunity, posted October 1,

2008. http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884 (referenced February 4 2010).

Sam Gregory 196



Downloadedfrom
http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8884http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8864http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/node/4064http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/LICADHO1http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/620http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/11825http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/619http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/32http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/33http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18http://hub.witness.org/en/node/18


7/17

campaigns into their own mobilizing films,13 and labor advocates fromPhilippines incorporated video into their organizing in a hospital wherenurses were forced to work excessive hours.14

One of the most viewed and most notorious videos on the Hub is aredacted version of the footage shot by Egyptian police in which they humili-ate a Cairo bus driver by slapping him repeatedly. These images, as well asother more graphic videos that include the sodomizing of another driver,were filmed by the police themselves. Subsequently they were used to humili-ate the victims (for example, by sending the images to other drivers15) and tointimidate other people by demonstrating what would happen if they didntfollow police orders. They share many similarities with the psychology ofwhat have been called happy-slapping videos (in which someone is caughtby surprise and assaulted on camera): the triple humiliation of the assault,the act of documentation, and the subsequent preservation and distribution.

Similar cases have galvanized debate in Greece16 where two Albanianimmigrants were forced to slap each other on camera (a case extensively dis-cussed by Nelli Kambouri and Pavlos Hatzopoulos (2008)), as well as inMalaysia (the infamous Squatgate case mentioned above) and a number ofother countries (including, most recently, East Timor). And of course,footage is also shot increasingly by governments to document and apprehendprotestors and dissidents. In the United States, there has been a contentioussuit related to arrests of protestors at the Republican National Convention inNew York in 2004, highlighting the contradictory accounts of these arreststhat videos shot by both the New York Police Department and activistsprovide while more recently we can see official cameramen in the footageof protests from Burma, Iran and Tibet.

As can be seen from the examples cited above, in the growing world ofhuman rights video online, it is both the abuser and the abused, the impli-cated and the observer who are documenting. The outputs are both pro-duced and raw. There is a mix of witness journalism the raw footagefrom the sites of tragedy, whose variants news organizations are currentlypursuing through their user-generated media programs. There are producedcitizen or NGO advocacy videos that are constructed and edited togetherwith a narrative or rhetorical framework. There is activist and human rightsdefender witnessing in less structured formats but with advocacy and/ordocumentation intention. And there is also perpetrator-shot footage. It is

13 http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321.

14 STOP! 12, 16, 24, 32 hours Duty of Nursing Staff ! TMCEA-AHW, posted January 20,

2010. http://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%

E2%80%93-tmcea-ahw (referenced April 9, 2010).15 Video Shows Egypt Prisoners Humiliation, Maggie Michael, Associated Press,

Washington Post, January 21, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.html (referenced February 4, 2010).

16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQ.




Downloadedfrom
http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCc7xc8hxDQhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012100468.htmlhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://hub.witness.org/en/upload/stop-12-16-24-32-hours-duty-nursing-staff-%E2%80%93-tmcea-ahwhttp://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321http://sexworkerspresent.blip.tv/#203321


8/17

a world of commentators and remixers, of virtual witnesses and viralwitnesses as much as it is a world of direct observers.

And the circulation of these visual images is pervasive. Last year I wassitting in a shared taxi in an authoritarian country in the Middle East, halfway down a long rural road. A man leaned back and offered his cell phoneto me, asking: Change? It seemed odd since my old Nokia was far lessimpressive than his latest Spiderman-themed phone. Then he started to showme the clips he had filmed or had received from others including a seriesof happy-slapping sequences. I realized he wanted to swap what I wouldterm abuse videos.

These videos also circulate to ultimate positive effect in some cases,when they are assigned new meanings and new contexts and framings. InEgypt, bloggers and journalists led by Wael Abbas17 and Hossamel-Hamalawy18 distributed the leaked cell phone videos to challengerepeated denials by the government of responsibility for police brutalityand torture. By circulating the videos, and connecting online to both alocal and international audience, they were able to generate media atten-tion, and to force an official response. Although the government initiallytried to discredit the activists, it was very hard to deny the truth of theimages or the public exposure, and, for the first time, there was an investi-gation into the conduct of police officers in two of the leaked videos leading to a prosecution.19

Increasingly, one of the skill sets demanded of a human rights groupconducting advocacy is the ability to mobilize, foment, aggregate, shapeand/or curate this content created by others. So, in relation to WITNESSsnew campaign models we are increasingly looking to this approach. Forexample, with our 100 Voices20 component of a campaign for the rightsof the elderly in the United States where participants in a campaign inmultiple states are encouraged to create their own individualized videomessages to specific legislators on key Congressional Committees relevantto legislation.

The circulation and re-appropriation of images shot by others is a keyaspect of contemporary online culture namely, its participatory naturewhich allows consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate and re-circulatemedia content in powerful new ways ( Jenkins, 2006, p. 18). Some of themost powerful political commentary in the United States over the pastdecade has featured remixes of news, archival and user-generated footage,

17 For the blogging and video work of Wael Abbas, see http://www.youtube.com/user/

waelabbas.

18 For the blogging and video work of Hossam el-Hamalawy, see http://www.arabawy.org.19 For more detail, see Al-Jazeera, Egyptian Policemen Jailed on Torture Charges, November

5, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embedded

(referenced February 4, 2010).

20 Elder Justice Now, http://elderjusticenow.org.

Sam Gregory 198



Downloadedfrom
http://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.arabawy.org/http://www.arabawy.org/http://www.arabawy.org/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://elderjusticenow.org/http://elderjusticenow.org/http://elderjusticenow.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://elderjusticenow.org/http://elderjusticenow.org/http://elderjusticenow.org/http://elderjusticenow.org/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU6SY6VrwY0&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.arabawy.org/http://www.arabawy.org/http://www.arabawy.org/http://www.arabawy.org/http://www.arabawy.org/http://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbashttp://www.youtube.com/user/waelabbas


9/17


10/17

targeted to key decision makers in this case U.S. Senators.25 So, forexample, students from, Florida, gathered not only their own voices to intro-duce the video, and made personal appeals to their and his Christian faith,but also identified Lost Boys from Sudan living in Jacksonville, Florida whocould speak from their own personal experience in the video making adirect request to their Senator. Videos from California and Wisconsinexpressed personal thanks to their respective Senators for their actions todate through montages of high school and college student voices; highlightedprominent community figures who the Senators would know and respect(for example, a respected academic and an award-winning humanitarian);and urged them on to do more. Other videos ranged from fully remixedvideos to direct-to-camera video introductions and calls to action fromstudent and influential community leaders in the Senators States.26

Remix uses like these, and like many others that are occurring particularly challenge us to question how to balance creativity and effective-ness in a participatory environment with human rights concerns. From ahuman rights advocacy point of view, the positive dimensions of this areclear as participation is at the heart of any mobilizing activity. For particu-lar communities for example, the so-called digital native youth of todaysconnected Northern societies the most active forms of participation aretaking place in these online spaces and on these online terms. Additionally,there is a possibility to benefit from the creativity and capacity of a distribu-ted network of peer production that can rework the raw audiovisual materialto appeal to diverse communities of interest, and within which the opportu-nity to be a (co)-producer rather than just a viewer may promote sustainedengagement. The challenge lies in how this remix ethos relates to a humanrights culture concerned for the dignity and integrity of victims and survivorsand about the role of ethical witnessing a culture that also has a strongsense of control over its material. Many may have enjoyed seeing GeorgeW. Bush remixed, but where would we draw the line?

A New Ethics of Ubiquitous Video

So how does and how could this evolving culture of online and ubiquitousvideo relate to human rights values and to human rights practice? Whatwould it mean if the principles of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights (UDHR) were written into the terms of service and user interfaces ofonline video platforms and other Web 2.0 initiatives (as suggested by theblogger Dan McQuillan)? How could we place key human rights values at

25 Pledge On Camera: How Anti-Genocide Student Activists are Ushering-In a New Era ofVideo Advocacy, posted November 4, 2009. http://hub.witness.org/STAND (referenced

March 1, 2010).

26 To see a sample of the videos see http://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHT (refer-

enced March 1, 2010).

Sam Gregory 200



Downloadedfrom
http://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/en/STAND-SPOTLIGHThttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STANDhttp://hub.witness.org/STAND


11/17


12/17

by what happens to them in custody, and in the second, by the act of filming.They are then further exposed as the footage achieves widespread circulation.

Contemporary thinking on testimony, witnessing and trauma also places aheavy emphasis on the responsibility of the witness to abuse to represent itresponsibly and with ethical integrity to be, so to speak, the ethicalwitness. As Frances Guerin and Roger Hallas note in the introduction totheir recent book The Image and the Witness (2007): images which appro-priate and expropriate existing visual representations of public traumarespond to the immense ethical responsibility which burdens the image . . .Ethical responsibility to the integrity of the victim is one of the defining cri-teria of authentic witnessing to trauma. This is especially urgent when thesufferer is no longer able to speak. Thus, the one who carries the continuedmemory of suffering also carries the responsibility to do so in a manner thatempathizes with, rather than violates, the silent victim. It is incumbent on usto promote a culture of empathy and ethical sharing rather than perpetuatingany violation of the silent victim.

Both of the principles mentioned above that of the integrity of thevictim/survivors experience, and that of the role of the ethical witness aremade problematic by the possibilities for remixing, re-appropriation andrecirculation. These possibilities pull the material farther and farther from itssource testifier and/or witness and from its original context even as thatprocess of translation may increase the chances that the footage will find anaudience (even an unexpected one) that may be willing and able to respond.

WITNESS has wrestled for years with how to ensure that people filmed inhuman rights contexts understand how the video will be used, and the impli-cations both positive and negative, devoting a whole chapter to the subject inthe recent book, Video for Change (Gregory et al., (eds.) 2005). Our modelfocuses on supporting individuals to make informed choices about if, how,where, and when their image is used. When that is impossible we support anassessment based either on objective, established principles (termed a pro-fessional practice) or carried out by a well-informed individual who seeksto determine what a person who has not given explicit consent might beexpected to grant (a reasonable person guideline). We also consider rel-evant international human rights and humanitarian law (for example, theThird Geneva Convention forbidding the exhibition of prisoners of war). Itis an extremely thorough approach to informed consent that harks back tosocial science and medical protocols. WITNESSs policies based on anideal paradigm of consent encourage groups it works with (in an approachcommon to most human rights organizations28) to take into account prin-ciples of disclosure (where the individual is informed why they have beenfilmed and for what purpose); voluntariness (where the individual agrees to

28 See, for example, internal documentation produced by organizations like Amnesty

International.

Sam Gregory 202



Downloadedfrom


13/17

be filmed without pressure or coercion); comprehension (where the personfilmed understands the implications of being filmed, how the video will beused, and particularly, the worst case scenario); and competence (where theperson is capable of making these judgments).

Within these frameworks of consent, WITNESS always emphasizes that in adigital era it should be assumed that a piece of media will circulate if it isshown even if only once. If it can be circulated, then it should be assumedthat it will be seen by your oppressor or opponent. As a consequence ourmodel relies upon presenting worst-case scenarios for impact, assuming thatmedia will circulate, and seeking to enable genuinely informed consent to begiven. The risks associated with shooting and circulating video have beenclearly reinforced in recent events. In Burma, for example during and after theSaffron Revolution, when thousands took courageously to the streets, intelli-gence agents scrutinized photographs and video footage to identify demonstra-tors and bystanders. In Iran, the government took to crowd-sourcingidentification of protestors via facial pictures grabbed from YouTube andplaced on a website with a request to the public to identify them.29

The same circulatory risks apply (and will continue to grow over the nextfew years) in less prominent incidents of human rights documentation thatdo not make the banner headlines on CNN. So in rural eastern Burma, farfrom the urban protests seen on television, the ordinary civilian speaking outagainst government attacks on ethnic minority villages for example, in thevideos shot by WITNESS partner Burma Issues30 should assume that shecould be seen and heardby the local military commander. And although onetendency of advocacy videos may be to make of the witness an iconic, emble-matic figure, separated from an individual identity and standing in for a classof victims, Naw Paw Paw (not her real name), who speaks in two of thevideos that Burma Issues has produced, is not just a representative Burmesevillager. She is a schoolteacher from a specific community of people on therun in eastern Burma, speaking at risk of execution, displacement or impris-onment in a region where the military junta is currently conducting adevastating offensive. In a digital era we should assume that once a clipre-circulates, and indeed even more so if it successfully re-circulates on anyscale (and Naw Paw Paws videos have been seen close to a million times onYouTube), then there is a good chance that the video will be seen by those inpower such as the military junta in Burma. This is why it is incumbent on

29 For more information, see Global Voices Online: Iranian Officials Crowd-Source

Protestor Identities, June 27, 2009. http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-

officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/ (referenced February 4, 2010), and

http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422 (referenced February 4, 2010).30 For example Shoot on Sight: The Ongoing Military Junta Offensive Against Civilians

in Eastern Burma. http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=

178&task=view&alert_id=53, or at http://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSight, posted

November 14, 2008 (referenced February 4, 2010).




Downloadedfrom
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://hub.witness.org/en/ShootOnSighthttp://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://gerdab.ir/fa/pages/?cid=422http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/06/27/iranian-officials-crowd-source-protester-identities-online/


14/17

the person filming to tell someone the worst-case scenario, not the best-casescenario, and enable them to make decisions on whether to speak, and whatto include or exclude, and what measures to take to conceal their own iden-tity. That is the only way for someone to give truly informed consent.

However, this worst-case scenario model of consent is difficult enough topromote in the professional documentary world (and also heavily contested(Winston, 2000; Aufderheide et al., 2009)), as well as in the human rightscommunity, and impossible to sustain in the online participatory culturecontext of user-generated media. Within our own practice, WITNESS canemphasize consent through front-and-center prompts as people upload, viatraining materials that provide relevant guidance, and via a system of reviewon the Hub site that looks for obvious egregious examples of absent consentand danger to an individual filmed. But consent can never be assured in aworld of uploaded content from relatively anonymous sources. So whatcomes next?

A Forward-looking Perspective from WITNESS: Which Ethical

Frameworks and Technology Solutions Can Contribute

to a Ubiquitous Video Culture of Dignity and Justice?

The use of video will continue to expand across the range of human rightsdocumentation and advocacy activities, both professional and citizen, overthe coming years. From WITNESSs vantage point at the intersection ofhuman rights, media and technology, with allies and stakeholders from theworlds of local and global human rights organizations, social media, acade-mia, technology, archive and documentary film, we see a pressing need forcollective engagement between these disparate sectors to create a more con-ducive environment for impact-generating video supporting changes innorms, policies and practices, and promoting effective solutions across dispa-rate sectors.

As an initial starting point in our own work, we are focusing on how toensure that the evolving online, mobile and ubiquitous video environmentbecomes safer for human rights defenders and for those who experience orwitness human rights abuses. At the heart of this challenge is the question ofhow we establish online and participatory cultures that create and sharesocial justice and human rights material in a manner that balances the rightto privacy (and the integrity of the person) with the right to freedom ofexpression balancing the urge to expose human rights violations with aconsideration of the very real dangers to human rights defenders and victimsor survivors. By its very nature, this will always be a dynamic and evolvingprocess. But we have taken some initial steps to reach out to the humanrights, technology, privacy law, and media literacy communities as well as,most importantly, the online communities where video is being shared inorder to identify common ground in terms of ethical and normative

Sam Gregory 204



Downloadedfrom


15/17

frameworks, to see where there is scope for test projects, and to identify howwe can all best communicate around these concerns.

With our respective expertise, experiences and vantage points, we hope toidentify the optimal combination of norms and code/architecture, as well aspotentially law and market approaches (to borrow from Lawrence Lessigs(2006) outline of potential regulatory approaches) to promote a safer, moreeffective world of ubiquitous human rights video. Key to that combination willbe finding a way to discuss how the ethical frameworks and learning aroundconsent, safety, and human dignity from established human rights practice including those discussed in this article are accessible and relevant tobroader online culture and the digital media literacy of a new generation ofdigital natives worldwide. How does the professional learning and experi-ence of human rights organizations on an issue like informed consent translateinto guidelines that will work in a space like YouTube, or into 30-secondpieces of spreadable media that will circulate online? What role can humanrights organizations play in terms of supporting focused curation of humanrights material to promote understanding, literacy and debate around keyissues of human rights protection in a Web 2.0 era, and in supporting test-caseprojects within their own practice that demonstrate what can be achieved balancing participation, openness and safety? How do we develop broadly-agreed codes of conduct and ethics on online video and human rights thatspeak to the needs, constituencies and understandings of different sectors?

Much of this needs to be informed by collaboration and dialogue with thetechnology providers of services, hardware and software; online and in themobile arena. These actors play a critical role in the growing ubiquity ofvideo. In addition, it requires participation in the Web 2.0 spaces these provi-ders facilitate. There are potential technology approaches and innovationswithin these spaces that can help address challenges around consent, rep-resentation and safety balancing openness and transparency with a proac-tive response to real risks. These approaches include adjustments to sitegovernance and review policies in video-sharing sites and social networks toallow better handling of sensitive human rights footage. They also includethe development, promotion and dissemination of learning materials, spread-able guides to security approaches, and tools that can better enable safedocumentation. To give two examples, tools that enable concealment ofidentity with blurring could be developed for devices that shoot video (forexample, smartphone applications) as well as the platforms where video isshared. Likewise, interfaces and applications on filming devices and duringupload experiences designed for human rights content, could provideprompts on consent during those filming/upload processes.

All this needs to be done while retaining a very concrete understanding ofdanger as experienced on the ground in real-life spaces (and not in our saferonline environments), and an understanding of what constitutes trulyinformed consent. For although there may be a generalizing assumption that




Downloadedfrom


16/17

privacy is being de-emphasized in favor of openness and transparency (see,for example, recent debates prompted by the founder of Facebook observingthat social norms are evolving towards more information sharing), the reali-ties of human rights risk have not necessarily changed in tandem.

And doing this cross-sectoral work soon is critical because soon we willhave to translate these concerns and challenges into an environment of sim-ultaneous live-cast rather than asynchronous after-the-fact distribution.Already eventcasting31 or live-casting, facilitated by technologies likeQik32 and Flixwagon,33 permits live user-generated streaming34 of media(including documentation of human rights abuses) directly from a cell phoneor other mobile device to an online public. In this case, those human-basedreview processes that are currently used in some human rights spaces(for example, the process we have used on the Hub) to sift through footageto assess potential risk to those featured, will be impossible to maintain.These live-casting technologies will have powerful positive implications forsharing footage and engaging constituencies immediately, but at the sametime consent and security norms will become even more critical once morevideo is streamed immediately rather than edited/uploaded after the fact.

At this stage in the movement towards ubiquitous video, it is vitally impor-tant to support emerging norms in online culture that promote respect, toler-ance, and an understanding of risks, as well as to think about how we takeproactive educational steps to provide the next generation of digital nativeswith experience and understanding on these issues. This is a key need, onlybrought home more and more as we increasingly experience both globally-circulated human rights crises Burma, Tibet, Iran and a multitude of lessprominent situations of human rights violations, via imagery and testimonycirculated online.

To watch the video version of this article and to contribute to the conver-sation visit http://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywhere; we welcome yourfeedback and ideas.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all my colleagues at WITNESS and our partners in the humanrights community worldwide, whose learning, experience and expertiseinforms this article.

31 A term apparently coined by Duncan Riley on the Techcrunch blog at: http://www.

techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolution (referenced February 4,2010).

32 http://www.qik.com

33 http://www.flixwagon.com

34 See also such current options as Stickam, Justin.tv, and Bambuser.

Sam Gregory 206



Downloadedfrom
http://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.qik.com/http://www.qik.com/http://www.qik.com/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://www.flixwagon.com/http://www.qik.com/http://www.qik.com/http://www.qik.com/http://www.qik.com/http://www.qik.com/http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/30/eventstreaming-the-seed-of-a-revolutionhttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywherehttp://hub.witness.org/cameraseverywhere


17/17

References

Aufderheide, P., Jaszi, P., and Chandra, M. 2009. Honest Truths: DocumentaryFilmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work. Center for Social Media,

School of Communication, American University. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_work.

Gregory, S., Caldwell, G., Avni, R., and Harding, T. (eds). 2005. Video for Change:A Guide for Advocacy and Activism. London: Pluto Press. Also available at http://www.witness.org/videoforchange.

Guerin, F., and Hallas, R. (eds). 2007. The Image and the Witness: Trauma, Memoryand Visual Culture. London: Wallflower Press.

Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.New York: New York University Press.

Kambouri, N., and Hatzopoulos, P. 2008. Making Violent Practices Public, inG. Lovink, and S. Niederer (eds). Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube.Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortex.

Lessig, L. 2006. Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0. New York:Basic Books.

McLagan, M. 2006. Making Human Rights Claims Public, AmericanAnthropologist, 108 (1).

Winston, B. 2000. Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries. London: BFI Publishing.




Downloadedfrom
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://jhrp.oxfordjournals.org/http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortexhttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.witness.org/videoforchangehttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_workhttp://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_work

j human rights practice 2010 gregory 191 207_001

Documents