Re: [hr-wsis] Re: draft letter to de Mello

[karen banks <karenb@gn.apc.org>]

hi meryem

I would simply then, remove the first sentance? We use the following 
language, but in the context of redressing power relatons.. so it might not 
be what you're looking for..

ICTs can be used to either exacerbate or transform unequal power relations. 
Part of this recognition includes an awareness of the limits of ICTs - that 
in and of themselves, ICTs cannot create gender equality, or end poverty, 
but that they can be tools for social action and positive social change.

you can then follow on with the sentance beginning ' and disturbing 
capacities..'

i do apologise however for jumping in late with all these comments.. but i 
would suggest removing that first sentance (easiest option) as you may find 
others interpret it as i did (which i understand isn't the intentional 
meaning..)

karen

>>>>Like all scientific innovations, information communications 
>>>>technologies in themselves are value-neutral. Civil society 
>>>>organizations view ICTs as having both tremendous applications that 
>>>>enhance human rights, such as through the rapid dissemination of action 
>>>>alerts and instant access to human rights information, and disturbing 
>>>>capacities to greatly diminish human rights, such as through enhanced 
>>>>surveillance and monitoring functions of governments facilitated by ICTs.


>I do agree with you Karen, but in this paragraph specifically, I 
>understand the "value-neutral" as meaning that technologies could be used 
>for the best and the worse, which, one must recognize, is the least we can 
>say :-)
>So I think it's not really harmful. However, just in case, the letter can 
>be edited and a less ambiguous wording may be preferable.
>Could you propose something ?