Anyone’s reputation could get damaged online – even yours
What you need to know:
- Once the police take over a case, it basically leaves the jurisdiction of the university and becomes a matter of State and public interest.
- Who then is liable for such reputational damage and what are the options for reprieve?
- A compromise measure, the "take-down-request" approach has since been proposed and seems to be in practice in most jurisdictions.
Last week there was a security incident at Multimedia University, in which a student had a suspicious-looking device that resembled a home-made bomb.
The police were called in to investigate, but the story leaked all over social media before they could conclude their work, eventually finding its way to mainstream media.
By the time of filing this blog, investigations were still under way and the question we want to deliberate is therefore, not the innocence or otherwise of the student, but rather that of whoever is liable for content that finds its way online prematurely.
On one hand, you have the reputation of a young man and his career going up in smoke – before he even graduates. On the other hand, you have the risk of over 5,000 student lives going up in smoke had the administration not called in the police.
Once the police take over a case, it basically leaves the jurisdiction of the university and becomes a matter of State and public interest.
REPUTATION DAMAGE
How the police handle and protect sensitive information about ongoing investigations is out of the university’s control, or that of any other affected organisation. That said, the offline and online reputation of the suspected student needs to be protected at all times until the police finish their investigations.
It would be very unfortunate, and almost impossible, to repair the damage done to the student's reputation if the investigation shows – as we hope it will - that the suspected bomb was, after all, simply an academic artefact for a film project.
Who, then, is liable for such reputational damage and what are the options for reprieve?
There is no simple answer, particularly in a world that is increasingly getting connected through internet platforms, in which journalists are under immense pressure to be the first to break a story, often at the expense of verifying it.
Worse still, we live in a world of ‘citizen journalism’ where anyone and everyone is their own journalist, editor and publisher.
HEAVYWEIGHT CASUALTIES
Even if the mainstream media refuse to air a particular story, individual bloggers with extensive numbers of followers can still break the story, irrespective of whether or not it is official, and unfortunately the internet never forgets.
In traditional print media, inaccurate reporting can be corrected the following day with a clarification placed on a prominent page.
Additionally, print media makes it inherently difficult to re-circulate older stories, thus containing the scope and reach that a particular story can have.
The internet, on the other hand, is one gigantic photocopying machine with the ability to circulate and re-circulate stories at practically no extra cost.
This simultaneously presents opportunities and challenges, depending on how reliable or otherwise the story is.
You may have noticed that we are yet to answer the question of who takes the blame for inaccurate or incomplete stories circulating on social media and other internet platforms.
There are no simple answers. This question is still being debated even in developed economies. Recent and heavyweight casualties include Hillary Clinton, whose presidential aspirations, many believe, came to a screeching halt courtesy of fake news or “alternative facts” propagated online.
At the global level, experts have been discussing some emerging legislation known as ‘Internet Intermediary Liability’ for some time, with various variations.
OFFICIAL CENSORSHIP OFFICE
One variation tries to place the liability for online content on internet service providers and content providers like Facebook, Google and others. That variation was subsequently rejected, since it indirectly made ISPs and content providers act as content policemen or gatekeepers.
Such legislation essentially makes them the official censorship office with the mandate to read, review and block content online. This is an equally terrifying proposition that would violate basic human rights principles of freedom of expression, association or thought.
A compromise measure, the "take-down-request" approach has since been proposed and seems to be in practice in most jurisdictions. This approach allows anyone with a content-related dispute to file an online complaint with ISPs or content providers, seeking to have certain online content removed based either on inaccuracies, libel, intellectual property or cultural and legal norms of the country concerned.
This is still not very effective. Content providers may remove the content after some arbitration but general internet users may have downloaded copies, which they may continue to share online.
This is clearly an area that needs much more attention going forward. Perhaps as a start, the government should prepare a draft policy position on Intermediary Liabilities and invite some stakeholder input. We clearly can no longer ignore this area.
Mr Walubengo is a lecturer at Multimedia University of Kenya, Faculty of Computing and IT. Email: [email protected], Twitter: @jwalu
