On the sidelines of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the AI for Good Summit, WITNESS and the Forum on Information and Democracy brought together a deliberately cross-sector group at IFRC headquarters in Geneva to explore a shared agenda for trustworthy information in the age of AI.

Around the table were people from government, humanitarian organisations, civil society, news media, standards bodies and technology companies, each working on the erosion of trust in digital content from a different angle, and rarely in the same room at the same time. The premise was simple: so much of the work on content authentication, AI transparency and information integrity is happening in parallel, with limited visibility across efforts, that there is real value in stepping back to map where it intersects, where it diverges, and where working together could amplify impact.

The opening  session was anchored by its three host organisations. IFRC Secretary General, Jagan Chapagain opened by welcoming partners to the Federation’s house. In his remarks, Jagan made it  clear that for the IFRC, questions of AI governance, information integrity and digital trust are deeply operational and central to the organisation’s  humanitarian mission. WITNESS’ Associate Director, Mahsa Alimardani, gave the opening remarks and set the premise on which the day would rest: In her opening, she emphasised that there is no trustworthy AI without a trustworthy information environment.

“There is no trustworthy AI without a trustworthy information environment.”

Mahsa Alimardani WITNESS

WITNESS’ Bruna Martins dos Santos, moderated the first panel.  During the session,  Jacobo Castellanos, launched a new WITNESS report of which he was the lead  author titled “C2PA Content Credentials and the Surveillance Risk: Adversarial Scenarios and Governance Gaps in the Content Provenance Ecosystem”. The second panel was moderated by FID Executive Director Camille Grenier, who also delivered the event’s closing remarks.

The convening was held under the Chatham House Rule. Accordingly, the reflections and key takeaways presented below capture the substance of the discussions without attributing specific comments to individuals participants beyond the host organisations.

Key takeaways

1.     The erosion of trust is a shared reality across every sector, not an open question.

It shows up differently for governments and their constituents, for humanitarian actors and the communities they serve, for newsrooms and their audiences, and for the civil-society organisations closest to those most at risk, but it is the same underlying condition. As Mahsa Alimardani put it, quoting the co-chairs of the UN’s first Independent International Scientific Panel on AI report, information integrity has become “the mother of all the battles”, and the window to act together is open now and may not stay open long. WITNESS sees both sides of the problem directly, from synthetic media targeting individuals to the liar’s dividend, where real footage of real atrocities is waved away as fake, a denial that has become a dominant threat in the conflicts WITNESS documents.

2. In a crisis, information is a life-saving infrastructure.

Secretary General Jagan Chapagain drew on the IFRC’s World Disasters Report to show what is at stake, noting that false, misleading or manipulated information can obstruct humanitarian access, deepen fear, endanger volunteers and prevent people from receiving assistance. “In every crisis I have witnessed,” he said, “information is as essential as food, water and shelter.” The wider discussion reinforced that what makes this moment different is its scale, speed and systemic nature, with disinformation now operating as an industry, that  could be  better understood as a problem of freedom of reach than of freedom of speech.

3. Provenance and authenticity infrastructure is necessary, but it carries a surveillance risk that has to be governed.

The centrepiece of the morning was the launch of a new WITNESS report, C2PA Content Credentials and the Surveillance Risk: Adversarial Scenarios and Governance Gaps in the Content Provenance Ecosystem. Jacobo Castellanos framed the opportunity as building infrastructure that does “two things at once”, helping to authenticate content so we can reclaim trust, and protecting the people who do that work while they do it. The report shows how the same features that make content credentials valuable, their metadata trails, signed certificates and identity assertions, can become tools for identity disclosure and expression control when deployed without safeguards, with journalists, human rights defenders and documentary filmmakers among the most exposed. Grounded in reality and reviewed by around thirty experts, it sets out seven adversarial scenarios and three pathways to harm (regulatory misuse, architectural capture, and implementation failures), and a roadmap of red lines and governance mechanisms to be built now rather than retrofitted after harm occurs. The standard Mahsa Alimardani asked the room to hold all day was blunt: “authenticity infrastructure cannot become surveillance infrastructure.” The report is available at wit.to/C2PA-privacy.

4. Technical fixes alone are not enough; governance innovation is the lever we underuse.

As Jacobo Castellanos argued, of everything the report points to, governance innovation “may be the most impactful lever we have, and it is also the one that we spend the least time on”. The mechanisms this moment calls for do not fully exist yet, and building them will mean working across sectoral, disciplinary and institutional boundaries rather than assuming inherited tools will stretch to fit.

“Governance innovation may be the most impactful lever we have, and it is also the one we spend the least time on.”

Jacobo Castellanos, WITNESS

5. The problem is one of power and economics, not only content.

Discussion returned repeatedly to the monetisation of disinformation, the concentration of market power, and the instruments that sit beyond any single AI law, from competition and antitrust to copyright and the fair remuneration of the information, culture and knowledge that feed generative AI. Alongside this ran a shared concern for the sustainability of public-interest journalism and the strain on the knowledge commons, as freely licensed content is scraped at scale without support for the infrastructure that maintains it.

Learnings and looking ahead

The clearest learning was one that came up throughout the sessions: technical solutions alone will not be enough to strengthen trust in the digital information ecosystem. This is a collective problem that needs collective action. The value of a convening like this lies precisely in creating the space, and assembling the range of people, to build governance that does not yet exist. Bruna Martins dos Santos pressed the group on exactly this point, asking who bears the cost when trust in information collapses, and urging participants to “draw a line through” the many parallel efforts rather than each “creating little wheels” in isolation.

Part of what made the convening necessary was a frank reading of the Global Dialogue on AI it sat alongside. WITNESS welcomed the prominence the Dialogue gave to information integrity, but was candid that naming harms is not the same as governing them: the Dialogue brought only a limited set of civil-society voices to the table, some major frontier developers stayed away, and Geneva was left without clear alignment between governments, companies and civil society, or a path forward grounded in rights. Closing that gap, between naming harms and governing them, and between consultation and genuine cross-sector collaboration, is precisely the work a convening like this one exists to advance.

Camille Grenier closed the convening  by drawing the threads together and framing the day not as a conclusion but as a starting point, one built on the momentum and the fears that emerged from the Global Dialogue, and pointing FID and its partners towards the continuing, cross-sector work ahead.

“We will be reflecting on the spaces we have tried to support over the years, bridging AI, information and the future of media and journalism around the world.”

Camille Grenier, Forum on Information and Democracy

Several concrete threads are worth carrying forward: folding information integrity into competition and copyright remedies; sustaining public-interest journalism and the knowledge commons; and, above all, the governance innovation that content provenance urgently needs. Running through all of them is Jagan Chapagain’s request that the humanitarian perspective, the perspective of the communities most affected by harmful information, be “not only heard, but placed at the heart of discussions and decisions”.

Two invitations follow from the session:

The first is practical: to engage with the new WITNESS report and to explore how each sector can shape content provenance and the C2PA as these technologies mature. 

The second is broader: to keep building together and across sectors, the mechanisms and the trust that no single organisation can create alone. This convening was a step towards acting more collectively, and towards the 2027 AI Impact Summit that will return to Geneva. 

WITNESS and FID are grateful to the IFRC for hosting, and to everyone who joined the conversation. It is one we intend to keep going, together.

The post Reclaiming trust, together appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

The workshop included activists, journalists, and students who had filmed protests, preserved footage, supported injured protesters, or contributed materials to the archive. Some had documented the July 2024 Uprising and its aftermath, when hundreds of thousands protested against Sheikh Hasina, and thousands were reportedly killed, resulting in a reckoning on memory, struggle, and the path forward. 

The workshop was not about introducing documentation, but rather how to activate it and how open-source intelligence (OSINT) and verification techniques, such as video-based strategies for content analysis, AI detection, and geospatial analysis, can be used to build rigorous investigations of the events. 

Organized by WITNESS and Activate Rights, a group supporting justice and accountability efforts in Bangladesh, and co-facilitated by Airwars, an organization that investigates and documents civilian harm from military actions, the training focused on strengthening verification practices, clarifying archive workflows, understanding best-practice approaches, and aligning community documentation with the realities of legal and accountability processes in Bangladesh. 

Throughout the workshop, we sought to answer these central questions: 

• How can we move from archiving footage to building visual investigations based on community-collected evidence? 
• In a complex political and legal environment, how can this evidence be credible to simultaneously contribute to ongoing justice proceedings, support and sustain BPA’s ongoing partnerships with newsrooms such as Netra News and The Dissent, and serve Bangladeshis as a testimony to the memory of the July Uprising?

From Archive to Investigation 

Video-based investigations of human rights violations have often relied on images already circulating in public discourse. Linking these clues to specific places, people, landmarks, and events has become an established field. Courts, including at international levels, have increasingly recognized such audiovisual material as evidence, while visual investigative newsrooms offer credible counternarratives to hegemonic discourse using these verified audiovisual collections.

Bangladesh now recognizes digital records as evidence under the amended Evidence Act. But recognition on paper does not remove the burden of proving authenticity, integrity, and proper handling. For community archives like BPA, that means thinking carefully about how materials are collected, preserved, labeled, and analyzed.

Over the three-day workshop, the conversation kept returning to the method. Participants reflected on approaching archiving and investigation with more structure. Rather than collecting everything, they would only select clearly defined incidents of harm. When searching for videos online, they employed terminology used by those on the streets, rather than generic terms like “protest” or location names. 

Crucial evidence of harm was often found in descriptive video titles or captions. For instance, one post on Facebook by Arefin Mohammad wrote, “Two sisters are marching with their brother’s body on their shoulders. Do they want to erase the memory of these martyrs from our minds?”

Not reacting immediately to what circulates online, but tracing origins and corroborating details. Not simply preserving memory, but preparing material so it can stand up to scrutiny.

Panorama created during workshops of archived video from Bangladesh Protest Archive, reconstructing an incident where security forces shot at protesters.

Shoeb Abdullah from Activate Rights, who leads BPA, developed a methodology with a clear directive to “only collect instances of violence, where harm has occurred.” From there, videos are verified through a community-based approach, where the community itself implicitly has a “right to reply,” ensuring that these models are built from the ground up rather than imposed from outside. BPA’s verification model is collective, grounded, and transparent.

Verify the Truth and the Power of the Collective

For participants in Dhaka, building visual investigations is critical. The BPA holds thousands of videos documenting state violence against protesters, including injuries and deaths, which the now-deposed authoritarian government vehemently denied. As Bora Erden of the New York Times Visual Investigations unit has argued, visual investigations often operate in this “space of contested narratives and abundant source material.” The practice of using this material can then “turn the juridical gaze back onto the state or corporation – [which is] what some describe as counter-forensics.”

This “humanity-wide repository of audiovisual evidence” found online was built in Bangladesh when protesters filled the streets holding cameras and smartphones. The task now is not only to preserve video and memory, but also to transform them into structured investigations: geolocating footage, verifying weapon use, establishing timelines, identifying patterns of harm, and the perpetrators’ chain of command.  Increasingly, in an age of synthetic media and AI manipulation, OSINT methodologies must address both content and provenance.

There have been campaigns in Bangladesh that have focused on the use of lethal and so-called non-lethal weapons, including the type reportedly used to kill protestor Abu Sayed. Investigating such cases requires verifying not only the claim—what happened—but also the authenticity of the video itself. In some cases, like the Forensic Architecture investigation “Shoot me, I bare my chest,” they reconstructed the incident to expose how Abu Sayed was shot in close range using lead pellets, in both the chest and face.  

The Airwars Approach: Best Practices to Monitoring and Investigating Civilian Harm

As co-facilitators, Airwars brought years of experience in developing an open-source, accessible methodology to build incidents of civilian harm from militaries across the world. Projects Manager Ryan Geitner and Conflict Assessor Lily Donoghue shared their methodology, as their archive has grown to be the largest publicly available archive of civilian harm, while Joel Schülin, Airwars’ geolocator, gave a deep dive into their geolocation processes. 

Watching “The Killings They Tweeted,” Airwars investigator Rowena De Silva hosted a workshop on the collection, geolocation, and analysis of hundreds of IDF videos of Israeli airstrikes and how they were able to link and verify these with incidents of civilian harm in the Airwars archive. The investigation found that more than 400 civilians were killed as a result of these strikes. 

Airwars, WITNESS, and Bangladesh Protest Archive will continue our collaboration, with ongoing work to strengthen BPA’s data design and harm modelling of their video collection, using Airwars’ open-source “codebook,” which has been created as a key to support and maintain their database as robust as possible. 

The codebook has recently been made public on GitHub to highlight the importance of shared terms of categorized harms in audiovisual documentation, and will support greater understanding of equitable documentation, crucially for WITNESS, working to ensure that more community-filmed footage can be seen as credible evidence. 

In publishing the codebook, Airwars recognises that “there are many different methodologies aiming for the same result. They hope to create a discussion among the research community on the ways in which data is collected, methods defined, and archived that enable the conditions for collaboration at the dataset design level. WITNESS and BPA see Airwars’ model as an innovative solution: one that we hope the Bangladesh Protest Archive codebook can contribute to and facilitate wider collaboration to monitor other instances of state violence, such as the Gen Z protests, which took place across the region in countries like Indonesia and Nepal. 

This broader partnership between Airwars, SITU Search, and the Bangladesh Protest Archive is being formally announced, signaling a shared commitment to advancing rigorous, community-rooted visual investigations and opening new pathways for sustained institutional support and funding for this work.

Clive Vella, who is leading this work at Airwars, said that a “codebook” should be thought of as a “constellation of terms and their values which represent the mission of an organization and its practical processes. When these concepts are achieved at the documentation level, it can then supplement collaboration and exchange of knowledge between organizations working in the fields of human rights, because it leads to the development of a common language.”

Tightening Practice, Strengthening Trust

Following the workshops, several participants described feeling more confident taking on investigations. Others spoke about using geolocation more systematically in their work and being more deliberate in how they document incidents in their own communities . The shift was not about discovering something entirely new, it was about tightening practice.

Abdul Mokim, a journalist and participant of the workshop, wrote in their reflection, “Although I have been enthusiastic about Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) for almost two years and started working professionally a few months ago, this informative training provided me with the opportunity to become familiar with several key elements and tools essential to being an OSINT investigator.”

That line captures the tone of the workshop well. The responsibility discussed in the room was practical. If we understand how verification works, we also see where gaps exist. We recognize what might be questioned later and how easily material can be dismissed if it is not carefully preserved.

There was also a strong emphasis on community. BPA is not an archive owned by a single organization. It is built from contributions by people who decide whether and how their footage is used. Strengthening it, therefore, means strengthening shared standards and trust. Participants spoke about contributing more actively and ensuring that the archive reflects the communities it comes from.

The workshop was also held at a critical moment. On 12 February 2026, Bangladesh held its first national election since the fall of the authoritarian government. For many in the room, documentation is part of how they understand the present political moment. Strengthening the archive now means being better prepared for what the next phase of the country’s political transition might bring in the streets, in institutions, or in courtrooms.

Verify & Resist did not create a new movement. It strengthened an existing one. It aligned people who are already documenting, archiving, and questioning, and helped ensure that the record they are building can carry weight in the years ahead.

The post Verify & Resist: Building Visual Investigations in Post-Authoritarian Bangladesh appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

Kenyan novelist and theorist Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o argued that freedom is not merely the absence of physical chains, but the capacity to name, narrate, and control one’s own story. 

Internet shutdowns have become a strategic tool by threat actors to erase memory and bury mass atrocities in the dark. These shutdowns have become widespread in Africa, particularly during sensitive periods such as elections, and have significant consequences for democratic engagement.

Across East Africa, the struggle for democratic accountability is increasingly fought not just in streets and ballot boxes, but also in the digital ether through smartphones, social media, geolocated imagery, satellite data, and citizen-generated content. In contexts marked by shrinking civic space, state violence, and the manipulation or suppression of information, digital evidence often becomes contested terrain: denied, obscured, or weaponized by political actors seeking impunity.

Yet it is precisely here, where truth and power collide, that Open source intelligence (OSINT) has emerged as a catalyst for justice. During the 2025-2026 elections in Tanzania and Uganda, OSINT played a critical role in exposing widespread electoral violations, including grave acts of violence that government-imposed internet blackouts intended to conceal. 

“Some family members, colleagues, and friends went missing with no information for a couple of days and weeks. Some are still missing to date. My trusted source from Muhimbili National Hospital said they had many dead bodies and the mortuary was full. The injured were treated and then taken by the police to unknown places… These are the people we believe were buried while alive.”

A journalist from Tanzania

Digital Darkness: The Human Cost of Internet Shutdowns

The government-ordered disruptions of connectivity in Tanzania’s October 2025 election cycle coincided with widespread protests over contested results. Rights groups condemned these shutdowns, warning that blocking access during elections undermines citizens’ ability to monitor events and exercise their fundamental rights to information and expression.

Similarly, Uganda’s January 2026 elections were marked by directives to suspend public internet access and restrict platforms such as social media and messaging services. Critics noted that these measures interrupted civic reporting, digital coordination, and independent monitoring, while amplifying fears of repression in already volatile political environments.

Such shutdowns are not merely technical inconveniences; they silence citizens, isolate observers, and handicap civil society’s ability to collect and preserve evidence precisely when abuses are most likely to occur.

In Uganda, staying connected is getting harder each election cycle as authorities increasingly
restrict internet access, further highlighting that Internet shutdowns are used to legitimize illegitimate leaders during elections.

Agather Atuhaire, Ugandan Activist

OSINT in Action: Documenting Violence and Countering Obfuscation

Internet shutdowns are designed to impede reporting and restrict free information flow. However, once connectivity is restored, even amid partial outages, OSINT methodologies have enabled journalists and activists to preserve human rights abuses that would otherwise be hidden.

In Tanzania, open-source investigative journalist Mike Yambo worked alongside Daily Nation and Bellingcat to produce Blood on the Streets, an investigation of the killings that took place during the Tanzania protests. The investigation demonstrated how geospatial analysis, open data, and visual verification can transform fragmented citizen footage into credible, actionable evidence mapping patterns of lethal violence. By systematically collecting and verifying location-tagged videos and images shared by witnesses, researchers were able to counter silence and official minimization, providing a structured, evidence-based account of abuses that officials had sought to obscure.

During the recently concluded elections in Uganda, OSINT was applied proactively and retrospectively. A journalist supported by WITNESS through the Fortifying Community Truth (FCT) project used open-source investigative tools to document violations of Ugandan electoral law, monitor campaign conduct, fact-check viral election claims, and build a Database of Electoral Law Violations. Combining various OSINT methodologies, their work identified patterns of potential violations and strengthened accountability efforts amidst the growing presence of security forces and reports of clashes between candidates and the electorate.

First introduced in 2024 across West and Central Africa, the FCT project was built to defend community truths and challenge efforts to discredit or erase crucial audiovisual evidence. The initiative seeks to counter the sidelining of local journalists, whose lived experiences and proximity to events provide depth and authenticity often overlooked in favor of “outside experts.” By equipping these journalists with open-source verification tools and audiovisual techniques, WITNESS reinforces the authority of community-based reporting, fostering a more inclusive, credible, and just information ecosystem where local voices shape truth and accountability.

Building on this model, FCT expanded into East Africa, engaging journalists from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The program identified a diverse group of community changemakers deeply rooted in their contexts and committed to meaningful change. Participants received training in open-source visual verification, archiving, and storytelling, and are connected with expert advisors from across Africa and beyond. Together, they design and implement projects that impact thousands within their communities, strengthening local capacity to document, verify, and fortify the truth.

Internet as a Tool of Political Resilience

At the same time that authorities restrict access, citizens have wielded digital technology as a core tool of political resilience, organization, and truth-telling.

During the 2024-2025 Gen Z protests in Kenya, a powerful youth‑led movement emerged in opposition to the controversial Finance Bill 2024, which proposed widespread tax increases. Young activists mobilized rapidly through social media platforms (#RejectFinanceBill2024, #OccupyParliament) to coordinate demonstrations, share critical legal information, and document clashes with security forces. These digital networks enabled real‑time visibility into state responses even when traditional media coverage was curtailed and authorities sought to control narratives surrounding the unrest. 

When thousands of demonstrators marched to the Kenyan Parliament in Nairobi on 25 June 2024, security forces responded with tear gas, water cannons, and live ammunition, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. Investigations later reported that many of those shot were unarmed and not posing a threat when gunfire erupted. 

In this fraught environment, open source intelligence (OSINT) was deployed to expose patterns of lethal force and identify perpetrators. Blood Parliament, a documentary produced by BBC’s Africa Eye (viewer discretion), used OSINT and forensic techniques to track the fatal shootings and identify the security officers involved.

This dynamic underscores a crucial point: digital technologies are not neutral. While states can and do deploy them to surveil, suppress, and distort, communities and activists also use the same technologies to resist, broadcast the truth, and build resilient democratic engagement.  

Within this context, where anyone can use their smartphone as a tool for accountability, a community-centered visual verification approach is indispensable.

WITNESS is challenging the dominant model of visual verification and investigation. Our community-based framework directly counters the notion that only institutions and analysts in the Global North possess the authority to verify abuses.

In contrast, WITNESS argues that the power to verify human rights violations and fortify truths on the ground must be rooted in the knowledge, lived experience, and local expertise of the communities themselves. 

We developed the Visual Verification Guide to help strengthen locally grounded investigative work. Designed for human rights defenders, journalists, and community documenters, the guide offers practical steps, processes, and tools that enable local actors to assess the accuracy, reliability, and credibility of audio-visual content, particularly in contexts where official information is unavailable, manipulated, or deliberately withheld.

Complementing this resource, our resource library also features guidance on documenting during internet shutdowns. At WITNESS, we recognize that documentation cannot wait for ideal filming conditions and that communities must still be able to record, safeguard, and verify what they witness amidst shutdowns and other attempts to silence their truth. Accordingly, our resources equip activists and journalists with strategies to prepare for disruptions, securely capture evidence, and preserve critical footage when connectivity is disrupted. 

While traditional OSINT methods often prioritize tools such as satellite imagery, GPS metadata, and automated geolocation, African practitioners have shown that these tools alone are not enough. In an article for the Global Investigative Journalism Network, WITNESS’ Nkem Agunwa (Senior Africa Program Manager) and Georgia Edwards (Evidence and Investigations Program Coordinator) reflect on existing gaps in the digital verification landscape. According to Agunwa and Edwards, tool-based methodologies often fail to capture cultural nuances, linguistic cues, or contextual signals. This deficiency stems from their lack of local knowledge, which often can only be accurately identified by individuals deeply embedded within the community.

Rather than relying on Global North institutions, WITNESS and its partners are equipping local journalists and human rights defenders with the skills to conduct verification processes that are grounded in their own contexts. These include geospatial analysis, data collection, archiving, open-source verification techniques, and evidence presentation tailored to the cultural and linguistic realities of the communities they serve.

This model also seeks to challenge the pervasive epistemic exclusion that often sidelines community investigators in favor of foreign or Global North experts. While many breakthroughs in visual investigation depend on local contextual knowledge, the authority of that work is often acknowledged only after it has been filtered through institutional pipelines.

This model, which centers community expertise, local insight, and collaborative investigation, allows us to reimagine who gets to decide what is true, whose evidence is trustworthy, and how communities can defend their narratives in the face of denial and erasure.

Within the current media landscape, where synthetic media and misinformation are competing with the truth, newsrooms, civic groups, and community journalists must be supported to develop these capacities, without needing to wait for external validation. 

Building Resilient Digital Futures Rooted in Evidence and Justice

The experiences of Tanzania, Uganda, and neighbouring contexts like Kenya reveal two interlinked truths about digital politics in East Africa:

1. Connectivity empowers accountability: In environments where official narratives strive for a monopoly, OSINT confers evidence-based leverage to citizens and journalists alike, turning fragmented data into structured truths that can withstand scrutiny. 
2. Restriction breeds resistance: Attempts to control information through shutdowns, content suppression, or online repression not only impede civic participation but also galvanize communities to innovate and adapt, strengthening the very movements they aim to suppress.

For democratic processes to be genuinely protected, access to information must be recognized as a human right with real political consequences. This means opposing internet shutdowns while also equipping citizens with tools to collect, verify, and share evidence, transforming digital footprints into public records of accountability.

By investing in local expertise, supporting community-based investigative methods, and defending open access to information, East African societies can reclaim the internet not as a tool of suppression but as a commons of truth, resilience, and democratic culture.

The post Exposing Power, Defending Democracy appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

The report also includes contributions from WITNESS on key approaches to addressing AI and harmful information, including Detection of synthetic content in critical contexts (Contributor Insight 1.9) and Verifiable provenance and the challenge of trust in the digital age (Contributor Insight 2.9).

To mark the report’s launch, the IFRC hosted an expert panel featuring WITNESS Executive Director Sam Gregory alongside other experts. The full discussion can be accessed here.

The following is a Q&A with Sam Gregory from the panel discussion:

Question: Please tell us a bit about your organization and, from the technology perspective, particularly with the rise of AI-enabled harmful information, what tools are available today for humanitarian actors?

WITNESS is a global organization that works with the frontline human rights defenders, journalists, humanitarians and civil society actors who are trying to show, share, and defend the factual reality of what is happening in this age of AI. We work very closely to support them directly, as well as run a global rapid response mechanism on high-stakes deepfakes, and work on the technical standards and policies that enable us at a global level to understand what is real and what is synthetic — thereby better supporting the frontline actors to defend the factual reality of what they experience.

As my co-panelist from the Spanish Red Cross flagged, we’re seeing an increase in how AI is being used to direct coordinated campaigns of misinformation, disinformation, and harmful information on social networks. We’re also seeing an escalation of AI-generated content. This is very visible. Over the past year, it has gone from a small percentage of the content that fact-checkers engage with to — potentially, in the current conflicts we’re seeing in the Middle East — a majority.

This increase involves both impersonation of people – a critical risk in the humanitarian space when you look at the credibility of local leaders and community organizations. It is also the falsification and modification of scenes — not only creating something from whole cloth, but also subtly changing elements.  In addition, we’ve seen an increasing number of cases of subtle changes to images and videos that are used to compromise the credibility of actors in a space.

I want to also place this in the context of compromised access to information and internet shutdowns — the ability to share accurate information is further reduced in these environments. In addition, what we’re seeing, currently in the conflicts in the Middle East, is the use of AI itself to counter AI deception as an element that is spreading confusion: when AI is used as a fact-checking tool, it creates inaccurate results and misrepresents factual reality and the actions of humanitarian agencies.

In terms of tools, at WITNESS, we don’t start with the technologies, and I think this reflects the themes that the IFRC has reflected in this year’s World Disasters report — you start with community-based knowledge, understanding, and community-based verification. With AI-based content, this is not about telling communities to “look harder at images” and make a guess. That is a terrible set of guidance. It places the blame in the wrong place and with the wrong people for their inability to spot technical glitches that are disappearing rapidly.

The basics of media literacy, stopping, checking the source, as well as what we describe as OSINT practices — open-source investigation practices that try to understand whether something is corroborated by all the other information that exists on the open web and in our social media environment — remain essential.

Grounded in the foundations of media literacy and OSINT, let me talk about two technologies that are relevant. They are both flawed but necessary, and they could be improved. And I think there is a political onus for us all to push on this.

First: AI detection tools. Even in the best of circumstances, they are about 85-90% accurate. They work best with high-quality content, that is not shared in compressed bandwidth messaging environments, and that is in English or Spanish or other major languages. That is not the majority of the world nor the context in which we’re all working. The detection tools are flawed. They could be better, but they are necessary — but it’s important to know that they only work in a limited number of circumstances.

Second: Content provenance technologies. These can be approaches like watermarks, invisible to the eye that show whether something was generated with AI. A notable example would be a watermarking tool like SynthID from Google. If I run much of the AI-generated content that is coming out of the conflict in Iran through that tool, it will show that it is AI-generated — it is quite transparent and effective.

Then there is the C2PA — content provenance standards that show you essentially the recipe underlying a piece of content. This is important because it’s not just “is it AI or not?” — there are human elements, or it is a modified image made with a real camera, or you’re trying to prove that something was just made with a camera and has no AI elements. The C2PA standard is a way of surfacing that recipe, that set of ingredients so you can decide: Is this creative? Is this humorous? Or is it harmful?

I would note that the platforms are still not taking seriously their responsibility to enable us to discern what is synthetic and what is real, and to make good determinations about that.

Practical Steps for Building Trust

Question: What practical steps can humanitarian organizations take to strengthen trust and confidence in humanitarian information?

First, we have to acknowledge the environment that is described in the World Disasters Report. We’re in an environment where trust is low, including in institutional actors. The information environment is being weaponized, and AI is complicating that. That environment is not going to change. So we have to start from that assumption as we think about how to build trust.

We also have to realize it’s not just about debunking individual claims — yes, we’re going to have to do that when it’s high stakes — it’s about a broader fog of doubt that is in the interests of some actors to maintain, including the actors articulated in the case the Spanish Red Cross was describing of the harmful information circulating in relation to the floods in Valencia.

This includes scenarios where someone is outright denying that something happened — the scenario in Valencia — and claiming it is AI-generated. Or simply saying, “We don’t know, and we can’t know in this environment.” A third of the cases that come to our Deepfakes Rapid Response Force are examples of the so-called liar’s dividend or of plausible deniability – where people are flat out denying that an event occurred and putting the onus on human rights and humanitarian actors to prove it happened or is real.

We also sometimes see doubt being perpetuated because of the ways people are interacting with content in normal communicative ways. People use AI to create playful content. They create a meme from a protest. Then it gets recirculated as real, and people say, “Wait — that’s not real, so that whole protest didn’t happen.” Or someone uses AI to enhance an image because they think it’ll make it easier to understand, and then it gives a false result on a detection tool, and people claim it’s AI and weaponize that.

So, in that environment, I think there are four key steps:

1. Invest in community-level verification capacity so that they can use the AI detection tools and the OSINT approaches I described. Support that within the communities you work with, bringing that capacity closer to communities – that’s what we work on with WITNESS’ community-based guides to verification and our accessible AI detection guidance. We can’t be in a world where only a few people can prove what’s real — where that lies only with institutional power and not with communities. Investing in the community capability to do verification and detection of deceptive AI is critical.
2. Strengthen factual reality. This is about knowing that information enters a weaponized environment and making choices about how to present it in a way that is transparent, strong, and uses some of these emerging tools like provenance tools. So you can then say, “Look, you’ve just claimed this was made with AI. No — we can categorically show this is a real image from Valencia or from another location,” or “We can show that AI was used, but in a non-malicious way.”
3. Collaborate with trusted intermediaries. Think closely about who your audience trusts. That could be influencers, it could be local media — and I should note that the role of local and independent media is critically important. This is all so tied together with the collapse of local media and the independent media ecosystem. The danger is that people think, “Just do it with TikTok influencers.” It’s not about whether it’s a TikTok influencer — it’s whether that TikTok influencer is trustworthy to the audience.
4. Be transparent rather than certain. We should be completely transparent. With detection tools, we might say, “We got to 85% confidence on the technical side. Here’s why there’s a 15% gap in our confidence, and we fill it with human reporting.” That validation of the 15% comes from the trust you have in us, but you have to be transparent. That’s particularly important for actors in our space, because we rely on trust. And when we make a mistake, it’s weaponized against us. So being transparent is better than being certain, because if you’re wrong, it will be used against you.

Further Interventions During Q&A

Why is this harmful information shared – who has a stake in destabilizing trust?

There is a diverse range of actors who have an interest in this, and it really is context-specific, though it includes many actors who predate the current crises. However, one thing I’ll point to — and I think this is enabled by AI — is that a lot of this is about monetization of attention. We’ve seen this consistently in different contexts. It follows on from patterns we saw with so-called “cheap fakes” and “shallow fakes” before, where people are sharing content because they can raise visibility and money off it, and the platforms are very slow to respond to that. AI has made that easier. It’s much easier to spin up a channel that looks like conflict footage, and you have no vested interest in the truth or the integrity of the organizations you might undermine with that content. You have an interest in rapidly building up a profile or generating money from it, and the platforms enable that.

The platforms are also failing in another way. What we see now is that fact-checking is being deferred to chatbots. People ask Grok on X, and those are fundamentally flawed with their information. It’s of a piece with the rush of the AI platforms to push out AI overviews and fact checks as the way we access information. So you can bundle together individual motivations to monetize with platform motivations to push forward AI, alongside more traditional motivations of why actors want to shape an information space in their own interests.

Why do we have to have cross-sectoral collaboration?

None of us want the potential future where AI creates of 100 versions of every situation or event, and a 100 clones of each public figure speaking, and we have no idea which is real or true. That is not a good vision. There is a cross-sectoral need for us to work together on those shared building blocks of reality and the ability to discern them. That isn’t unique to the humanitarian sector — it is shared with other sectors that also care about verifiable reality.

That brings me back to some of the solutions I talked about earlier from detection to provenance. Making authenticity and provenance architecture accessible to local media, humanitarian actors, and human rights actors — rather than the flawed deployment so-far of this provenance architecture that enables you to know the recipe of what is human and what is synthetic — that is a political will question, a technical question, a question of companies getting on board and doing it. We should all have a stake in it, and governments have a stake in it, as well as civil society and the humanitarian sector. We have cross-sectoral interests that are aligned.

A final takeaway

We are in an information environment that is increasingly mediated by AI and full of AI content, and we’re not ready. We can’t have the question of “Is it real?” become completely unknowable. We must maintain the ability to know what is real. These challenges are relevant to all of us, and the solutions are practical, they are urgent, and they are achievable.

The post IFRC World Disasters Report 2026: Truth, Trust and Humanitarian Action in an Age of Harmful Information appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

This moment, however, is defined by a deep contradiction. Never before has it been so easy to document reality, and never before has it been so easy to fabricate it using generative media. This tension lies at the heart of a recent feature by The New York Times, titled “More Than Ever, Videos Expose the Truth. And Cloud It, Too.” The article opens with a fundamental question for our time: Is seeing still believing?

It describes a paradoxical moment. Documentary evidence continues to reveal the truth and produce real political, legal, and social consequences. At the same time, AI-generated images and videos are eroding the credibility of visual media at an unprecedented pace.

The piece features WITNESS’ work and reflections from Sam Gregory, the organization’s Executive Director. For Gregory, the Minneapolis case is “clearly an affirmation that we can still show what’s real with video.” He also warns of a greater, structural danger: the political power of doubt itself.

After the killing of Alex Pretti, one of the Minneapolis residents shot by federal agents, AI-altered images circulated widely online. The image was based on real footage but enhanced to appear clearer and more dramatic, and its circulation became a tool for discrediting authentic evidence. As Gregory explains, “you just need to cast doubt.” This reflects the logic of the liar’s dividend, in which the mere existence of synthetic media is enough to undermine trust in truth itself.

Each manipulated clip, synthetic recording, and viral fabrication does more than mislead. It corrodes the basic assumption that audiovisual content has a meaningful relationship to reality. When trust collapses, disengagement follows. People withdraw from public debate, civic participation, and demands for accountability.

This is why at WITNESS, we argue that while it is becoming harder to film, verify, and preserve a trustworthy record, individual efforts alone are not enough. The defense of truth must be structural, collective, and sustained. In this context, defending reality also means building systems that allow evidence to remain credible, verifiable, and usable. It requires creating the technical, legal, and institutional foundations that support trust in public information.

Through the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), we focus on building global technical standards that allow people to verify where content comes from, how it was created, and whether it has been altered. This work creates the infrastructure for provenance, enabling transparency about the role of AI and human intervention in images, video, and audio.

Through the TRIED framework, we assess AI detection tools based on real-world conditions. TRIED evaluates whether these tools are trustworthy, robust, interpretable, effective, and deployable in the contexts where they are most needed, including journalism, human rights documentation, conflict settings, and civic accountability.

At WITNESS, we continue to invest in these foundations because preserving a trustworthy record remains possible. It requires infrastructure, standards, legal frameworks, and collective action that protect evidence, strengthen verification, and limit the harms of synthetic media. Defending truth in the age of AI is now a systemic challenge, and meeting it is essential for accountability, democracy, and human rights.

The post It’s getting harder, but not impossible, to film, verify, and preserve a trustworthy record appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

As of January 29, Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) had verified 6,479 deaths firsthand. Other credible reports from medical workers in Iran and a government official from the Ministry of Health place the estimated death toll at over 30,000. This disparity reflects the systematic obstacles to documentation created by communications restrictions and reported intimidation of victims and their families. Protests have been documented across all provinces, involving diverse segments of Iranian society, while security forces continue to employ violent suppression tactics.

The nationwide internet blackout imposed on 8 January 2026 is more than a technical cut-off. In a moment of mass protest, connectivity becomes a vital channel for people to speak, organise, and share their experiences with the world. By severing access to the global internet and phone networks, the authorities have silenced voices inside Iran, isolated families from one another, and made it far harder for abuses to be documented and seen beyond the country’s borders. Iranian authorities have also targeted satellite internet services like Starlink, which many people have been using to bypass the blackout. Reports indicate that the government has deployed military-grade jamming equipment that has significantly disrupted Starlink connectivity. Many families and communities are locked out of contact with loved ones. Medical professionals are reporting catastrophic injury patterns, including hundreds of gunshot wounds to eyes and heads, signaling a disturbing escalation in the tactics used against civilians. 

The Iran communications blackout highlights a critical gap: we need humanitarian mechanisms that protect documentation capacity independent of state control. Whilst Starlink has shown satellite internet’s potential during shutdowns, its vulnerability to state jamming, physical confiscation, need for smuggling and high prices reveals the limitations of current solutions. We’re pushing for technological advances—particularly direct-to-cell satellite internet—that can operate beyond the reach of authoritarian interference. The ability to witness and document violations cannot remain something governments can simply switch off. As documentation becomes essential for accountability, connectivity during crises must be treated as a humanitarian imperative, with infrastructure that divests this fundamental right from state control.

At the same time, state actors are attempting to discredit independent documentation by dismissing protest footage and voices as manipulated or artificially generated. Our Deepfake Rapid Response Force is already helping partners verify footage of the crimes of the state against protesters by ensuring the claim of AI does not discredit the footage. Statements by officials claiming that protest videos, chants, or images are “AI made” seek to erase trust in authentic accounts of events, a tactic that undermines truth and accountability worldwide. As the WITNESS’ Associate Director for Technology Threats and Opportunities Mahsa Alimardani wrote in the Atlantic: “the liar’s dividend redounds to the regime more than anyone else.”

This combination of violent repression, internet blackout, and skepticism of authentic evidence forms a powerful tool of control. It not only threatens individual rights but also jeopardizes the ability of human rights defenders, journalists, and everyday people to document violations that may amount to crimes under international law. Without reliable documentation, patterns of abuse risk being obscured, denied, or misrepresented. Yet these records are precisely what justice mechanisms and truth-seeking efforts rely on in the aftermath of conflict and repression. 

At WITNESS, we understand documentation as more than a record of events. It is the ground on which truth is defended and justice becomes possible. Videos, images, and testimonies carry lived experience, collective memory, and evidence that can endure long after violence subsides. When states move to silence those who document, they are not only restricting information. They are actively trying to shape what can be known, remembered, and held to account.

The crisis in Iran reminds us that truth can be isolated, obscured, or attacked. Beyond internet censorship, this erosion of trust creates lasting uncertainty about what can be proven, believed, or remembered. Such tactics blur the line between genuine documentation and misinformation, enabling powerful actors to avoid scrutiny. But dismantling truth does not erase what has happened,  it only increases the urgency to safeguard evidence that can withstand distortion, doubt, and time. 

This moment tests our collective commitment to human rights, truth, and accountability. While documentation plays a vital role in exposing abuses and preserving evidence, no image or testimony is worth a life. Communities and individuals must always prioritize their own safety and security when deciding whether and how to document.

We stand in solidarity with all those who continue to bear witness under extraordinary pressure, whether by recording, preserving, or protecting the truth in quieter ways. Even when voices are forced into silence, reality does not disappear. History shows that repression may delay justice, but it cannot erase it.

WITNESS Resources

In contexts marked by digital censorship, surveillance, and internet shutdowns, the need to preserve evidence and document ethically becomes especially urgent. In response to these global challenges, WITNESS publishes publicly available guidance intended to support safer and more resilient documentation practices in constrained environments. These resources are designed to help documenters think through risks, protect sensitive material, and strengthen the long term integrity of evidence, wherever such conditions arise. Some of this guidance is available in multiple languages, including Farsi, to help ensure broader accessibility. Below are some resources in Farsi that may be especially urgent:

• Documentation During Internet Shutdown (full guidance)
• Preparing Smart Phones for Offline Documentation
• Should I use this documentation app? (during internet shutdown)
• Storing verifiable images during internet Shutdowns
• File sharing during internet Shutdowns
• Backing up image files without access to the Internet or computer
• A tip for digital security for people documenting human rights abuses
• Tips for fact-checkers: Open-source research
• AI Detection Tip Sheet
• Deepfake Rapid Response Force (get in touch with tto@witness.org to learn more about potential partnerships)

These resources include practical steps for preparing devices for offline documentation, securing verifiable images and video while connectivity is interrupted, and navigating digital risks common in authoritarian environments. They are tools that help protect not just data, but the dignity and safety of the people behind each recording.

The post The silence cannot stand: Iran’s shutdown of truth and the fight for documentation appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

WITNESS and Activate Rights sessions at DRAPAC25 spotlight community-led archiving and digital threats in Bangladesh and West Papua.

Archiving as Resistance in Bangladesh, West Papua, and Beyond

During the closed session at DRAPAC25, participants reflected on how community-led documentation is being used across the region as a tool to challenge repression and preserve memory. In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Protest Archive was born from the urgency to preserve videos and testimonies during the July 2024 student uprisings and crackdowns in Dhaka. While in West Papua, communities and archiving collectives such as Papuan Voices and Papuan Behind Bars are keeping stories alive in the face of decades of military repression and systemic erasure.

Elsewhere in the region, recent uprisings show the urgent need to strengthen similar efforts. In Indonesia, mass demonstrations against corruption and government excess in August 2025 triggered violent crackdowns, arrests, and internet disruptions, revealing how evidence can be easily lost without systematic documentation practices. In Nepal, student and community-led protests have recently been met with surveillance and restrictions, with fears of internet shutdowns looming. And in the Philippines, activists continue to face red-tagging, disinformation, and harassment, showing how vital documentation is to defend truth and demand justice.

The Bangladesh Protest Archive, featured in The Daily Star, documents more than 1,500 videos and photos from the July protests.

Tools and Tactics

Practical sessions grounded these reflections in hands-on tactics. Tools for preserving metadata, secure storage, and decentralized community archives were explored. But the focus was never just on technology—it was about power. Who controls the archive? Who can access it? How can metadata and storage practices strengthen rather than weaken communities?

Alongside Activate Rights, we referenced the WITNESS’s Community Verification Guide and explored new approaches for community-led investigations, learning from the Bangladesh Protest Archive. One of our sessions reimagined the investigation process by involving communities from the very beginning and collaborating with investigative media outlets to create spaces for co-sharing and learning that amplify voices, maximize impact, and reaffirm that communities must remain at the center of our work.

An investigation by Netra News, supported by the Bangladesh Protest Archive, reconstructs the killing of Taim during the July protests.

Challenges and Lessons

Once the backbone of human rights work, documentation is now in crisis. Formal investigations, curated archives, and legal evidence are losing ground amid shifting approaches to philanthropy, NGO precarity, and shrinking civic spaces – Benedict “Bono” Salazar Olgado, in Human rights documentation is dead. Long live human rights documentation!

This statement resonated strongly with our closed roundtable at DRAPAC25, where participants shared recurring challenges around archiving and documentation. Safety and security remain pressing concerns: oral histories, testimonies, and documents about social movements or abuses are often gathered under difficult conditions, and even when names are removed, new analytical methods can re-identify contributors. In hostile environments, weak and underfunded IT infrastructure exposes sensitive collections to surveillance and sabotage. 

Another overlooked dimension is the psychological strain on those doing the work. Archivists and community documenters are regularly exposed to traumatic testimonies, violent imagery, and the constant fear of surveillance or reprisal. Without mental health support and collective care practices, this sustained exposure can lead to burnout and secondary trauma, threatening the continuity of archives.

Sustainability and long-term commitment emerged as a critical gap, with many initiatives dependent on short-term grants and volunteers, leaving archives vulnerable to lapses in security and continuity. Without stable funding, skilled personnel, and attention to the well-being of those involved, even the best system can fail. So the question becomes: How can we create archives that protect not only data but also the people and communities behind it?

Moving Forward

As protests continue across the region, archiving remains urgent—not just to preserve the truth, but to protect voices, reclaim narratives, and build solidarity. Archives such as the Arkib Filem Rakyat in Malaysia remind us that archives can also preserve stories of struggle and hard-fought positive change, showing that memory is not only about documenting harm but also about sustaining hope. From DRAPAC25 we learned that moving forward often requires looking back, using the past to understand present needs. Archiving in Asia-Pacific has long had a deep impact, but shrinking spaces now demand renewed commitment.

So the question we leave with is this: What kind of archives do we want to build for the future? Archives that only record harm, or archives that also carry hope, solidarity, and the imagination of justice?

The post Archiving as a Form of Resistance in Asia-Pacific appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

في 25 أغسطس/آب 2025، أسفرت الغارات الإسرائيلية على مجمع ناصر الطبي في خان يونس عن مقتل ما لا يقل عن خمسة صحفيين، من بينهم الصحفية المستقلة في وكالة أسوشيتد برس مريم داغا، والصحفي في قناة الجزيرة محمد سلامة، ومصور وكالة رويترز حسام المصري، والصحفي المستقل في وكالة رويترز معاذ أبو طه، بالإضافة إلى أطباء ومرضى. وقد وقع الهجوم في غارتين متتاليتين، حيث استهدفت الغارة الثانية الصحفيين وأول المستجيبين الذين هرعوا إلى مكان الحادث.

جاء ذلك بعد أسبوعين فقط من غارة جوية على مستشفى الشفاء أسفرت عن مقتل أربعة صحفيين من قناة الجزيرة، هم المراسل أنس الشريف والمراسل محمد قريقة والمصورين إبراهيم زاهر ومحمد نوفل، في ما وصفته قناة الجزيرة بـ”اغتيال مستهدف“ يهدف إلى إسكات آخر الأصوات المتبقية التي توثق الأحداث من داخل غزة. 

قُتل أكثر من 190 صحفياً وعاملاً في مجال الإعلام في الحرب بين إسرائيل وغزة بين عامي 2023 و2025، وهو عدد أكبر من عدد الصحفيين الذين قُتلوا في جميع أنحاء العالم خلال السنوات الثلاث السابقة مجتمعة (2020-2022). وتحذر لجنة حماية الصحفيين ومنظمات حقوقية أخرى من أن هذه القتل تهدم البنية التحتية الهشة بالفعل للتوثيق التي تعتمد عليها المساءلة.

 لم يكن هذا مجرد عمل عنيف منفصل، بل جزء من نمط أوسع من الهجمات التي تستهدف الشهود في غزة. إنها محاولة منهجية لتقويض القدرة على توثيق الجرائم التي ترتكبها إسرائيل. هذه الأعمال لا تُعد مجرد انتهاكات للقانون الدولي، بل ترقى إلى مستوى جرائم الحرب وتشكل جزءًا من حملة أوسع قد ترقى إلى الإبادة الجماعية¹. كل حياة تُزهق تمثل أيضًا فقدانًا للذاكرة والأدلة وفرص تحقيق العدالة. إن إسكات التوثيق ليس ضررًا جانبيًا، بل تكتيكًا مقصودًا ومنهجيًا.

 التوثيق في سياقات الحرب والاستبداد ليس محايدًا أبدًا. فهو لا يقتصر على كونه محتوى إخباري أو سلسلة من الصور للاستهلاك، بل هو فعل من أفعال البقاء والمقاومة، وطريقة للحفاظ على الذاكرة حين تنكر الروايات الرسمية الواقع أو تشوهه. الشهادات ومقاطع الفيديو والصور الفوتوغرافية ليست مجرد سجلات للعنف، بل أدوات للعدالة وأجزاء من الأدلة التي يمكن للمجتمعات الاحتفاظ بها للمطالبة بالمساءلة. قد يبرز الصحفيون كأطراف رئيسية في هذه العملية، لكن في غيابهم، تتحمل المجتمعات المحلية والمواطنون الموثقون هذه المسؤولية الجسيمة. تصبح تسجيلاتهم، التي غالبًا ما تتم تحت مخاطر شخصية استثنائية، جزءًا من أرشيف جماعي للحقيقة. وبدونهم، يزداد خطر أن تختفي الفظائع في صمت، وأن تُنكر في الحاضر ولا يُمكن إثباتها في المستقبل.

لهذا السبب، فإن استهداف الصحفيين له آثار تتجاوز بكثير الخسائر المباشرة في الأرواح. فعندما يقُتل صحفي أو يختفى، تتوقف عملية التوثيق، تضيع الشهادات، وتُدمّر الأدلة التي كان يمكن أن تدعم المساءلة. وينتشر الخوف وعدم اليقين بين الآخرين الذين يقومون بالتوثيق، بما في ذلك الصحفيون المواطنون، مما يدفع البعض إلى التوقف عن عملهم أو تقييده. وهذا يؤدي إلى فجوات في التغطية الإعلامية، تاركًا المجتمعات غير مرئية والانتهاكات غير مسجلة. والنتيجة هي ضعف الأدلة، مما يصعّب إثبات أنماط الانتهاكات والسعي لتحقيق العدالة في المستقبل. إن قتل الصحفيين ليس مجرد هجوم على الأفراد، بل هو هجوم على حقوق الإنسان على نطاق أوسع، مجتمعات بأكملها تكافح من أجل إنهاء الظلم.

في WITNESS، يستند عملنا في منطقة الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا وعلى الصعيد العالمي إلى إيماننا بأن التوثيق ضروري لكشف الانتهاكات الجسيمة لحقوق الإنسان والمضي قدماً في السعي لتحقيق العدالة.

نحن نوفر الأدوات والتدريب والاستراتيجيات التي تعزز البنى التحتية للحقيقة حتى يتمكن ضحايا انتهاكات حقوق الإنسان من السعي لتحقيق العدالة والمطالبة بالمساءلة. يقدم دليلنا الميداني ”الفيديو كدليل“ طرقًا عملية للتصوير بطرق تحافظ على القيمة الإثباتية مع حماية الذين يقومون بالتوثيق. تدعم مواردنا الخاصة بالأرشفة من أجل حقوق الإنسان النشطاء في ضمان بقاء الملفات الرقمية على المدى الطويل، بما يتجاوز عمر المنصات أو الأجهزة. تركز إرشاداتنا حول إجراء المقابلات مع الناجين على الكرامة والأخلاق والرعاية، مع الاعتراف بأن التوثيق يجب ألا يكرر الأذى أبدًا. 

تستضيف موارد غزة الإعلامية، وهي مجهودنا المشترك مع SMEX 7amleh وMeedan الذي بدأ منذ اندلاع الحرب في غزة عام 2023، مجموعة واسعة من المحتوى المجتمعي تحت رخصة المشاع الإبداعي، بما في ذلك إرشادات حول التصوير الآمن لانتهاكات حقوق الإنسان، وطرق أرشفة وتأمين اللقطات الرقمية، وأساليب التحقيقات مفتوحة المصدر (OSINT)، ونماذج للتحقق من المعلومات ووسائل الإعلام. تستند هذه المواد إلى تجارب واقعية، وقد تم إنشاؤها لمساعدة الموثقين على الحفاظ على استمرارية عملهم وحماية الأدلة وضمان بقاء السجلات المهمة بعد انتهاء الأزمات المباشرة.

إن قتل الصحفيين هو تذكير صارخ بما هو على المحك. فهو يظهر أن الحقيقة نفسها هي ساحة معركة، وأن البنى التحتية للتوثيق مستهدفة بالذات لأنها قوية. ما يتم تسجيله اليوم سيحدد ما يمكن تذكره غداً، وما إذا كان من الممكن تحقيق العدالة. لذا، فإن الاستمرار في التوثيق في ظل مثل هذه المخاطر ليس فقط عملاً شجاعاً، بل هو عمل من أعمال التحدي ضد المحو.

الحقيقة موضع نزاع أيضًا بسبب التكنولوجيا. تُستخدم أنظمة الذكاء الاصطناعي لأتمتة المراقبة والعنف الحربي ضد سكان غزة، ولكنها تُستخدم أيضًا لتقويض الحقيقة. تؤدي المعلومات المضللة التي يولدها الذكاء الاصطناعي وإساءة استخدام أدوات الكشف عن الذكاء الاصطناعي إلى تآكل ثقة الجمهور في المعلومات المتوفرة على الإنترنت وخلق طرق جديدة لتشويه مصداقية الأدلة الحقيقية من غزة وإسرائيل. تم وصف الأدلة على الجرائم أو الأشخاص الحقيقيين الذين يناشدون الجماهير العالمية زوراً بأنها ”من إنتاج الذكاء الاصطناعي“، مما يمحو التجربة الحقيقية ويقوض المساءلة.

يعتبر عمل WITNESS في مجال الذكاء الاصطناعي وحقوق الإنسان جزءًا لا يتجزأ من الطريقة التي ندعم بها الموثقين في الخطوط الأمامية في تعزيز الحقيقة. نحن نعمل على وضع إرشادات ومبادرات للدعوة حول كيفية تشكيل مصادر الوسائط الاصطناعية وكيفية الكشف عنها ووضع ضمانات ضدها من أجل حماية أولئك الذين يوثقون الفظائع وعدم الإضرار بهم. وهذا لا يعني فقط تدريب الأشخاص على الحفاظ على أدلة الفيديو، بل يعني أيضًا العمل على الصعيد العالمي لضمان عدم إساءة استخدام أدوات الذكاء الاصطناعي الجديدة لمحو شهاداتهم.

كل فيديو محفوظ، وكل شهادة مؤرشفة، وكل موثِق مُدرّب هو تجسيد لرفض الصمت الذي يفرضه العنف. من خلال تعزيز ممارسات التوثيق وبناء شبكات التضامن، نؤكد أن الذاكرة ستبقى، وأن الأدلة ستظل متاحة لدعم السعي نحو العدالة والمساءلة. في WITNESS، نقف إلى جانب كل من يواصل التسجيل والحفظ والشهادة تحت تهديد استثنائي، أينما كانوا في العالم. حماية التوثيق لا تعني مجرد تسجيل التاريخ، بل تعني الحفاظ على القدرة على تحقيق العدالة. قريبًا، سنشارك إرشادات عملية جديدة بعنوان “تصوير آثار الهجمات الجوية: مقدمة للموثقين”، لدعم من هم في الخطوط الأمامية في توثيق آثار الضربات العسكرية بأمان وفعالية.

¹ تدرك ويتنس أن بعض الحكومات والمؤسسات ووسائل الإعلام تتجنب استخدام مصطلح “إبادة جماعية” عند الحديث عن غزة، مستشهدة بالإجراءات المعلقة أمام محكمة العدل الدولية أو بالمخاوف السياسية. ومع ذلك، فإن قرارنا باستخدام هذا المصطلح يستند إلى التعريف القانوني المقبول دوليًا بموجب اتفاقية الأمم المتحدة لمنع الإبادة الجماعية، التي تحظر الأفعال المرتكبة بقصد تدمير جماعة قومية أو إثنية أو عرقية أو دينية، كليًا أو جزئيًا. وكما هو موثق في تقارير حقوق الإنسان الموثوقة ويعكسه التحقيق الجاري لمحكمة العدل الدولية، فإن أنماط العنف في غزة — بما في ذلك القتل الجماعي للمدنيين، من بينهم الأطفال، والاستهداف المنهجي للعاملين في المجال الإنساني والصحفيين، وتدمير أحياء بأكملها، والحرمان المتعمد من الغذاء والماء والإمدادات الطبية — تتوافق مع هذا التعريف. إن تجنب استخدام هذا المصطلح قد يقلل من خطورة هذه الجرائم. بالنسبة لنا، الدقة تعني تطبيق الإطار القانوني الصحيح كلما أثبتت الحقائق ذلك بوضوح

The post عندما تكون الحقيقة مستهدفة: قتل الصحفيين ومحو الذاكرة في فلسطين appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

On August 25, 2025, Israeli strikes on the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis killed at least five journalists,  including Associated Press freelancer Mariam Dagga, Al Jazeera journalist Mohammed Salama, Reuters cameraman Hussam al-Masri, and Reuters freelancer Moaz Abu Taha, along with medics and patients. The attack, carried out in two consecutive strikes, saw the second hit journalists and first responders who had rushed to the scene.

This came only two weeks after an airstrike on the Al-Shifa Hospital killed four Al Jazeera journalists, reporter Anas al-Sharif, correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal, in what Al Jazeera denounced as a “targeted assassination” aimed at silencing the last remaining voices documenting events from inside Gaza. 

More than 190 journalists and media workers have been killed in the Israel-Gaza war from 2023–25, more press members than were killed worldwide in the prior three years combined (2020–22). The Committee to Protect Journalists and other rights groups warn that these killings shatter the already fragile infrastructure of documentation on which accountability depends.

This was not an isolated act of violence but part of a much broader pattern of attacks that have been eliminating witnesses in Gaza. A systematic attempt to dismantle the capacities to record, preserve, and expose the war crimes committed by Israel. These actions are not only violations of international law but also amount to war crimes and form part of a broader genocidal¹ campaign committed by Israel. Each life taken is also a severed connection to memory, evidence, and the possibility of justice. Silencing documentation is not collateral damage, it is a deliberate tactic.

Documentation in contexts of war and authoritarianism is never neutral. It is not simply news content, nor a stream of images for consumption. It is an act of survival and resistance, a way to preserve memory when official narratives deny or distort reality. Testimonies, videos, and photographs are not mere records of violence but instruments of justice, fragments of evidence that communities can hold onto in order to demand accountability. Journalists may be the most visible actors in this process, yet in their absence it is local communities and citizen documenters who take on this dangerous responsibility. Their recordings, often made at extraordinary personal risk, become part of a collective archive of truth. Without them, atrocities risk disappearing into silence, denied in the present and unprovable in the future.

This is why the targeting of journalists has consequences that extend far beyond the immediate loss of life. When a journalist is killed or disappeared, documentation is interrupted, testimonies are lost, and evidence that could have supported accountability is destroyed. Fear and uncertainty spread among others documenting (including citizen journalists), leading some to stop or restrict their work. This creates gaps in coverage that leave communities unseen and violations unrecorded. The result is a weaker body of evidence, making it harder to demonstrate patterns of abuse or pursue justice in the future.  Killing journalists is not only an attack on individuals, but on the broader human rights of entire communities struggling to put an end to injustice.

At WITNESS, our work in the MENA region and globally is grounded in the belief that documentation is essential to exposing grave human rights abuses and advancing the pursuit of justice.

We provide tools, training, and strategies that strengthen the infrastructures of truth so that victims of human rights abuse can pursue justice and demand accountability. Our Video as Evidence Field Guide offers practical methods for filming in ways that preserve evidentiary value while protecting those who are documenting. Our Archiving for Human Rights resource supports activists in ensuring that digital files survive in the long term, beyond the lifespan of platforms or devices. Our guidance on Interviewing Survivors centers dignity, ethics, and care, recognising that documentation must never reproduce harm. 

Gaza Media Resources, our effort with Smex, 7amleh, and Meedan that started since the war in Gaza began in 2023, hosts a wide range of community-driven content under Creative Commons, including guidance on safely filming human rights abuses, methods for archiving and securing digital footage, approaches to open-source investigations (OSINT), and templates for verifying information and media. These materials are grounded in real-world experience and were created to help documenters maintain continuity in their work, protect evidence, and ensure that critical records survive beyond immediate crises.

The killing of journalists is a stark reminder of what is at stake. It shows that truth itself is a battlefield, and that infrastructures of documentation are targeted precisely because they are powerful. What is recorded today will determine what can be remembered tomorrow, and whether justice can ever be pursued. To continue documenting under such risk is therefore not only an act of courage but an act of defiance against erasure.

Truth is also contested by technologies. AI systems are being used to automate surveillance and the violence of war against people in Gaza, but they are also being used to undermine the truth. AI generated disinformation and the misuse of AI detection tools are dissolving the public’s trust in online information and creating new ways to discredit authentic evidence from Gaza and Israel. Evidence of crimes or real people appealing to global audiences have been falsely labelled as “AI generated,” erasing real experiences and undermining accountability.

WITNESS’ work on AI and human rights is integral to how we support frontline documenters in fortifying the truth. We are developing guidance and advocacy around how provenance, detection, and safeguards against synthetic media can be shaped to protect and not undermine those documenting atrocities. This means not only training people to preserve video evidence but also working globally to ensure that new AI tools are not misused to erase their testimonies.

Every preserved video, every archived testimony, and every trained documenter represents a refusal to allow violence to dictate silence. In strengthening documentation practices and networks of solidarity, we affirm that memory will endure and evidence will survive towards the pursuit of justice and accountability. At WITNESS, we stand with those who continue to record, preserve, and testify under extraordinary threat wherever they are in the world. Protecting documentation is not simply about recording history, it is about keeping the possibility of justice alive. And soon, we will be sharing new practical guidance, Filming the Aftermath of Aerial Attacks: An Introduction for Documenters to support frontline documenters in safely and effectively capturing the consequences of militarized strikes.

¹ WITNESS recognizes that some governments, institutions, and media outlets avoid using the term “genocide” in relation to Gaza, citing the pending International Court of Justice (ICJ) proceedings or concerns about political sensitivity. However, our choice to use the term is grounded in the internationally accepted legal definition under the UN Genocide Convention, which prohibits acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. As documented in credible human rights reports and reflected in the ICJ’s ongoing investigation, the patterns of violence in Gaza – including mass killings of civilians (among them children), systematic targeting of humanitarian workers and journalists, destruction of entire neighborhoods, and the deliberate denial of food, water, and medical supplies – align with this definition. Avoiding the term risks diminishing the gravity of these crimes. For us, accuracy means applying the correct legal framework when the facts clearly warrant it.

The post When Truth Is Targeted: The Killing of Journalists and the Erasure of Memory in Palestine appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

বাংলা সংস্করণটি এখানে পড়ুন।

Shoeb Abdullah is a digital rights activist based in Bangladesh, with focus on digital freedoms and the visual archiving of human rights violations. He is the co-founder of Activate Rights, a digital rights collective working at the intersection of technology, protest, and accountability. He is also Co Founder of the Bangladesh Protest Archive, an initiative dedicated to preserving and documenting gross human rights abuses during the July Uprising 2024. Through this archive, he supports community-led efforts to preserve evidence of state violence and civil resistance. Shoeb’s work extends into open-source investigations of human rights violations. He currently collaborates with multiple investigative outlets to identify perpetrators of the July massacre and supports efforts toward transitional justice in Bangladesh.

Published on August 18th, 2025

The post Filming The Uprising: Revisiting How Bangladeshi Youth Used the Right to Record to Overthrow an Authoritarian Regime appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

৫ আগস্ট, ২০২৪। বাংলাদেশের রাজনৈতিক পরিমণ্ডলে এক যুগান্তকারী ঘটনার দিন। বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের নেতৃত্বে লং মার্চ টু ঢাকা কর্মসূচি দিনটিতে রূপ নেয় গণ-অভ্যুত্থানে। ১৫ বছরের বেশি সময় দাপটের সঙ্গে শাসন করা প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনা বাধ্য হন বোন শেখ রেহানাকে নিয়ে পালিয়ে করতে। এর মধ্য দিয়ে বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাসে প্রথম বারের মতো ক্ষমতাসীন সরকারপ্রধানকে সরাসরি ক্ষমতাচ্যুত করে নির্বাসনে পাঠানোর নজির তৈরি হলো।

দেশ ছাড়ার আগে হাসিনা সরকার যে দমন-পীড়ন চালিয়েছে, তা ভয়াবহ। জাতিসংঘের মানবাধিকার দপ্তরের (UN OHCHR) তদন্ত প্রতিবেদনে বলা হয়, ২০২৪ সালের ১ জুলাই থেকে ১৫ আগস্টের মধ্যে প্রায় ১,৪০০ মানুষ নিহত হয়। আহতের সংখ্যা হাজার হাজার, যাদের অনেককে গুলি করেছে রাষ্ট্রীয় নিরাপত্তা বাহিনী। নিহতের ১২-১৩ শতাংশই শিশু। প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী এবং বিভিন্ন প্রতিবেদনে নিশ্চিত করা হয়, অধিকাংশ হত্যাকাণ্ডই পুলিশ, সেনাবাহিনী এবং আধাসামরিক বাহিনী ঘটিয়েছে সরকারের নির্দেশে।

Photo Courtesy: Jibon Ahmed

কোটাপ্রথা ও দায়মুক্তির ছায়ায়

গণ-অভ্যুত্থানের সূচনা ২০২৪ সালের জুন মাসে। শুরুটা ছিলো সরকারের এক সিদ্ধান্তে। সরকার ১৯৭১ সালের মুক্তিযোদ্ধাদের সন্তান-সন্ততিদের জন্য সরকারি চাকরিতে বিশেষ কোটা পূনর্বহাল করে। ছাত্ররা এই নীতি ব্যাপকভাবে নিন্দা করে এবং একে প্রাতিষ্ঠানিক বৈষম্য হিসেবে অভিহিত করে। তাদের দাবি, এটি প্রজন্ম থেকে প্রজন্ম ধরে একটা নির্দিষ্ট জনগোষ্ঠীকে বিশেষ সুবিধাভোগীতে পরিণত করেছে। আর সরকারি চাকরিতে সমান সুযোগ থেকে বঞ্চিত করেছে সাধারণ তরুণদের। 

আন্দোলনের পেছনে ছিল উচ্চ আদালতের এক রায়। সেই রায়ে ২০১৮ সালের কোটা বাতিলের সরকারি সিদ্ধান্তকে অবৈধ ঘোষণা করা হয়। সিদ্ধান্তটি নেয়া হয়েছিল ২০১৮ সালে বাংলাদেশের কোটা সংস্কার আন্দোলনের প্রেক্ষিতে। উচ্চ আদালতের রায়ের ফলে পুরাতন ব‌্যবস্থা নতুন করে চালু হয়, যেখানে ৫৬ শতাংশ সরকারি পদই সংরক্ষিত থাকে বিশেষ গোষ্ঠীর জন্য। তার মধ্যে মুক্তিযোদ্ধাদের সন্তান ও নাতি-নাতনির জন্য ৩০ শতাংশ কোটা।

ছাত্ররা বিষয়টিকে অসাধু নীতি হিশেবেই ধরে নেয়; এই কোটা ব্যবহৃত হয় আওয়ামীপন্থী ব্যক্তিদের সুবিধা দেওয়ার জন্য এমন ধারণাও ছিলো সমাজে। অর্থাৎ মুক্তিযোদ্ধা পরিচয়কে ব‌্যবহার করা হয় রাজনৈতিক স্বার্থে। এর প্রতিক্রিয়ায় বৈষম‌্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের ব‌্যানারে আন্দোলন দানা বাঁধতে থাকে পুনরায়। উদ্দেশ‌্য ছিল সবার জন‌্য সমান সুযোগ নিশ্চিত করা।

শুরু থেকেই আন্দোলনকারীরা আওয়ামী লীগের ছাত্রসংগঠন ছাত্রলীগের হামলার শিকার হন। আওয়ামীলীগের এই ছাত্র সংগঠনটি বিরোধী মত রুদ্ধ করার কারণে কুখ্যাত। এরপর আসে নিরাপত্তা বাহিনীর নির্মম দমন অভিযান। হাজার হাজার মানুষ আহত হন। বিনা কারণে গ্রেপ্তার করা হয় বহু শিক্ষার্থীকে। আন্দোলনের শেষ দিকে মৃত্যুর সংখ্যা যা দাঁড়ায়, তা রীতিমত ভয়াবহ। অনেকে সেই মৃত‌্যুর সংখ‌্যাকে বর্ণনা করেছে ‘মৃত্যুর পাহাড়’ হিসেবে।

Photo Courtesy: Jibon Ahmed

তবে রাষ্ট্র কর্তৃক নিপীড়নের ফল হয় বিপরীত। আন্দোলন আরও অপ্রতিরোধ‌্য ও ঐক্যবদ্ধ হয়ে ওঠে। যে আন্দোলন শুরু হয়েছিল কেবল কোটা সংস্কারের দাবি নিয়ে, তা নেমে আসে একটি মাত্র দাবিতে, শেখ হাসিনার পদত‌্যাগ। 

২০২৪ সালের ৪ জুলাই সুপ্রিম কোর্টের আপিল বিভাগ উচ্চ আদালতের রায় বহাল রাখে, যা আন্দোলনে নতুন গতি আনে। প্রতিবাদ যত তীব্র হতে থাকলো, তত বাড়তে থাকলো সরকারের দমননীতি। ১৫ জুলাই ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ‌্যালয় এলাকায় বিক্ষোভ চলাকালে অত্র অঞ্চলে বন্ধ করে দেয়া হয় ৪জি মোবাইল ইন্টারনেট। ১৬ জুলাই দেশের বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ক্যাম্পাসগুলোয় নেটওয়ার্কের গতি  ব‌্যাপকভাবে কমিয়ে দেয়া হয়। এই পরিস্থিতি তীব্র করে তোলে জনরোষ। 

স্থানীয়ভাবে ‘শ্রাবণ বিদ্রোহ বা বর্ষা বিপ্লব’ নামে পরিচিত এ অভ্যুত্থান দেশের ইতিহাসের অন্যতম বৃহৎ ও স্বতঃস্ফূর্ত গণ-আন্দোলন। শেষ পর্যন্ত শাসনব্যবস্থার ভাঙন ও জনরোষের মুখে শেখ হাসিনা দেশত্যাগে বাধ্য হন। তার দেশত‌্যাগের পর আদালত জুলাই ও আগস্টের ঘটনার ভিত্তিতে শেখ হাসিনা ও আরও দুজনের বিরুদ্ধে মানবতাবিরোধী অপরাধের মামলা দায়ের করেন। পরবর্তীতে অন্তর্বর্তীকালীন সরকার দায়িত্ব নেয়। প্রতিশ্রুতি দেয় সহিংসতার জন্য দায়ীদের বিচারের।

শেখ হাসিনা ক্ষমতায় আসেন ২০০৯ সালে। তখন থেকেই তার শাসনকাল দফায় দফায় সমালোচিত হয়েছে ভিন্নমত দমন, বিরোধী দলের ওপর নিপীড়ন, গুম এবং মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের জন্য। দীর্ঘদিন ধরে তার সরকারের সেন্সরশিপ, রাষ্ট্রীয় সহিংসতা ও দায়মুক্তি সংস্কৃতির নিন্দা করে আসছে আন্তর্জাতিক সংস্থাগুলো।

একটা ভিডিও বদলে দিল সব

২০২৪ সালের ১৬ জুলাই এক গুরুত্বপূর্ণ মুহূর্তে পাল্টে যায় আন্দোলনের গতি। সেদিন একটি ভিডিওতে ধরা পড়ে বেগম রোকেয়া বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের ছাত্র আবু সাঈদের মৃত্যুর দৃশ্য। তিনি কোটা সংস্কারের দাবিতে আন্দোলনে অংশ নিয়েছিলেন। সামাজিক যোগাযোগ মাধ‌্যমে দ্রুত ভাইরাল হয়ে যায় সেই ভিডিও। সেখানে দেখা যায়, এক নিরস্ত্র তরুণ পাখির মতো দুই হাত প্রসারিত করে দাঁড়িয়ে আছে। পুলিশ তার দিকে গুলি ছোড়ে। কয়েক সেকেন্ড পর তিনি মাটিতে লুটিয়ে পড়েন। মৃত‌্যুবরণ করেন অল্প সময় পরেই।

মর্মান্তিক এ ভিডিও মুহূর্তে যেন দেশজুড়ে শোকের মাতম তৈরি করে। আমূল বদলে দেয় আন্দোলনের গতিপথ। প্রথমে যা ছিল অন্যায় কোটা ব্যবস্থার বিরুদ্ধে প্রতিবাদ, তা মুহূর্তেই রূপ নেয় দেশব‌্যাপী নৈতিক জাগরণে। ক‌্যামেরায় ধারণ করা এ নগ্ন সহিংসতা মানুষের সহানুভূতি জাগিয়ে তোলে; সম্পৃক্ত করে ছাত্র আন্দোলনের বাইরে থাকা অসংখ্য মানুষকেও।

যতই জনসমর্থন বাড়তে থাকে; আরও বেশি ছাত্র নামতে থাকে রাস্তায়। হাসিনা সরকারের জন্য আন্দোলন দমন ক্রমেই কঠিন হয়ে ওঠে। গুলি, মারধর এবং সরকারপন্থী বাহিনীর হামলা সত্ত্বেও জনরোষ থামানো যায়নি; বরং কেবল বেড়েই চলেছে। 

 Photo Courtesy: Kazi Oyali Ullah

ইন্টারনেট বন্ধের দিনগুলোয় তথ‌্য সংরক্ষণ

প্রতিবাদ তীব্র আকার ধারণ করলে শেখ হাসিনার সরকার ১৭ জুলাই রাতেই মোবাইল ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ করে দেয়। পরিস্থিতি স্বাভাবিক না হওয়ায় এগিয়ে যায় আরেক ধাপ। ১৮ জুলাই রাত থেকে সারাদেশে মোবাইল ও ব্রডব্যান্ডসহ সব ধরনের ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ করে দেওয়া হয়। ফলে দেশ কার্যত তথ্যবিচ্ছিন্ন হয়ে পড়ে।

সরকারের এ পদক্ষেপ কেবল ডিজিটাল অধিকারের গুরুতর লঙ্ঘনই নয়, এর মধ‌্য দিয়ে দেশের ব্যাংকিং, শিক্ষা, স্বাস্থ্য, ফ্রিল্যান্সিং এবং ই-কমার্সসহ অনলাইননির্ভর গুরুত্বপূর্ণ খাতগুলোয় ব্যাপক ক্ষতি ডেকে আনে। সরকার দাবি করে, ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ হয়েছে ইন্টারনেট সেবা প্রদানকারী প্রতিষ্ঠানের ডেটা সেন্টারে বিক্ষোভকারীদের হামলার কারণে। কিন্তু গ্রামীণফোনের মূল প্রতিষ্ঠান টেলিনর নিশ্চিত করে যে এ শাটডাউন ঘটেছিল সরকারের নির্দেশে।

ইন্টারনেট ও সাইবার নিরাপত্তা পর্যবেক্ষণ বিষয়ক আন্তর্জাতিক সংস্থা NetBlocks এবং বাংলাদেশের ডিজিটাল অধিকার সংগঠন Activate Rights উভয়েই নিশ্চিত করেছে, এ ব্ল্যাকআউট ছিল পরিকল্পিত। উদ্দেশ্য ছিল দেশব‌্যাপী চলমান অভ‌্যুত্থানকে দমন করা। Activate Rights তাদের ওপেন সোর্স প্ল্যাটফর্ম Shutdown Watch-এ ১৫ জুলাই থেকে ৫ আগস্ট পর্যন্ত অন্তত দুইবার দেশব্যাপী ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ থাকার বিষয় তুলে ধরেছে। এছাড়া তুলে ধরেছে আংশিক মোবাইল ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ, সামাজিক যোগাযোগমাধ্যম ব্লকসহ নানা ধরণের উদ্দেশ‌্যপ্রণোদিত শাটডাউনের ঘটনা।

Photo Courtesy: Shoeb Abdullah

ডিজিটাল ব্ল‌্যাকআউট থাকার পরও আন্দোলনকারীরা ছিলেন নাছোড়বান্দা। পুলিশ ও সরকারি বিভিন্ন দলের নিপীড়নে দেশব‌্যাপী হু হু করে বাড়তে থাকে শহিদের সংখ‌্যা। সরকারের উদ্দেশ‌্য ছিল সব ধরণের মিডিয়ার গলা টিপে ধরা, যেন জনগন ও বহির্বিশ্বের সামনে রাষ্ট্রীয় পৃষ্ঠপোষকতায় হওয়া রক্তপাতের খবর না পৌঁছয়। 

ক্রমবর্ধমান প্রতিবাদ দমন করতে সরকার ঝাঁপিয়ে পড়ে সকল বাহিনী নিয়ে। তার মধ‌্যে ছিল বাংলাদেশ সেনাবাহিনী, বাংলাদেশ পুলিশ, র‌্যাব, বর্ডার গার্ড বাংলাদেশ (বিজিবি), আর্মড পুলিশ ব্যাটালিয়ন (এপিবিএন) এবং অন্যান্য আধাসামরিক ইউনিট। দমনপীড়ন শুধু রাস্তায় সীমাবদ্ধ থাকেনি; ব‌্যবহার করা হয়েছে আকাশপথও। হেলিকপ্টার থেকে ফেলা হয়েছে সাউন্ড গ্রেনেড ও টিয়ার গ্যাস। এগুলোর লক্ষ্য করেছে বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের শান্তিপূর্ণ সমাবেশ ও জনসমাগমস্থল।

এমন আতঙ্ক আর নিষেধাজ্ঞার আবহে ছাত্র ও জনতা হাতিয়ার হিসেবে আঁকড়ে ধরেছিল মোবাইল ফোনকে। সত্যকে সংরক্ষণ করে রাখার জন‌্য শেষ অবলম্বন। মূলধারার গণমাধ্যম তখন কঠোরভাবে সেন্সরশিপের কবলে; ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ। ফলে তারা বুঝেছিল, সরাসরি তোলা ফুটেজই হতে পারে আন্দোলনের কণ্ঠস্বর।

ইন্টারনেট ছাড়াই মানুষ ধারণ করেছে দমন-পীড়নের দৃশ্য, সেগুলো জমা রেখেছে ব্যক্তিগত ডিভাইসে। কেউ কেউ তো কেবল ভিডিও ধারণের অপরাধেই গ্রেপ্তার হয়েছে। তবু তারা থামেনি।

জুলাই গণ-অভ‌্যুত্থানে অংশ নেয়া ছাত্রনেতা হাসান Activate Rights-কে বলেন-
‘আমরা জানতাম যে মূলধারার সংবাদমাধ্যমে সেন্সরশিপের কারণে আমাদের কথাগুলো হারিয়ে যেতে পারে। তাই তখন আমাদের সঙ্গে যা ঘটছিল, তা নিজেরাই ভিডিওতে ধারণ করার সিদ্ধান্ত নিই। যেন বিশ্বকে দেখাতে এবং ন্যায়বিচার চাইতে পারি। বিক্ষোভ চলাকালে যখন নিরাপত্তা বাহিনী প্রকাশ্যে মানুষ হত্যা করছিল, তখন সেগুলো ধারণ করার চেষ্টা করতাম এবং বাড়িতে সুরক্ষিত রাখতাম। প্রায়ই এসএমএস পাঠিয়ে সহযোদ্ধাদের বলতাম, চারপাশে পুলিশের বর্বরতা ও ছাত্রলীগের মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের ভিডিও যেন সংরক্ষণ করা হয়।’

মোবাইলের সে ভিডিওগুলো পরবর্তীতে ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। তার মধ‌্য দিয়ে ধরা পড়ে নিরস্ত্র বিক্ষোভকারীদের বিনা উসকানিতে গুলি করা এবং আওয়ামীপন্থী সন্ত্রাসীদের সহিংস হামলার দৃশ‌্য। সে ফুটেজগুলোই স্পষ্ট করে দেয় একটা রাষ্ট্রের দানবীয় চিত্র, যে কিনা তরুণদের বিচার ও সংস্কারের দাবিকে রুদ্ধ করতে সর্বোচ্চ শক্তি ব্যবহার করেছে।

ইন্টারনেট দখল ও বিকল্পের সন্ধানে

মূলধারার গণমাধ্যমের অধিকাংশই ক্ষমতাসীন আওয়ামী লীগ নেতৃত্বাধীন সরকারের নিয়ন্ত্রণে থাকার কারণে সামাজিক মাধ্যমই হয়ে উঠেছিল জুলাইয়ের ছাত্র আন্দোলন কালীন প্রধান যোগাযোগমাধ্যম। তাৎক্ষণিক আপডেট দেওয়া, মোবিলাইজেশন কার্যক্রম সংগঠিত করা, বক্তৃতা প্রচার করা এবং গ্রাউণ্ড রিপোর্ট প্রদান ও  সাধারণ জনগণের কাছে খবরাখবর পৌছে দেয়ার জন্য ফেসবুকের মতো সামাজিক মাধ্যম অপরিহার্য হয়ে ওঠে।

বৈষম্য বিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের শীর্ষ নেতা নাহিদ ইসলাম [যিনি পরে অন্তর্বর্তী সরকারে যোগ দেন এবং বর্তমানে নবগঠিত জাতীয় নাগরিক পার্টির প্রধান হিসেবে দায়িত্ব পালন করছেন] অ্যাক্টিভেট রাইটস-এর সঙ্গে আলাপে ডিজিটাল দমননীতি সম্পর্কে বলেন:

“ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ করার মাধ্যমে  তথ্য প্রবাহ সম্পূর্ণভাবে ভেঙে দেয়া হয়। আওয়ামী লীগ সরকার এটা করে, যাতে মানুষ একত্রিত হয়ে সংগঠিত হতে না পারে। একইসাথে, এটা ছিলো নজরদারিরও একটা কৌশল, যা আমাদের সাংবিধানিক অধিকারের স্পষ্ট লঙ্ঘন। ইন্টারনেট ছাড়া সংগঠকেরা বিচ্ছিন্ন হয়ে পড়েছিল, আর আন্দোলনকারীরা রাস্তায় কী ঘটছে তা জানতে বা শেয়ার করতে পারছিল না। এর ফলে আমরা প্রায়ই যৌক্তিক সিদ্ধান্ত নিতে ব্যর্থ হতাম।”

নাহিদের বিশ্বাস, ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ করে দেয়া ছিল পরিকল্পিত হত্যাযজ্ঞের অংশ। তাঁর মতে, সরকার সহিংসতার ব্যাপকতা আড়াল করার জন্য ইচ্ছাকৃতভাবে ইন্টারনেট সংযোগ বিচ্ছিন্ন করে, আর ঠিক সেই কারণেই সংগঠকেরা (ইন্টারনেট বন্ধ থাকাকালে) মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের প্রমাণ সংগ্রহকে অগ্রাধিকার প্রদান করেছিল।কঠোর নিষেধাজ্ঞা সত্ত্বেও ছাত্র ও সাধারণ মানুষ প্রতিরোধ কার্যক্রম চালিয়ে যায়। আন্দোলনকারীরা বিকল্প প্রযুক্তির ব্যবহার নিয়ে বহুবিধ পরীক্ষা-নিরীক্ষা করে, যেমন মেশ নেটওয়ার্ক অ্যাপ Briar ও Brigify নির্মাণ। কিছু ক্ষেত্রে ছাত্ররা ‘যোগাযোগ’ নামক স্বাধীন সার্ভার তৈরি করার চেষ্টা করে। তবে বিকেন্দ্রায়িত যোগাযোগের অভিজ্ঞতা ও অবকাঠামো না থাকায় এসব প্রচেষ্টা শুরুতেই বহুবিধ সীমাবদ্ধতার মুখে পড়ে।সামাজিক যোগাযোগমাধ্যমে নিষেধাজ্ঞার প্রতিক্রিয়ায় ভিপিএন ব্যবহারের হার বেড়ে যায়, কারণ মানুষ যেকোনোভাবে সংযুক্ত ও ইনফর্মড থাকতে চাইছিল। এই ব্ল্যাকআউট সরকারি নিয়ন্ত্রণাধীন কেন্দ্রীভূত ইন্টারনেট নিয়ন্ত্রণের ভঙ্গুরতা প্রকাশ করে দেয় এবং বাংলাদেশে একটি স্বাধীন, উন্মুক্ত ও বিকেন্দ্রীভূত ইন্টারনেট অবকাঠামোর জরুরি প্রয়োজনীয়তা আরও স্পষ্ট করে তোলে এবং একইসাথে, জুলাই আন্দোলন বিকল্প যোগাযোগ প্রযুক্তি ব্যবহারের তাগিদও জানায়।

ফুটেজ থেকে জবাবদিহিতা

২৩ জুলাই রাতে আংশিকভাবে ব্রডব্যান্ড সংযোগ ফিরলেও মোবাইল ইন্টারনেট ও সামাজিক যোগাযোগমাধ্যম ২৮ জুলাই পর্যন্ত বন্ধ ছিল। পুরো ব্ল্যাকআউট জুড়ে সরকার সহিংসতার দায় চাপিয়েছিল ছাত্রদের ওপর। অস্বীকার করেছিল অতিরিক্ত বলপ্রয়োগের অভিযোগ। চেষ্টা করেছিল নিহতের প্রকৃত সংখ্যা গোপন রাখতে। রাষ্ট্রনিয়ন্ত্রিত গণমাধ্যমগুলোও সরকারের বক্তব্যই প্রচার করেছে। এমন বয়ান তৈরি করেছে যেখানে ছিল আন্দোলনকারীদের সহিংস আর রাষ্ট্রকে সংযমী রূপে প্রতিষ্ঠার প্রয়াস।

Photo Courtesy: Shoeb Abdullah

কিন্তু এই বয়ান ভেঙে পড়তে শুরু করে ব্ল্যাকআউটের মাত্র পাঁচ দিন পর। আংশিকভাবে তখন ফিরে এসেছিল ব্রডব্যান্ড ইন্টারনেট। সেই সময় ছাত্র ও সাধারণ মানুষ মোবাইলে ধারণ করা তাদের উপর নিপীড়নের ভিডিওগুলো আপলোড করতে শুরু করে। ফুটে উঠে রাষ্ট্র পৃষ্ঠপোষকতায় সংঘটিত ভয়াবহ সহিংসতার চিত্র। পূর্ণ ব্ল্যাকআউটের সময় ধারণ করা সম্পাদনাহীন ভিডিওগুলো সামাজিক যোগাযোগমাধ্যমে ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। পুরোপুরি ভেঙে দেয় সরকারের মিথ্যাকে। সরকার যে গল্পের মধ‌্য দিয়ে ঘটনাপ্রবাহ নিয়ন্ত্রণে রাখতে চেয়েছিল, তার সেই বয়ান অলঙ্ঘনীয় প্রমাণের সামনে মুখ থুবড়ে পড়ে।

বহু ভাইরাল ভিডিওতে দেখা যায়, পুলিশ খুব কাছ থেকে নিরস্ত্র আন্দোলনকারীদের দিকে একের পর এক গুলি ছুঁড়ছে। অথচ তাদের দিক থেকে কোনো হুমকি ছিল না। এক বিশেষ ভিডিওতে দেখা যায়, বাংলাদেশ পুলিশ এক আহত ছাত্রকে সাঁজোয়া যান থেকে রাস্তায় ফেলে দিচ্ছে। পরে জানা যায়, ওই ছাত্রের নাম শেখ ইয়ামিন। সে মিলিটারি ইনস্টিটিউট অব সায়েন্স অ্যান্ড টেকনোলজির (এমআইএসটি) শিক্ষার্থী। তাকে রাস্তায় ফেলে রাখা হয় মৃত্যুর মুখে।

আরেকটি ভিডিওতে দেখা যায়, একটি নির্মাণাধীন ভবনের রডে ঝুলে আছে এক তরুণ। দূর থেকে ধারণ করা ওই ফুটেজে ধরা পড়ে দুই পুলিশ সদস্য এগিয়ে এসে অন্তত ছয় রাউন্ড গুলি চালায় সেই তরুণের দিকে, যে সেখানে লুকিয়ে ছিল।

তৃতীয় এক ক্লিপে দেখা যায়, ঢাকার একটি ফুটব্রিজের কাছে কয়েকজন পুলিশ একত্রে দাঁড়িয়ে আছে। ঠিক তখনই এক যুবক গুলিবিদ্ধ আরেকজনকে বাঁচাতে তাকে তুলে নিয়ে যেতে চাইছে। এমন সময় পুলিশ আরও তিন রাউন্ড গুলি চালায় নিরস্ত্র লোকদের দিকে। আহত যুবক মাটিতে লুটিয়ে পড়ে। তাকে উদ্ধার করতে আসা ব্যক্তি বাধ‌্য হয় প্রাণভয়ে পালাতে।

যুবক আন্দোলনকারীরা ভিডিওগুলো দ্রুত ছড়িয়ে দেয়। এর মধ‌্য দিয়ে দ্রুত ভেঙে যায় সরকারের প্রোপাগান্ডা। যারা এতদিন ঘরে ছিল, তাদের জন্য ফুটেজগুলো ছিল এক ধরনের অনুঘটক। তারা নতুন উদ্যম ও ঐক্য নিয়ে আন্দোলনে যোগ দিতে উদ্ধুদ্ধ হয়।

জনসাধারণের ধারণ করা ভিডিও ও ব্ল্যাকআউট চলাকালীন হতাহতের তথ্য পর্যালোচনা করে অ্যামনেস্টি ইন্টারন্যাশনাল জানায়, বাংলাদেশের আইনশৃঙ্খলা বাহিনী অতিরিক্ত ও প্রাণঘাতী অস্ত্র ব‌্যবহার করেছে; যার মধ্যে ছিল গুলি, টিয়ার গ্যাস ও শটগান ব্যবহার। আর এ সব করেছে মূলত শান্তিপূর্ণ আন্দোলন দমন করার জন্য।

এই সময়ে আন্দোলন পৌঁছায় এক বাঁক পরিবর্তন কারী মুহূর্তে। ছাত্ররা আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে ঘোষণা করে, তাদের দাবি এখন আর কোটা সংস্কারের মধ্যে সীমাবদ্ধ নয়। বরং এখন এক দফায় উপনীত হয়েছে। হত্যাযজ্ঞের পর তারা শুধু সরকারের পদত্যাগই নয়, বরং অপরাধীদের বিচারেরও দাবি তোলে।

WITNESS-এর ভূমিকা: রেকর্ড করার হক

১৯৯২ সাল থেকে WITNESS বিশ্ব জুড়ে Right to Record অর্থাৎ পুলিশ, সামরিক বাহিনী ও সরকারি কর্মকাণ্ড নথিভুক্ত করার ক্ষেত্রে সাধারণ নাগরিকের অধিকার সংরক্ষণের পক্ষে কাজ করে আসছে। এক্ষেত্রে সাধারণ নাগরিক যেন কোনোপ্রকার ভয় ছাড়াই ঘটনার প্রমাণ রাখতে পারেন। এই অধিকার ক্ষমতাকে জবাবদিহিতার আওতায় আনার একটি মূলভিত্তি, বিশেষত দমন-পীড়ন ও সংঘাতের সময়গুলোয়।

বাংলাদেশে WITNESS ২০২৪ সালের শুরু থেকে দেশীয় কর্মী ও ডিজিটাল অধিকার-সংশ্লিষ্ট সংগঠনগুলোর সঙ্গে কাজ করে যাচ্ছে। এর অংশ হিসেবে তারা নানা সহায়তামূলক উপকরণ দিচ্ছে। যেমন-

1. বাংলাদেশে বিক্ষোভ, পুলিশ ও সামরিক সহিংসতাকে ধারণ করার টিপস
2. বাংলাদেশ জাতীয় সংসদ নির্বাচনী অপরাধ ধারণ করার টিপস

বিষয়গুলো আন্দোলনের সময় ব্যাপকভাবে ছড়িয়ে পড়েছিল। ছাত্র ও জনতাকে ব‌্যাপকভাবে সহযোগিতা করেছে নিরাপদ ও নৈতিকভাবে প্রমাণ ধারণ ও সংরক্ষণ করতে।

শৈল্পিক অ্যাক্টিভিজমের হাতিয়ার প্রতিবাদী ভিডিও

যখন সীমিত গতিতে আংশিকভাবে ইন্টারনেট ফিরে আসে, তখনই অনলাইনে ভেসে উঠতে শুরু করে রাষ্ট্রীয় সহিংসতার ভিডিও। এই বেদনাদায়ক ফুটেজের স্রোতের পাশাপাশি শিল্পী ও সংগীতশিল্পীরাও যুক্ত হন প্রতিরোধের ঢেউয়ে। ডিজিটাল দলিলকে রূপ দেন শৈল্পিক অ্যাক্টিভিজমে।

এর অন্যতম শক্তিশালী উদাহরণ বাংলাদেশি বংশোদ্ভূত র‌্যাপার হান্নান হোসেন শিমুল। তিনি পুলিশি নির্যাতনের চরম সময়ে ইউটিউবে প্রকাশ করেন তার সাড়া জাগানো প্রতিবাদী গান ‘আওয়াজ উডা’। বিদ্রোহ ও প্রতিরোধের ছন্দে বাঁধা এ গান দ্রুতই বাংলাদেশের ইউটিউবে ট্রেন্ডিং হতে থাকে। পরিণত হয় আন্দোলনের স্লোগানে। তবে ২৫ জুলাই হাসিনা সরকারের পুলিশ শিমুলকে গ্রেপ্তার করে। পরবর্তীতে তৈরি বহু প্রতিবাদী গান ও র‌্যাপের মতো আওয়াজ উডাও তৈরি হয়েছে বাস্তব আন্দোলনের ফুটেজ ব্যবহার করে। সঙ্গীতের তালে ধরা পড়েছে মানুষের প্রতিরোধ, পুলিশি নির্যাতন এবং অবিচল সংহতির দৃশ্য। গানের কথায় প্রতিফলিত হয়েছে মানুষের সাহস ও দৃঢ়তা। কেবল শৈল্পিক প্রকাশ নয়, আন্দোলনের জীবন্ত ঐতিহাসিক দলিল।

প্রতিবাদী সঙ্গীতগুলো আন্দোলনের শক্তিতে পরিণত হয়েছিল। কেবল আন্দোলনকারীদের মনোবলই বাড়ায়নি, বরং যুক্ত করেছে আরও অনেক শিল্পী, সংগীতশিল্পী ও লেখককে। শিল্প, অ্যাক্টিভিজম এবং ভিডিও প্রমাণের এ মিলন আন্দোলনকে নতুন এক মাত্রা দিয়েছে। সংস্কৃতি ও সৃজনশীলতা একীভূত হয়ে জোরালো করে তুলেছিল ন্যায়বিচারের আহবানকে। 

যে মিউজিক ভিডিওগুলো ব্যাপকভাবে ছড়িয়ে পড়েছিল, তাতে বাস্তব প্রতিরোধের দৃশ্যের সাথে মিশে গিয়েছিল কাব্যিক পঙক্তি ও তীক্ষ্ম গানের কথা। যেখানে ফুটে উঠে এক নির্ভীক তরুণ প্রজন্মের স্বৈরাচারের বিরুদ্ধে ফুঁসে উঠার আখ‌্যান। এর মাধ্যমে আন্দোলনের গতি টিকে থেকেছে, বিশেষত সেই মুহূর্তগুলোয়, যখন সরাসরি প্রতিবাদ সহিংসতা ও দমন করা হচ্ছিল তীব্রভাবে।

সত্যের সুরক্ষা: বাংলাদেশ প্রোটেস্ট আর্কাইভ

আন্দোলনের পুরো সময়জুড়ে তরুণ ও সাধারণ মানুষ এক গুরুত্বপূর্ণ দায়িত্ব কাঁধে তুলে নেন। তারা চোখের সামনে ঘটে যাওয়া ব্যাপক সহিংসতাকে রেকর্ড করতে থাকেন। রেকর্ডগুলো নিরাপদে সংরক্ষণের লক্ষ্যে WITNESS ও Activate Rights মিলে চালু করে বাংলাদেশ প্রোটেস্ট আর্কাইভ (BPA)। প্লাটফর্মটি বিশেষভাবে নিবেদিত ঐতিহাসিক গণ-অভ‌্যুত্থানের স্মৃতি সংরক্ষণ করা এবং বিপুল সংখ্যক ভিডিও এভিডেন্স, অডিও ক্লিপ ও আলোকচিত্র সংরক্ষণের মধ‌্য দিয়ে মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের প্রমাণ যাচাইয়ের জন্য।

আর্কাইভটির মূল লক্ষ্য গুরুতর মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের প্রমাণ সংগ্রহ ও সংরক্ষণ করা, যাতে সেগুলো সেন্সরশিপ বা বিকৃতির কবলে না পড়ে। পাশাপাশি ভবিষ্যতে কাজে আসতে পারে জবাবদিহিতার প্রক্রিয়ায়। ন্যায়বিচারের স্বার্থে BPA বর্তমানে সুইডেনভিত্তিক অনুসন্ধানী গণমাধ্যম নেত্র নিউজের সাথে কাজ করছে, যাতে ঘটনাগুলো মামলাভিত্তিকভাবে তদন্ত করা যায় এবং সহিংসতা ও দমন-পীড়নের জন্য দায়ীদের চিহ্নিত করা যায়।

বাংলাদেশ প্রোটেস্ট আর্কাইভ একা নয়। হাসিনা সরকারের পতনের পর আরও বহু কমিউনিটি-নেতৃত্বাধীন উদ্যোগ গড়ে উঠেছে, যারা জুলাই আন্দোলনের সময় সংঘটিত নৃশংসতার প্রমাণ সংগ্রহ, সংরক্ষণ ও প্রচারে মনোনিবেশ করেছে।

জুলাই রেভলিউশনারি অ্যালায়েন্স, রেড জুলাই, রিলায়েবল টেলস, জুলাই ম্যাসাকার আর্কাইভ এবং টেলস অব জুলাইয়ের মতো বহু সংগঠন গড়ে উঠেছে আন্দোলনকারী, শিক্ষার্থী ও স্বেচ্ছাসেবীদের হাতে। এগুলোর লক্ষ‌্য গুরুত্বপূর্ণ প্রমাণ ও সাক্ষ‌্য সংরক্ষণ করা। এদের অনেকেরই আনুষ্ঠানিক আর্কাইভ প্রশিক্ষণ বা পদ্ধতিগত ধারণা নেই, তবু তাদের অবদান অপরিমেয়। তারা প্রমাণ সংগ্রহের গুরুত্বপূর্ণ কেন্দ্র হিসেবে কাজ করছেন। নিশ্চিত করছেন যেন ২০২৪ সালের জুলাইয়ের সত্যটুকু মুছে না যায়।

আর্কাইভগুলো গড়ে উঠেছে সম্মিলিত স্মৃতি ও তৃণমূল প্রচেষ্টার ভিত্তিতে। এ এক নতুন ধরণের ন্যায়বিচার-প্রত‌্যাশী আন্দোলন। এ আন্দোলন বিকেন্দ্রীভূত, জনতা-নির্ভর এবং স্মৃতি রক্ষার সাহসে পরিচালিত।

ফুটেজ টিকে গেছে, ন্যায়বিচার? 

ছাত্রনেতৃত্বাধীন গণআন্দোলনের সময় সংঘটিত নৃশংসতার ভিডিও সামাজিক যোগাযোগমাধ্যমে ব্যাপকভাবে ছড়িয়ে পড়লেও, অনেক ফুটেজ এখনো যাচাইবিহীন ও দুর্বলভাবে সংরক্ষিত। অবস্থান, সময় এবং ব্যক্তির পরিচয়ের মতো গুরুত্বপূর্ণ মেটাডেটা প্রায়ই অনুপস্থিত বা অস্পষ্ট থাকে। এর ফলে শুধু আইনি জবাবদিহির প্রচেষ্টাই জটিল হয় না, বরং ভিডিওর বিশ্বাসযোগ্যতাও কমে যায় সংবাদমাধ্যম ও জনপরিসরে।

আন্দোলনের শুরু থেকেই পুলিশি সহিংসতা ও হামলার ভিডিও প্রমাণ বিশ্লেষণ করছেন এএফপি বাংলাদেশের সাবেক ফ্যাক্টচেক সম্পাদক বর্তমানে অনুসন্ধানী সংবাদমাধ্যম দ্য ডিসেন্টের এডিটর কদরুদ্দিন শিশির। তিনি অ্যাক্টিভেট রাইটসকে বলেন-

‘অনেক ভিডিও বিশ্লেষণ করা যায়নি। ফলে হামলাকারী ও ঘটনার স্থান চিহ্নিত করা কঠিন হয়ে পড়েছে। এটা হত্যাকাণ্ডে ন্যায়বিচার চাওয়ার ক্ষেত্রে বড় চ্যালেঞ্জ। এছাড়া আসল ভিডিওকে ভুয়া বলা হচ্ছে, আবার ভুয়া ভিডিওও ছড়ানো হচ্ছে। এগুলো সঠিকভাবে যাচাই না হলে বিচার প্রক্রিয়া মারাত্মকভাবে ব্যাহত হতে পারে।’

শুধু আইনি ব্যবহারের ক্ষেত্রেই নয়, যাচাইবিহীন ভিডিও নিউজরুমে অবিশ্বাসের শিকার হতে পারে, সাধারণ মানুষের কাছে বাতিল হতে পারে অথবা বিভ্রান্তিমূলক প্রচারণার অস্ত্র হয়ে উঠতে পারে। বিষয়গুলো সত্য উন্মোচন ও সম্মিলিত স্মৃতিকে ক্ষতিগ্রস্ত করে। সরকার যখন আন্দোলনের ইতিহাস মুছে ফেলতে বা বিকৃত করতে উদ্যত, তখন জনগণের ধারণ করা ফুটেজের সত‌্যতা আরও গুরুত্বপূর্ণ হয়ে দাঁড়ায়। শুধু আদালতের জন্য নয়, সত্যের জন্যও।

এই কারণেই বহু ডিজিটাল অনুসন্ধানকারী ও আর্কাইভকর্মী কার্যকর ও পদ্ধতিগত সংরক্ষণ প্রচেষ্টার জরুরি প্রয়োজনীয়তার ওপর জোর দিচ্ছেন। এটি কেবল আদালতের প্রমাণ নয়, এটি সাংবাদিক, শিক্ষক, ভবিষ্যৎ প্রজন্ম এবং আন্দোলন নিজস্ব ইতিহাস সংরক্ষণের বিষয়। WITNESS দেশীয় অংশীদারদের সঙ্গে মিলে যাচাই-বাছাই ও আর্কাইভ সক্ষমতা গড়ে তুলতে কাজ চালিয়ে যাচ্ছে, যাতে নথিপত্র হয় নিরাপদ, নৈতিক ও প্রামাণিক মানসম্পন্ন।

সম্মিলিত ধারণ, সম্মিলিত সংরক্ষণ

বর্ষা বিপ্লবের পর বাংলাদেশে একটি অন্তর্বর্তীকালীন সরকার গঠিত হয়। প্রধান উপদেষ্টা হিসেবে নিযুক্ত হন নোবেল বিজয়ী ড. মুহাম্মদ ইউনুস। এ সরকারের মধ্যে ছাত্র প্রতিনিধি রয়েছে, যা প্রতিফলিত করে তৃণমূলে থাকা বিপ্লবের চেতনাকে। দেশ-বিদেশে ব্যাপক প্রত্যাশা রয়েছে, নতুন সরকার আগের আমলে সংঘটিত অপরাধে দায়ীদের বিচার করবে।

তবে, অভ‌্যুত্থানের এক বছর পরও ন্যায়বিচারের অনেকটাই নির্ভর করছে ভিজ্যুয়াল প্রমাণের মান, সততা এবং সংরক্ষণের উপর। মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের যথাযথভাবে সংরক্ষিত ও যাচাই করা দলিল না থাকলে দায়ীদের জবাবদিহিতা নিশ্চিত করা কঠিন হতে পারে।

ন্যায়বিচারের পথ দীর্ঘ। কিন্তু সংগঠিত সংরক্ষণ, বিশ্বাসযোগ্য যাচাই এবং বৈশ্বিক একতার মাধ্যমে, ক্যামেরায় ধারণ করা সত্য বাস্তব জবাবদিহিতায় পৌঁছতে পারে। এই প্রচেষ্টার অংশ হিসেবে WITNESS বাংলাদেশি কর্মী ও কমিউনিটির সঙ্গে কাজ করে চলছে। সত‌্যকে নথিভুক্ত করার অধিকারকে শক্তিশালী করতে, ভিডিও বাছাইয়ের দক্ষতাকে দৃঢ় করতে এবং জনতার ফুটেজকে শক্তিশালী প্রমাণ হিসেবে রক্ষায় সহায়তা করতে।

শোয়েব আব্দুল্লাহ বাংলাদেশের একজন ডিজিটাল রাইটস এক্টিভিস্ট। তার আগ্রহের বিষয়  অনলাইন পরিসরে স্বাধীন ও মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের ভিজয়াল আর্কাইভ। শোয়েব ডিজিটাল অধিকার বিষয়ক সংগঠন অ্যাক্টিভেট রাইটস-এর সহ-প্রতিষ্ঠাতা, যা প্রযুক্তি ও জবাবদিহিতার সংযোগস্থলে কাজ করে । এছাড়া তিনি বাংলাদেশ প্রোটেস্ট আর্কাইভ-এরও সহ-প্রতিষ্ঠাতা, যা ২০২৪ সালের জুলাই বিদ্রোহ চলাকালে সংঘটিত গুরুতর মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের নথিপত্র সংরক্ষণ ও প্রামাণ্য দলিল তৈরিতে নিবেদিত। এই আর্কাইভের মাধ্যমে তিনি কমিউনিটি-নেতৃত্বাধীন উদ্যোগগুলোকে সহায়তা করেন, যাতে রাষ্ট্রীয় সহিংসতা ও নাগরিক প্রতিরোধের প্রমাণ সংরক্ষিত থাকে।

শোয়েবের কাজের পরিধি অধিকার রক্ষার লড়াই থেকে মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের ওপেন-সোর্স ইনভেস্টিগেশন। তিনি বর্তমানে একাধিক অনুসন্ধানী সংস্থার সঙ্গে কাজ করছেন, ২০২৪ সালের জুলাই গণহত্যার অপরাধীদের শনাক্ত করতে এবং বাংলাদেশের জন্য রূপান্তরমূলক ন্যায়বিচারের প্রচেষ্টাকে সহায়তা করতে।

The post ফিল্মিং দ্য আপরাইজিং: রেকর্ড করার হক ব্যবহার করে যেভাবে স্বৈরশাসন হটালো বাংলাদেশী তরুণরা appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

Baca versi Bahasa Indonesia di sini.

Across West Papua, the struggle for justice is ongoing—and often silenced. In the face of repression, community-led documentation efforts have become a lifeline for truth, memory and resistance. From hidden archives to grassroots films, this piece explores how Papuans are reclaiming their narratives and building tools for long-term accountability. WITNESS has supported these grassroots efforts through training, resources, and partnerships that help communities document safely and effectively.

The Urgency of Documentation

Extrajudicial killings, land dispossession, environmental destruction and systemic racism have become part of everyday life in West Papua, one of the most militarised and heavily surveilled regions in Indonesia. Human rights violations are widespread: press freedom is under attack, internet access is often restricted, and journalists and activists face intimidation, arrest and violence. 

These are not isolated incidents—they form a consistent pattern of state repression and neglect. In the face of these abuses, Papuan communities have turned to documentation as both a tool of resistance and a means of survival. Whether through testimonies, protest footage, or hidden archives, these acts of memory ensure that the truth lives on.

Protest in West Papua demanding justice and an end to racism. Credit: Yokbeth Felle | Date and location undisclosed.

From Protest to Proof: The Rise of Community-Led Documentation

Since the era of President Soeharto’s New Order from 1967-1998, West Papua has experienced decades of state violence, repression, and militarization. This legacy continues today under President Prabowo Subianto himself, a former general shaped by Soeharto’s military apparatus whose administration has intensified military operations in the central highlands, resulting in mass displacement, trauma, and ongoing human rights violations. Against this backdrop, efforts to document, resist, and advocate for justice have become even more urgent.

In response to decades of abuse, advocacy institutions such as Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Papua (Papua Legal Aid), ELSHAM Papua (Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy in Papua), and Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation of the Franciscan Order (JPIC OFM Papua) were established to provide legal and humanitarian support. Alongside these formal efforts, communities across West Papua have taken to the streets to protest, speak out, and share their testimonies. As technology became more accessible, particularly in the early 2000s, more activists and journalists began using mobile phones to document their stories, share evidence of abuses, and assert their presence in the public record, often at great personal risk.

These parallel efforts, formal advocacy, grassroots resistance, and everyday documentation, have collectively shaped a powerful and evolving ecosystem of truth-telling, resilience, and collective memory in the face of ongoing silencing.

Since 1999, JPIC OFM Papua has consistently documented human rights violations in West Papua through its annual report titled Memoria Passionis Di Papua. Each edition adopts a  different thematic focus, tailored to the specific violations and events of that year. Most recently, in April 2025, JPIC OFM launched its 43rd volume, titled “Tong Bicara Tapi Tong Jalan Terus” (“​​We Speak [our concerns], yet You Proceed [undeterred]). The report  comprises analytical reflections by six authors on the state of human rights, socio-political conditions and socio-economic realities in West Papua throughout 2024. During the launch, Philosophy and Theology lecturer, Ignasius Ngar from Fajar Timur Jayapura, remarked that  the work of JPIC OFM constitutes a deliberate and crucial attempt to sustain the collective memory of a people whose present realities are anything but peaceful. 

This comment invited a deeper reflection: why is the act of preserving collective memory so critical in the context of West Papua?

Infographic from Amnesty International’s report “DON’T BOTHER, JUST LET HIM DIE” shows 95 unlawful killings in Papua (2010–2018), mostly involving security forces and marked by widespread impunity.

Memory as Resistance: Why We Record

Preserving collective memory in West Papua is vital in the face of ongoing political repression and erasure. Papuans continue to struggle for self-determination under what many see as a colonial relationship with the Indonesian state. Decades of military violence have left deep intergenerational trauma, while the loss of ancestral lands severs cultural and spiritual ties. As non-Papuan settlers assert dominance, indigenous identity is increasingly marginalised. Systemic racism further devalues Papuan lives and voices. In this context, to document is to resist—to say: We were here. This happened. And the world must not look away.

One emblematic case is the 2019 racist incident involving Papuan students in Surabaya, who were called “monkeys” and subjected to chants such as “Expel the Papuans.” According to information collated by the non-governmental organisation, TAPOL, at least 61 civilians were killed, including 35 indigenous West Papuans—30 of whom died from bullet wounds likely inflicted by Indonesian security forces. Over 284 civilians were injured, many avoiding hospitals due to fear of arrest. A total of 22,800 civilians were displaced—including more than 11,000 from Wamena and 6,000 Papuan students who returned home from across Indonesia. The crackdown also resulted in 1017 arrests, leading to 157 political prisoners and  22 individuals charged with treason.

“I know I have the legal right to resist all forms of racism. This country provides the space to learn, and I have studied its constitution, slogans and Pancasila. But why is my struggle for equality, humanity, social justice and freedom met with guns and imprisonment? I believe the right to speak and be heard is a constitutional and human right. I have exercised this right peacefully, without harming anyone. I believe that resisting racism is both a right and a duty for everyone who cares about social justice and human rights.” – West Papuan Activist (name undisclosed)

 

Community Media, Camera in Hand

In the aftermath of the 2019 protests, Papuan Voices, a local audiovisual media collective, played a crucial role in documenting demonstrations and the subsequent legal proceedings against activists charged with treason. Their consistent documentation between 2019 and 2023 culminated in the release of a 35-minute documentary titled “Hukum yang Tra Jelas di Tanah Papua” (“The Law that Isn’t Clear in the Land of Papua”).

This film serves as an important tool for education and reflection on the urgent need to document violence and injustice in Papua. The advocacy surrounding human rights  activist Victor Yeimo’s case, including contributions to the above film, underscores how critical it is to record every moment—especially those that are fleeting and may never happen again. One such instance was when Victor was escorted to court under heavily armed guards and treated as if he were a terrorist. This moment was captured using a phone camera, with careful attention to image stability, lighting, contrast and sound quality, despite the risks and vulnerability of the situation.

Papuan Voices didn’t just rely on primary data; but also compiled secondary video footage from demonstrations in Manokwari, Fakfak and Sorong and safely stored them prior to an internet blackout and crackdown in 2019. These were archived on hard drives and later edited into the documentary. 

This process reflects a growing awareness among community documenters about the importance of both immediate capture and long-term preservation—key pillars in the documentation strategy WITNESS promotes globally. To support these goals, WITNESS provides practical resources such as the Video as Evidence Field Guide, and Activists’ Quick Guide to Archiving Video. Visual media, especially when safely archived and verified, holds the power to challenge official narratives, preserve truth, and support future justice efforts.

From Festivals to Frontlines

The growing presence of film-based platforms such as the West Papua Mini Film Festival and the Papuan Film Festival further illustrates how community-rooted storytelling has become a powerful strategy for reclaiming Papuan narratives. These festivals offer vital platforms for indigenous filmmakers to assert their perspectives, challenge dominant state narratives and foster a culture of truth-telling through art. The West Papua Mini Film Festival, hosted in collaboration with the West Papua Project at the University of Wollongong in Australia, showcases works by Papuan filmmakers and grassroots documenters, while the Papuan Film Festival, organised locally in Papua—by Papuan Voices and its broader community network—emphasizes community engagement, youth participation and cultural resilience. Through screenings, workshops and dialogue, both festivals create space for reflection, creative expression and international solidarity.

“I think it is very important for the world to know what happened in West Papua, because human rights abuse happen every day and in every place” – Victor Mambor, founder of Jubi, a West Papuan news outlet

 

Festival Film Papua, first held in Merauke, Papua in 2017, celebrates grassroots storytelling and amplifies Papuan voices through film. Credit: Papuan Voices.

Victor Mambor, founder of the Jubi news media group, exemplifies the risks faced by Papuan journalists. Despite receiving the Oktovianus Pogau Award for courageous journalism, he has been repeatedly targeted for his reporting. In January 2023, a bomb exploded outside his home in Jayapura. This followed earlier acts of intimidation, including vandalism of his car in 2021. To date, no suspects have been arrested. Mambor, who also contributed to an award-winning Al Jazeera documentary about forest plunder in Papua, continues his work undeterred, insisting that Papuans must be free to tell their own stories. His journalism has drawn attention to issues not only within Indonesia, but across the Pacific, where he has also helped to establish the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum. 

Building Archives, Sustaining Memory

Historically, advocacy and memory preservation in Papua have involved collaborations between non-governmental organisations and church networks. Bernard Koten from JFIC OFM, for instance, has experience documenting human rights violations using simple tools such as MP3 recorders, photographs, camcorders and eventually digital cameras. One of the organisation’s early documentaries advocated for the establishment of a traditional women’s market (Pasar mama-mama) in Jayapura. While much of this early documentation remains unpublished or archived offline due to safety concerns and access limitations, its impact continues to shape today’s approaches to community-based evidence gathering and storytelling.

Credit: Papuan Voices.

JFIC OFM has established and maintained a robust archival system. Physical documents are stored in a dedicated archive and library room, while digital files are backed up on cloud-based platforms like Mega.nz and Google Drive. Their documentation is also shared with partners and made publicly accessible. This mirrors efforts by other grassroots initiatives across the globe—many of which are supported by WITNESS—to build secure, accessible and community-owned archives that protect evidence and preserve collective memory.

Global Solidarity and Long-Term Justice

International solidarity efforts, such as those led by TAPOL, have also contributed to sustaining documentation and advocacy. Through initiatives like Papuans Behind Bars, TAPOL has monitored and published data on political prisoners in Papua, amplifying the stories of those criminalised for expressing dissent. Their regular reports and online database complement grassroots visual evidence by providing structured, verifiable information that can be used for international advocacy and legal intervention. 

In line with this, WITNESS has developed resources specifically for the Papuan context. The Filming Protests in West Papua tipsheet offers practical guidance on how to film safely and ethically in high-risk environments. It includes advice on legal considerations, protecting identities, securing data and ensuring the safety of both documenters and those filmed. The guide is also available in Bahasa Indonesia, making it accessible for local activists and citizen journalists.

Conclusion: Documentation as Resistance and Hope

In a land where silence is often enforced and truth suppressed, the steadfast efforts of community-based documentation initiatives in West Papua to record, preserve and share the lived realities of Papuans stand as a powerful act of resistance. These efforts do more than safeguard memory—they are strategic tools in the ongoing pursuit of truth and accountability. While justice may take time, documentation ensures that the truth is preserved and ready to support action when the moment comes. When used intentionally, it can expose abuses, challenge impunity and lay the groundwork for meaningful change. As part of this global movement, WITNESS helps people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights—ensuring that communities have the tools to tell their own stories and seek the justice they deserve.

To those on the frontlines—activists, communities and organizers—your work matters. Continue to Be Safe, Be Ethical, and Be Effective. Every image, testimony and archive strengthens the collective effort to honor lived experiences and bring about the justice that is possible and still to come.

If you’re looking to stay informed and better equipped, here are some resources and tools that may support your work:

• Filming Protest in West Papua – A practical guide for documenting protest safely, ethically, and effectively in West Papua.
• Video as Evidence Field Guide – Tips for filming with purpose and accountability
• Activists’ Guide to Archiving Video – Practical steps for protecting and preserving visual documentation
• Tips for Filming During Internet Shutdowns – What to do when access is limited or cut off

Explore the WITNESS Resource Library for more tips and guidance on human rights documentation.

Yokbeth Felle is a human rights activist in West Papua who focuses on women’s issues. She currently works as a freelance researcher, supporting various organizations in studying education and healthcare challenges in Papua. Yokbeth is also involved in documenting several films on human rights violations in the region. Her activism extends into the digital space, where she uses online platforms to advocate for both women’s rights and the broader struggle for West Papua’s political rights and aspirations. 

Published on July 17th, 2025.

The post Bearing Witness: The Power of Community-Led Documentation in West Papua appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

Read the English version here.

Di seluruh Tanah Papua, perjuangan untuk keadilan terus berlangsung, namun sering dibungkam. Di tengah represi, upaya dokumentasi yang dipimpin oleh komunitas menjadi jalur penting untuk menjaga kebenaran, memori, dan perlawanan. Dari arsip yang tidak terpublikasi  hingga pendokumentasian  akar rumput, tulisan ini mengulas bagaimana komunitas Papua merebut kembali narasi mereka dan membangun alat untuk akuntabilitas jangka panjang. WITNESS telah mendukung upaya komunitas ini melalui pelatihan, penyediaan sumber daya, dan kolaborasi yang membantu mendokumentasikan narasi secara aman dan efektif.

Mendesaknya Dokumentasi

Penghilangan nyawa, perampasan tanah, perusakan lingkungan, dan rasisme sistemik telah menjadi bagian dari kehidupan sehari-hari di Tanah Papua—salah satu wilayah yang paling termiliterisasi dan tertindas di Indonesia. Pelanggaran hak asasi manusia (HAM) terjadi secara luas: kebebasan pers diserang, akses internet sering dibatasi, dan jurnalis serta aktivis menghadapi intimidasi, penangkapan, hingga kekerasan. Ini bukanlah kejadian-kejadian yang tidak terhubung, melainkan bagian dari pola represi dan pengabaian negara yang terus-menerus.

Menghadapi berbagai pelanggaran ini, komunitas dan pejuang HAM di Papua menjadikan dokumentasi sebagai alat perlawanan sekaligus sarana bertahan hidup. Melalui kesaksian, rekaman aksi protes, atau arsip yang tidak terpublikasi, tindakan mengingat ini harus terus dilakukan untuk memastikan bahwa kebenaran tetap hidup.

Unjuk rasa di Papua menuntut keadilan dan penghentian rasisme. Foto milik Yokbeth Felle | Tanggal dan lokasi tidak disebutkan.

Dari Protes Menjadi Bukti: Tumbuhnya Dokumentasi Berbasis Komunitas

Sejak era Orde Baru di bawah Presiden Soeharto dari tahun 1967 hingga 1998, Tanah Papua mengalami dekade kekerasan negara, represi, dan militerisasi. Warisan ini berlanjut hingga hari ini di bawah kepemimpinan Presiden Prabowo Subianto, seorang mantan jenderal yang dibentuk oleh aparat militer Orde Baru, yang pemerintahannya justru memperparah operasi militer di wilayah pegunungan tengah, menyebabkan pengungsian massal, trauma, dan pelanggaran HAM yang terus berlanjut. Dalam situasi ini, upaya dokumentasi, perlawanan, dan advokasi untuk keadilan menjadi semakin mendesak.

Sebagai respons atas kekerasan yang berlangsung selama puluhan tahun, lembaga-lembaga advokasi seperti Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH) Papua, ELSHAM Papua (Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Hak Asasi Manusia Papua), dan Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Ordo Fransiskan (JPIC OFM Papua) didirikan untuk memberikan dukungan hukum dan kemanusiaan. Di samping upaya formal ini, komunitas di seluruh Papua juga turun ke jalan untuk memprotes, menyuarakan ketidakadilan, dan membagikan kesaksian mereka. Seiring dengan semakin mudahnya akses terhadap teknologi, terutama sejak awal tahun 2000-an, semakin banyak aktivis dan jurnalis yang menggunakan ponsel untuk mendokumentasikan kisah mereka, menyebarkan bukti kekerasan, dan menegaskan keberadaan mereka dalam catatan publik, seringkali dengan risiko besar.

Upaya paralel antara advokasi formal, perlawanan akar rumput, dan dokumentasi sehari-hari ini telah membentuk ekosistem yang kuat dan terus berkembang untuk penegakan kebenaran, ketahanan komunitas, dan memori kolektif di tengah upaya pembungkaman yang terus-menerus.

Sejak tahun 1999, JPIC OFM Papua secara konsisten mendokumentasikan pelanggaran HAM di Tanah Papua melalui laporan tahunan bertajuk Memoria Passionis Di Papua. Setiap edisi mengangkat tema yang berbeda, disesuaikan dengan situasi dan pelanggaran yang terjadi di tahun tersebut. Pada April 2025, JPIC OFM meluncurkan edisi ke-43 dengan judul “Tong Bicara Tapi Tong Jalan Terus”, sebuah refleksi kritis oleh enam penulis yang membahas situasi HAM, kondisi sosial-politik, dan realitas sosial-ekonomi Papua sepanjang tahun 2024. Dalam peluncurannya, dosen filsafat dan teologi dari STFT Fajar Timur Jayapura, Ignasius Ngar, menyatakan bahwa karya JPIC OFM merupakan upaya sadar dan penting untuk menjaga memori kolektif suatu bangsa yang kenyataan hidupnya jauh dari kata damai.

Pernyataan ini mengajak kita merenung lebih dalam: mengapa menjaga memori kolektif menjadi begitu penting dalam konteks Papua?

Infografik dari laporan Amnesty International berjudul “DON’T BOTHER, JUST LET HIM DIE (Jangan Pedulikan, Biarkan Saja Dia Mati)”  menunjukkan kasus pelanggaran HAM di Papua (2010–2018), sebagian besar melibatkan aparat keamanan dan ditandai oleh impunitas yang meluas.

Ingatan sebagai Perlawanan: Mengapa Kita Merekam

Merawat ingatan kolektif di Papua adalah hal vital di tengah represi politik dan penghapusan sejarah yang terus berlangsung. Orang Papua terus berjuang untuk penentuan nasib sendiri di bawah hubungan yang banyak dianggap kolonial dengan negara Indonesia. Kekerasan militer selama puluhan tahun telah menimbulkan trauma lintas generasi, sementara hilangnya tanah adat memutus ikatan budaya dan spiritual. Pendatang non-Papua kian mendominasi, sementara identitas asli Papua makin terpinggirkan. Rasisme sistemik terus merendahkan nilai hidup dan suara orang Papua. Dalam konteks ini, mendokumentasikan adalah bentuk perlawanan, untuk menyatakan: Kami ada. Ini terjadi. Dan dunia tak boleh berpaling.

Salah satu kasus yang menjadi simbol adalah insiden rasisme tahun 2019 terhadap mahasiswa Papua di Surabaya, yang disebut “monyet” dan diteriaki “Usir orang Papua.” Menurut data dari TAPOL, setidaknya 61 warga sipil terbunuh, termasuk 35 orang Papua—30 di antaranya karena luka tembak yang diduga dilakukan oleh aparat keamanan. Lebih dari 284 orang terluka, banyak yang tidak berani ke rumah sakit karena takut ditangkap. Sebanyak 22.800 orang mengungsi, termasuk lebih dari 11.000 dari Wamena dan 6.000 mahasiswa Papua yang kembali dari seluruh Indonesia. Penindasan ini juga menyebabkan 1.017 penangkapan, dengan 157 menjadi tahanan politik dan 22 orang didakwa makar.

“Saya tahu saya punya hak hukum untuk menolak segala bentuk rasisme. Negara ini menyediakan ruang untuk belajar, dan saya telah mempelajari konstitusinya, slogannya, dan Pancasila. Tapi mengapa perjuangan saya untuk kesetaraan, kemanusiaan, keadilan sosial dan kebebasan justru dibalas dengan senjata dan penjara? Saya percaya bahwa hak untuk berbicara dan didengar adalah hak konstitusional dan hak asasi manusia. Saya menjalankan hak itu secara damai, tanpa merugikan siapapun. Saya percaya melawan rasisme adalah hak dan juga kewajiban bagi siapa pun yang peduli pada keadilan sosial dan HAM.” – Aktivis Papua (nama disamarkan)

Media Komunitas Menggunakan Kamera untuk Perlawanan

Pasca protes 2019, Papuan Voices—kolektif media audiovisual lokal—memainkan peran penting dalam mendokumentasikan aksi-aksi dan proses hukum terhadap para aktivis yang didakwa makar. Dokumentasi mereka dari tahun 2019 hingga 2023 melahirkan film dokumenter berdurasi 35 menit berjudul “Hukum yang Tra Jelas di Tanah Papua.”

Film ini menjadi alat penting untuk pendidikan dan refleksi atas pentingnya mendokumentasikan kekerasan dan ketidakadilan di Papua. Advokasi terkait kasus aktivis politik Victor Yeimo, termasuk kontribusi dalam film tersebut, menegaskan pentingnya merekam setiap momen, terutama yang cepat berlalu dan tak bisa diulang. Salah satu momen penting adalah ketika Victor dibawa ke pengadilan di bawah penjagaan ketat bersenjata, diperlakukan seolah-olah ia seorang teroris. Momen ini direkam menggunakan kamera ponsel dengan perhatian pada stabilitas gambar, pencahayaan, kontras, dan kualitas suara di tengah risiko tinggi.

Papuan Voices tak hanya menggunakan data primer, tapi juga mengumpulkan rekaman sekunder dari demo di Manokwari, Fakfak, dan Sorong, serta menyimpannya dengan aman sebelum pemadaman internet dan penindasan pada 2019. Semua ini diarsipkan dalam hard drive dan kemudian diedit menjadi dokumenter.

Proses ini mencerminkan meningkatnya kesadaran di kalangan pendokumentasi komunitas tentang pentingnya tidak hanya merekam kejadian secara langsung, tetapi juga menjaga hasil dokumentasi untuk jangka panjang—dua pilar utama dalam strategi dokumentasi yang dikembangkan oleh WITNESS secara global. Untuk mendukung tujuan ini, WITNESS menyediakan berbagai sumber daya praktis seperti Video as Evidence Field Guide dan Activists’ Quick Guide to Archiving Video. Media visual, terutama jika diarsipkan dengan aman dan diverifikasi, memiliki kekuatan untuk menantang narasi resmi, menjaga kebenaran, dan mendukung upaya keadilan di masa depan.

Dari Festival ke Garis Depan

Munculnya wahana film komunitas seperti West Papua Mini Film Festival dan Papuan Film Festival menegaskan bahwa penceritaan berbasis komunitas adalah strategi kuat untuk merebut kembali narasi Papua. Festival-festival ini memberi ruang penting bagi sineas asli Papua untuk menyuarakan perspektif mereka, menantang narasi negara, dan membudayakan keberanian berkata jujur melalui seni. 

West Papua Mini Film Festival diselenggarakan bersama West Papua Project dari University of Wollongong, Australia, sementara Papuan Film Festival digelar secara lokal oleh Papuan Voices dan jejaring komunitasnya. Keduanya menekankan partisipasi generasi muda, keterlibatan masyarakat, dan ketahanan budaya. 

“Saya rasa penting sekali bagi dunia untuk tahu apa yang terjadi di Papua, karena pelanggaran HAM terjadi setiap hari dan di mana-mana.” —Victor Mambor

Festival Film Papua, yang pertama kali diselenggarakan di Merauke, Papua pada tahun 2017, merayakan cerita-cerita akar rumput dan mengangkat suara-suara Papua melalui film. Kredit: Papuan Voices.

Victor Mambor, pendiri media Jubi, adalah contoh nyata risiko yang dihadapi jurnalis Papua. Meskipun menerima Oktovianus Pogau Award atas keberaniannya, ia berulang kali menjadi sasaran. Pada Januari 2023, sebuah bom meledak di luar rumahnya di Jayapura, setelah sebelumnya mobilnya dirusak pada 2021. Hingga kini, tidak ada tersangka yang ditangkap. Mambor, yang juga berkontribusi dalam dokumenter Al Jazeera tentang perusakan hutan di Papua, tetap melanjutkan kerja jurnalistiknya, menegaskan bahwa orang Papua berhak untuk bercerita. Karyanya menarik perhatian tidak hanya di Indonesia, tapi juga di kawasan Pasifik, di mana ia turut mendirikan Melanesian Media Freedom Forum. 

Membangun Arsip, Merawat Ingatan

Sejak lama, pelestarian ingatan dan advokasi di Papua dilakukan lewat kerja sama antara NGO dan jaringan gereja. Bernard Koten dari JPIC OFM, misalnya, mulai mendokumentasikan pelanggaran HAM menggunakan alat sederhana seperti perekam MP3, kamera foto, handycam, hingga kamera digital. Salah satu film awal mereka mendukung perjuangan mendirikan pasar tradisional bagi mama-mama Papua di Jayapura (Pasar Mama-Mama). Walau sebagian besar dokumentasi awal ini belum dipublikasikan atau hanya diarsipkan offline karena alasan keamanan, dampaknya tetap terasa hingga kini.

JPIC OFM Papua telah mengembangkan dan memelihara sistem arsip yang kuat untuk menjaga dokumentasi mereka. Catatan fisik disimpan di ruang arsip dan perpustakaan khusus, sementara file digital dicadangkan secara aman di platform berbasis cloud seperti Mega.nz dan Google Drive. Materi-materi ini tidak hanya disimpan, tetapi juga dibagikan kepada mitra dan dapat diakses publik, menunjukkan komitmen terhadap transparansi dan memori kolektif. Pendekatan ini mencerminkan gerakan global yang lebih luas, sebagaimana terlihat dalam banyak inisiatif akar rumput yang didukung oleh WITNESS, yang mengutamakan arsip yang aman, mudah diakses, dan dimiliki oleh komunitas untuk melindungi bukti serta memperkuat narasi mereka yang paling terdampak oleh ketidakadilan.

Solidaritas Global dan Keadilan Jangka Panjang

Upaya solidaritas internasional, seperti yang dilakukan TAPOL, juga memperkuat dokumentasi dan advokasi. Melalui inisiatif Papuans Behind Bars, TAPOL memantau dan mempublikasikan data tentang tahanan politik Papua, mengangkat kisah mereka yang dikriminalisasi karena menyampaikan pendapat. Laporan rutin dan basis data online TAPOL melengkapi bukti visual komunitas dengan informasi terstruktur yang dapat digunakan dalam advokasi dan intervensi hukum internasional.

Sejalan dengan itu, WITNESS telah mengembangkan sumber daya khusus untuk konteks Papua. Panduan Merekam Aksi Protes di Papua memberikan panduan praktis tentang cara merekam dengan aman dan etis di situasi berisiko tinggi, termasuk pertimbangan hukum, perlindungan identitas, keamanan data, dan keselamatan bagi pendokumentasi dan yang didokumentasikan. 

Penutup: Dokumentasi sebagai Perlawanan dan Harapan

Di tanah di mana kesunyian sering dipaksakan dan kebenaran ditekan, upaya gigih inisiatif dokumentasi berbasis komunitas di Tanah Papua untuk merekam, menyimpan, dan membagikan realitas kehidupan orang Papua menjadi bentuk perlawanan yang sangat kuat. Upaya ini bukan sekadar menjaga memori—tetapi juga menjadi alat strategis dalam perjuangan berkelanjutan untuk kebenaran dan akuntabilitas. Meski keadilan mungkin datang terlambat, dokumentasi memastikan bahwa kebenaran tetap terjaga dan siap mendukung aksi saat waktunya tiba. Jika digunakan secara strategis, dokumentasi mampu membuka tabir pelanggaran, menantang impunitas, dan menjadi fondasi bagi perubahan yang bermakna. 

Sebagai bagian dari gerakan global ini, WITNESS membantu masyarakat menggunakan video dan teknologi untuk melindungi serta membela hak asasi manusia—dengan memastikan bahwa komunitas memiliki alat untuk menceritakan kisah mereka sendiri dan memperjuangkan keadilan yang mereka layak dapatkan.

Untuk yang berada di  garis depan—para aktivis, komunitas, dan penyelenggara—kerja mereka sangat berarti. Teruslah Aman, Etis, dan Efektif. Setiap gambar, kesaksian, arsip dan dokumentasi memperkuat upaya kolektif untuk menghormati pengalaman yang telah dijalani dan mendorong terwujudnya keadilan yang mungkin dan masih akan datang.

Jika ingin tetap mendapatkan informasi terbaru dan lebih siap dalam menghadapi tantangan, berikut beberapa panduan yang dapat diakses:

• Tips untuk Merekam Protes Sosial di Papua 
• Video as Evidence Field Guide – Panduan untuk Merekam dengan Tujuan dan Akuntabilitas
• Activists’ Guide to Archiving Video – Langkah Praktis untuk Melindungi dan Menyimpan Dokumentasi Visual
• Tips for Filming During Internet Shutdowns 
• Jelajahi koleksi panduan dan sumber lainnya di  WITNESS Resource Library untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak tips dan panduan seputar dokumentasi HAM

Yokbeth Felle adalah seorang aktivis HAM di Papua yang berfokus pada isu-isu perempuan. Saat ini, ia bekerja sebagai peneliti lepas yang mendukung berbagai organisasi dalam mengkaji tantangan di bidang pendidikan dan kesehatan di Papua. Yokbeth juga terlibat dalam proses dokumentasi sejumlah film tentang pelanggaran HAM di wilayah tersebut. Aktivismenya meluas hingga ke ruang digital, di mana ia menggunakan berbagai platform online untuk mengadvokasi pembebasan perempuan sekaligus perjuangan lebih luas untuk penentuan nasib sendiri bagi rakyat Papua.

Dipublikasikan tanggal 17 Juli 2025.

The post Menyaksikan Kebenaran: Kekuatan Dokumentasi Berbasis Komunitas di Papua appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

This blog was written by our partner, AlterMidya, with contributions from the WITNESS team.

Why This Workshop Mattered

As the 2025 Philippine midterm elections approach, the rise of generative AI and deepfakes has posed a serious threat to democratic integrity. In response, a workshop by WITNESS, in collaboration with AlterMidya, was held in April 2025—just a month before the election—to equip journalists, activists, and media workers with critical skills to identify, counter, and report on these digital threats. 

As AI-generated content becomes more accessible and convincing, its misuse has rapidly evolved into a powerful tool for manipulating public opinion, spreading disinformation, and undermining trust in electoral processes.

Arul Prakkash, WITNESS’ Senior Program Manager for Asia and the Pacific, facilitated the program, commencing with questions on the participants’ hopes and concerns on using generative AI tools. The quick sharing of responses manifested distress on the challenge of verifying the products of AI, as well as its accessibility and unclear ethics in its use. Moreover, the participants expressed their concerns about its potential to accelerate fake news and spread harmful narratives, especially in politically sensitive contexts. Examples of which have previously been documented in the region.

Generative AI platforms such as Sora, Runway, and Midjourney can now easily produce realistic photos, videos and audio. When exploited, these tools enable trolls and bad-faith actors to create disinformation at a large scale. Deepfakes, for example, have been used to fabricate endorsements, fake rallies and produce misleading campaign videos that are difficult for the public to verify. 

AI as a Tool for Surveillance and Red-Tagging

Given the landscape of Philippine politics, the emergence of technology such as generative AI tools and deepfakes has allowed their weaponization to push forward propaganda, especially against progressive groups and candidates.

During the workshop, Ian Angelo Aragoza, Education Officer of the Computer Professionals’ Union, discussed misuse of the supposed innovation as a tool for perpetrating red-tagging and surveillance of targeted groups and individuals. 

Red-tagging refers to the act of labeling individuals or organizations as being linked to armed or subversive activities, often without credible evidence. This practice places them at risk of harassment, violence, or even extrajudicial actions. This tactic has been used to discredit, intimidate, and endanger activists, journalists, and civil society actors. With AI-generated content, red-tagging can now spread faster, appear more convincing, and become harder to debunk. This further escalates the risks for those targeted. 

Citing one of the most recent studies, Aragoza noted the presence of at least 14 Facebook pages dedicated to labeling groups and individuals as members of leftist political movements. These pages often use AI-generated and deepfake content to spread red-tagging narratives, which receive huge engagements, simultaneously harming the images of its targeted entities, despite the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) recognizing that red-tagging and any form of discrimination as an election violation. 

Meanwhile, the insights of the participants on this matter allowed productive sharing of potential actions to counter the given circumstances. Among the perceived resolutions in addressing the issue was through a person-to-person strategy, where individuals could be informed of the basic identification of AI-generated products and deepfakes, such as unclear or deformed hands and low-quality textual images. Despite this, given the fast-paced nature of advancements, such hints may soon be more challenging to identify. Therefore, workshop participants recognized the need to hold big tech companies accountable for this and to urge governments to regulate generative AI tools as long-term solutions to the matter. 

“Fighting disinformation today isn’t just about fact-checking — it’s about building trust, standing together and understanding how fast these AI-generated lies can spread.”

Beyond disinformation campaigns, questions also remain about the transparency of the broader Philippine electoral system. The final report of Kontra Daya and Vote Report PH, during the 2022 national election highlighted many technical issues, such as Vote Counting Machine (VCM) errors and Secure Digital (SD) Card failures, as well as electioneering and election process-related circumstances, all of which have contributed to worsening public trust. These systemic issues raise questions about the results of a technology-reliant electoral process.

Strengthening Our Defenses: The SIFT Approach

Recognizing an urgent need for verification tactics, the discussion moved to highlight some basic steps one might take when encountering potential AI-generated content. Content, which, if unfettered, could be capable of posing harm and/or disinformation.

Among the strategies presented was SIFT: 

• Stop before sharing the content and thoroughly checking the details;
• Investigate the source in terms of its credibility;
• Find better coverage to gather more reliable information;
• Trace claims, quotes, and media to the original context. 

This approach was paired with discussions on ethical reporting, which highlighted the significance of transparency and a sharing of the processes and tools that were utilized in analyzing content. The importance of educating the public on lesser-known aspects of verifying AI-generated content was also raised, as well as the need to provide proper context of the content analyzed. 

The workshop also introduced tools and support systems, such as WITNESS’ Deepfakes Rapid Response Force (DRRF), which helps journalists and human rights defenders analyse potentially manipulated media. The DRRF offers fast-turnaround analysis for urgent cases, especially in high-stakes political contexts, such as elections or conflicts, where human rights and democracy are under threat.

Meanwhile, calls to action on this matter were also discussed, specifically focused on the need to advocate for manual counting and electronic transmission, also known as the hybrid system, to secure the integrity of the election. 

From Tools to Movements: The Way Forward

As the workshop came to a close, participants reflected on the urgency of coordinated action. Technical tools alone are not enough. Defending democracy requires long-term investment in grassroots collaboration, community-based media, and legislative reform. As AI continues to evolve, defending truth and democracy will require both digital resilience and collective strategy.

“Disinformation is not just a tech issue, it is a political and economic one”.

For more practical tools and deeper context on documenting elections in the age of AI and disinformation, check out these resources:

• Filming Tips for Documenting the Philippine Elections in the Age of AI
  A practical guide for safely, ethically, and effectively filming during the 2025 elections — developed with local activists.
• Community-Based Approaches to Verification
  A guide to grassroots strategies for verifying visual media and countering disinformation.
• Things to Know Before Using AI Detection Tools
  Insights into the current capabilities—and limits—of AI detection.
• Spotting Deepfakes in an Election Year: How AI Detection Tool Work – and Sometimes Fail
  A practical guide on how to spot deepfakes during election cycles and protect against AI-driven disinformation.

In the face of deepfakes and disinformation, our strongest defense is not just detection but the power of communities to tell their own truths, shape their narratives, and hold power to account.

About AlterMidya: Altermidya – People’s Alternative Media Network is a national network of independent and progressive media outfits, institutions, and individuals with the aim to promote pro-people journalism by amplifying the issues and stories of marginalized sectors.

Published on 8 May 2025.

The post Defending Democracy: Human Rights Implications of Generative AI and Deepfakes in the 2025 Philippine Elections appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

WITNESS is excited to announce our new guide, Community-based Approaches to Visual Verification. Read below to learn more about how and why we created this valuable resource.

“We had videos that showed the Nigerian army storm into the Lekki Toll gate and open fire on us while we were singing the national anthem and waving the Nigerian flag. I have videos of us trying to tie a tourniquet on my wounded friend’s leg who was shot that night while I sang to him so he doesn’t close his eyes. Yet, our truth was met with disbelief, a painful denial that forced us to question the evidence of our own eyes, leaving scars that extend far beyond the physical wounds.”

– A protester’s account from the #ENDSARS protest of 2020

On the 8th of October 2020, a groundswell of predominantly young people took to the streets in a resolute protest against the deeply entrenched issue of police brutality perpetrated by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police Force. Tasked initially with combatting violent crimes like robbery and kidnapping, SARS had become infamous for perpetrating a litany of offenses against Nigerians, ranging from torture to extortion and other inhumane and degrading treatment. Young people, in particular, bore the brunt of these abuses.

These protests and calls to #EndSARS rapidly spread across major cities in the country and culminated in a watershed moment on October 20, 2020. On that day, members of the Nigerian Army and Police Force descended upon the Lekki Toll Gate, a central gathering point for protesters in Lagos state, and used live ammunition against unarmed and unresisting demonstrators who were waving the Nigerian Flag and singing the National Anthem. Many courageous protesters turned to their mobile cameras to document the violence. Notably, DJ Switch, a Nigerian DJ and activist, leveraged Instagram Live to broadcast the scenes of injured protesters and the haunting presence of bullet casings strewn across the protest site.

In the face of overwhelming video evidence and reports of at least 11 protesters killed, 24 injured and 15 assaulted, the Nigerian Army took to Twitter to deny and dismiss these reports. Furthermore, leveraging state media, the government unleashed a targeted disinformation campaign against the #EndSARS movement to delegitimize the visual evidence documented, thereby placing an unjustly high burden of proof on protesters who risked their lives to document horrid scenes of violence at the toll gate.  

Screenshot: X posts by Nigerian military showing denial of Lekki Toll Gate shooting

In addition, the lack of sufficient expertise among community practitioners to independently authenticate the visual evidence left the protesters vulnerable to various forms of online and offline harm. It took Amnesty International to come up with an investigative timeline and CNN to corroborate using documentation by protesters shared online, applying visual investigations techniques and tools to confirm what the protesters already knew to be true. It was only after this international pressure that the government took action, with states setting up judicial panels of inquiry. 

The Lekki Toll Gate shooting garnered worldwide media attention, particularly due to the large-scale use of social media by the protesters to mobilize support. This elevated the profile of the protest and made it a priority for global institutions to intervene. This is not often the case for most domestic agitations as they face harsh resistance from the government and often violent crackdowns. Without the necessary support for local journalists, fact-checkers and community organisers to verify documentation, fortify the truth, and hold power accountable, perpetrators of violence bear no consequences. Communities should not have to wait on global north organisations for their human rights documentation to be verified and authenticated. This is critical, specifically in instances where established human rights organisations and mainstream media do not deem the issues “newsworthy.”

These circumstances are not specific to Nigeria. Indeed, with the rapid advancement of technology that aids visual manipulation, frontline documenters around the world confront the stark reality of their videos being discredited as false, even as they risk their lives in dangerous situations to document grave human rights violations. On the other hand, in some instances, community members, including journalists and human rights defenders may unintentionally share inaccurate or misleading information. This includes recirculating dated footage, incorrect geolocations, and miscontextualisation. While technological advancements provide accessible means to verify this footage and unveil the truth, these skills and tools too often remain elusive to practitioners in the global majority – leaving them exposed to disinformation and gaslighting.

The tools and skills needed to verify audio-visual human rights documentation are not widely accessible. This is especially true for many frontline defenders in the global majority who are capturing or analyzing footage of abuses. While there is an active community of global human rights digital investigators and institutions, many are based in the global North, a great distance from where the incidents are taking place.  This approach overlooks the importance of community knowledge and localized expertise, resulting in mistakes, lack of cultural sensitivities and nuances when analyzing documentation.

To address this gap, WITNESS collaborated with grassroots activists, local experts and journalists to develop a new guide – The Community-based Visual Verification Guide. The guide supports individuals, journalists and community organizers to fortify the truth through a collaborative approach. It centers the knowledge and skills of local experts, community members, and social networks to verify information. The guide includes steps, processes, and tools that community members can use to verify the accuracy, reliability, and credibility of open source visual content, especially in situations where official sources of information may be unavailable or untrustworthy. 

At WITNESS, we believe that the key to uncovering the truth lies not in the hands of a few experts but within the collective wisdom and resilience of communities. Verification is critical for the success and use of audio-visual content to build human rights cases – whether used as evidence in the courtroom, community memorialisation or truth-seeking processes, effective advocacy, or responsible journalism. It is those who hold the expertise and understanding of their context who should hold the power to defend the truth and pursue justice. 

The post Why Do We Need Community-based Approaches to Visual Verification? appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

The EU’s third draft of the AI Code of Practice weakens crucial safeguards to no clear purpose. WITNESS, grounded in its work globally on this issue, knows the importance placed by marginalized communities on ensuring clarity and accountability around the use of AI as well as transparency on models and outputs, particularly in content and communication where truth is at risk. Innovation is not incompatible – indeed, aligns – with the confidence of all people in AI systems, and critical human rights-based safeguards. We should not sacrifice fundamental rights for corporate convenience. The CoP must rigorously reflect and strengthen the principles and safeguards enshrined in the EU AI Act.

 

– Sam Gregory, Executive Director, WITNESS

While one of the goals of the document is to provide a detailed framework for AI providers to ensure their models are safe, secure, and compliant with relevant regulations, we have concerns with a reduction of emphasis on some commitments now present in the latest version of the CoP, as well as a possible reduction in the scope of the systemic risks to be mitigated by GPAI providers. 

Below, WITNESS offers feedback on specific sections of the CoP, with the goal of strengthening the text so that the final version reinforces AI Act obligations rather than creating loopholes that could undermine them.

Transparency: Robust Guardrails start at the Model Level

This new version of the CoP has heavily eroded transparency provisions and weakened requirements for third-party evaluations for systemic risks within GPAI models. The current draft gives significant space to exempt companies from external assessment based on internal expertise or assessments from “similarly safe” models (Measure II.11.1). These are concessions that would be unprecedented in the regulation of technologies from other industries.  The final draft of CoP must demand robust third-party assessments by default for all GPAI models.

Robust regulations at the model level will result in the right guardrails and assessments of outputs. However, to ensure that AI systems are not only explainable but also that their decisions and outputs can be audited and understood by downstream users, the final draft should make a general requirement for transparency across all GPAI applications, and not just in the context of identifying and addressing serious incidents.

Protecting the Information Environment: A call for stronger Output Transparency on GPAI 

The CoP does make some effort towards serious incident reporting (Commitment II.12) – including requirements for tracking outputs from models using advanced techniques like watermarks, metadata, or other provenance methods. But currently, there is no explicit requirement for output transparency in GPAI models – neither in the AI Act or in the CoP.  However, Article 50 of the AI Act outlines binding obligations for providers of deepfake tools, which presents an opportunity to address the broader issue of output transparency in content and communications. While this is not inherently part of the voluntary guidelines of CoP, we understand that there is a clear gap in ensuring information integrity that should be focused on more effectively.

Looking ahead from Article 50, it is important to recognize that providers of deepfake tools will struggle to meet the transparency requirements if there is no pipeline responsibility back to the model creators. This challenge will be particularly significant in the case of open-source models, where accountability and traceability may be more complex to manage. Therefore, to achieve greater transparency and safeguard against misinformation, a more cohesive approach involving all stakeholders in the model development and deployment process is needed.

Another way to address this gap could be to expand the definition of transparency to include provisions for output transparency. This would involve ensuring that AI systems can be traced back to their origins (i.e., the model itself) and that the use of AI in any communicative or content output produced is clearly identifiable and understandable. This approach would align with the need for pipeline responsibility, particularly for open-source models. A review of the transparency concept needs to ensure that AI systems provide mechanisms for users to identify the source and nature of generated content within the CoP. 

Systemic Risks: Risks to Fundamental Rights Must Not Be Optional

This draft positions fundamental rights risks as optional. The transparency framework should ensure that companies are held accountable for how their models are used, especially in high-risk situations. Transparency isn’t just about what is shared—it’s also about ensuring that the right information is available to assess the risks associated with a given AI model. Additionally, transparency will enable companies to define and communicate the intended scenarios and use cases for their models, ensuring clearer guidance on their appropriate deployment and applications. 

Harmful manipulation, identified as a type of systemic risk, highlights this issue. Even if a model wasn’t designed for manipulation, if there’s a reasonable possibility it could be used that way, the risk must be addressed. The CoP also mentions “Other types of risks,” including risks to fundamental rights and society as a whole. If companies can choose which risks to assess this might mean that fundamental rights and harms that might emerge from some of these technologies might go unnoticed or without the proper remedy mechanisms. 

The risk assessment process for GPAI models is currently unclear, and there is a lack of understanding regarding the various purposes to which a model can be integrated. While there is some recognition of the ripple effects caused by the integration of multiple models in the assessment process, the regulations fail to offer adequate protection or protocols to manage these complexities, leaving significant gaps in ensuring comprehensive risk mitigation. This uncertainty highlights the need for a final draft with a standardized risk assessment framework that is not left to the discretion of individual providers. As many of our civil society peers have echoed, the serious fundamental rights risks that model providers assess and mitigate should not be optional, and neither should be the responsibility of protecting fundamental rights. Other criticism points out concerning reductions on the range of risks, as highlighted by Ada Lovelace Institute and HuggingFace.

A truly comprehensive understanding of risk must consider the real-world applications of models and their effects on diverse users. The methodologies outlined in measures II.4.4 and II.4.5 are primarily technical and fail to address these crucial aspects. And, while measure II.4.8 acknowledges the importance of stakeholder consultation, the phrasing—specifically “where possible and relevant”—diminishes the significance of this step. The sociotechnical evaluation must be regarded as an integral component of the risk assessment process, not merely as a secondary or optional commitment to consult.

Copyright Protection Must Not Be Based on Metadata Standards Not Intended For This Purpose

The CoP’s dedicated copyright section raises significant concerns regarding metadata usage. While implementing appropriate, human rights-respecting copyright policies and ensuring lawful data mining are crucial, the final draft must not pursue methods that compromise privacy or misuse metadata. Specifically, we are worried that the CoP might inadvertently promote the use of metadata standards for rights management, like  the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity standards (C2PA), which were not designed for this purpose.

Relying on such standards risks creating gaps in intellectual property protection, undermining content ownership and fair use, and jeopardising privacy through potential Personally Identifiable Information (PII) misuse.  C2PA does make explicit commitments to human rights and privacy in their guiding principles, but they have prioritised content provenance and authenticity as use purposes, explicitly excluding rights management from its core design.

Furthermore, utilising metadata standards for rights management could create a discriminatory two-tiered system. Only those with the technical capacity to leverage these standards would have their works fully protected, leaving others vulnerable. This creates an uneven playing field where content protection is determined by technical compatibility, not inherent rights.

Other Considerations

The CoP text would benefit from clearer definitions and stronger wording to reduce ambiguity. Communicating updates and maintaining documented information is a critical consideration, and signatories should be asked to follow this practice. However, the CoP lacks clarity on which specific protocols and standards in these areas it refers to.

One last point we would like to call attention to is the safety and security chapter of CoP. As highlighted by the Ada Lovelace Institute, the current version of the document “largely draws on companies existing safety and security practices, and voluntary obligations under international agreements that they should already comply with”. While there’s relevance in consolidating and standardizing industry practices on the text, if this section remains the way it is, it means that the CoP could eventually fail to innovate on the introduction of new safety and security standards when these are not yet part of industry practices. 

Recommendations and Conclusion 

The 3rd draft of the General-Purpose AI CoP is a step forward, but there are still some points that need to be addressed in order for the final text to be more aligned with the protection of fundamental rights and mitigation of risks. In order to address the gaps listed above, we suggest the following: 

Systemic Risk Assessment: 

• GPAI providers should not be the sole decision-makers on which systemic risks to assess and mitigate. There needs to be a more comprehensive and standardized approach.
• The CoP should take sociotechnical evaluations as an integral component of the risk assessment process, not merely as a secondary or optional voluntary obligation to consult.

Transparency Requirements: 

• A review of the transparency concept needs to ensure that GPAI systems provide mechanisms for users to identify the source and nature of generated content within the CoP, which is essential to ensure meaningful implementation of Article 50.
• The CoP should make a general requirement for transparency across all GPAI applications, and not just in the context of identifying and addressing serious incidents.
• The final draft of CoP must demand robust third-party assessments by default for all GPAI models.

Copyright: 

• Copyright protection must be based on inherent rights. While implementing copyright policies and ensuring lawful data mining are crucial, the final draft must not pursue methods that compromise privacy or misuse metadata.

Published 28th March, 2025

The post EU AI Act: Ensuring Rights, Disclosure and Meaningful Protections in the General Purpose AI Code of Practice appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

A political firestorm erupted in Ghana after a video surfaced of Dr. Matthew Opoku Prempeh, the Vice Presidential Candidate of the former ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), making a disturbing promise to small-scale miners. Speaking at a campaign event, he assured them that the government would return all seized excavators and allow them to operate without interference.

“We will give all seized excavators back to you so you can do your work peacefully,” he declared, flanked by party supporters. “This will help everyone get money to fend for themselves and contribute to the development of their communities. Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia will not collapse small-scale mining.”

Within minutes, the clip went viral, sparking intense debate. Could this really be true? Given Ghana’s long-standing battle against illegal mining, known locally as galamsey, and its devastating impact on forests and water bodies, the implications of his statement were enormous. For environmental activists, the video was nothing short of a nightmare. However, before journalists could investigate further, Dr. Opoku Prempeh’s campaign team issued a swift response, dismissing the footage as a doctored fake. Journalists across the country were stunned. One, clearly exasperated, remarked, “What kind of gaslighting is this? Are they seriously trying to make us question what we just saw in multiple videos?”

The challenge of verifying the truth

The statement by Dr. Opoku Prempeh, recorded from a campaign stage with a sign language interpreter translating his words, presented a unique challenge. Seeking to trace the truth, Ghanaian media outlet GHOne consulted two independent sign language interpreters. Their findings? Two different interpretations. This only deepened the confusion. Determined to uncover the truth, journalists in Ghana analyzed multiple versions of the video uploaded to social media, each showing a different angle. In every version, Dr. Opoku Prempeh’s words remained unchanged. Yet, the claim of manipulation persisted, forcing journalists to consider forensic video analysis to prove the authenticity of the video. 

In Ghana, newsrooms faced a critical obstacle: they lacked the tools and expertise for such a detailed investigation. The need for expert verification became urgent. That’s when they turned to WITNESS’ Deepfakes Rapid Response Force, a global team of media forensic specialists who provide timely assessments of suspected deepfakes.

Verification outcome in the age of political manipulation 

As soon as the campaign team labeled the video as fake, the stakes grew even higher. This was no longer just about one political statement, it was about the lengths politicians (or their opponents) might go to distort reality and manipulate public perception.

Four expert teams reviewed the footage. Their findings were unanimous: there was no evidence of AI manipulation. Each team noted that current AI technology is still incapable of generating full-body deepfakes from multiple angles in perfect synchronization with lips, audio, and hand movements. Two of the teams used AI detection tools to scan the footage, but neither found any signs of tampering.

The silence from Dr. Opoku Prempeh’s camp following these findings was telling. By dismissing authentic footage as fake, they had exposed a growing political tactic: using AI’s mere existence to cast doubt on real events. In fact, in 2024 alone, a third of cases escalated to WITNESS’ force involved politicians attempting to discredit authentic content by falsely claiming it was AI-generated.

VIDEO: Deepfake or Not? Findings from WITNESS Deepfakes Rapid Response Force 

How mis/disinformation impact newsrooms and communities

This case underscored a troubling reality: newsrooms bear an unfair burden in defending facts against political disinformation. At the same time, communities that rely on these news outlets for credible reporting are left vulnerable to deception. A major gap exists in access to advanced detection tools and capabilities. While AI verification technology is improving, many of these tools remain expensive and the expertise inaccessible to the journalists who need them most. For example, to further underscore the gap in existing knowledge on AI and access to detection tools, experts from the Deepfakes Rapid Response Force swiftly assessed the Vice Presidential candidate’s video even without relying on AI detection tools. Their expertise in AI capabilities, combined with meticulous content analysis, enabled them to verify its authenticity. By examining multiple angles, the sign language interpreter, the crowd, and other visual cues, they were able to reach a confident conclusion while also using AI detection tools to further validate their findings.

In Ghana, ‘news cards’ which are visually appealing news graphics branded with media house logos, have become a popular way to disseminate information quickly. These snapshots help readers stay informed, particularly during high-stakes moments like the 2024 election season. However, as the campaign intensified, these news cards became a weapon of mis/disinformation. Fake versions which are complete with forged logos of trusted media houses, spread across social media, creating confusion and shaping public opinion with misleading content.

To counter this, many media outlets began stamping fake news cards with bold “FAKE NEWS” labels, posting corrections on their official social media handles. But an unexpected challenge emerged: politicians and their supporters co-opted this strategy. Whenever an unfavorable news card surfaced, whether true or not, partisan actors quickly labeled it as fake and spread their own “FAKE NEWS” stamps. The result was a deliberate blurring of truth and falsehood, making it increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish real reporting from political spin.

Screenshot: Example of a “FAKE NEWS” stamp in circulation on social media

Employing voice notes against disinformation

Recognizing the limitations of the “FAKE NEWS” stamp, GHOne introduced a new strategy: voice notes embedded in news cards, marked with a prominent “SOUND ON” tag. This innovation gave the public direct access to unfiltered audio recordings of politicians’ actual statements. By allowing audiences to hear words exactly as they were spoken, the tactic made it harder for political actors to dismiss or distort their own remarks.

On the other hand, while audio verification has helped counter mis/disinformation, the challenge is far from over. Deceptive audio remains a powerful last-minute disinformation tool, strategically deployed just hours before elections to create confusion and influence voter decisions. During Ghana’s election season, several false audio claims surfaced. For example, this audio clip, uploaded to the Nana Kakra YouTube channel, allegedly features President John Mahama ridiculing Ghanaian voters and attempting to influence the Electoral Commission. Some of these were shallow fakes and were consequently easier to debunk, but others were more sophisticated.

According to Dubawa, one of Africa’s leading fact-checking organizations, existing AI tools for detecting manipulated audio vary in effectiveness. While some paid tools offer robust verification, many newsrooms simply cannot afford them. The challenge is even greater when manipulated audio is embedded within videos, making verification more complex and time-consuming.

The use and misuse of AI in elections worldwide

WITNESS has identified key ways synthetic media is being used in elections, categorizing them into two broad types: identity-based deepfakes and context-driven deepfakes.

Identity-Based Deepfakes This represents a new wave of AI-driven risk – deception that is both hyper-personalized and highly sophisticated. In elections this shows up in dangerous ways that target political candidates or parties, often aiming to manipulate public perception. These fabrications falsely attribute actions to individuals, create misleading evidence of events that never happened, and seek to sway voter decisions.

Context-Driven Deepfakes are more insidious in their approach. It is in many ways an amplification of existing mis/disinformation but at scale and unprecedented speed. This form of deceptive use of AI spreads false information about specific groups, coordinating influence operations, reinforcing divisive narratives, and even undermining election integrity by discouraging voter participation or distorting public discourse.

We continue to observe the deliberate use of AI-generated content to target women in politics. A striking example is the deepfake video falsely showing independent candidate Abdullah Nahod Nigar withdrawing from an election – an attempt to mislead voters and manipulate electoral outcomes.

Similarly, in Bangladesh and Pakistan, AI-generated non-consensual sexually explicit images have been weaponized against female politicians. Notable figures such as Nipun Roy Chowdhury, a member of the BNP Central Executive Committee, and Rashed Iqbal Khan, Acting President of Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chatra Dal (JCD), have been targeted with deepfake images designed to shame and expose them to violent physical harm. These are contexts where modesty is deeply ingrained in societal expectations. In cases like these, detection alone isn’t enough—since the primary intent is reputational harm, the damage is often immediate and irreversible.

Bridging the gaps in Africa’s AI and tech governance 

Africa stands at a crucial juncture, navigating both the opportunities and risks of AI. While some governments are focused on harnessing AI’s potential, civil society organizations are calling for stronger safeguards. Yet, AI governance across the continent remains weak. Only a handful of African nations have dedicated AI strategies. In many cases, regulation is simply folded into broad cybersecurity laws, while others take a risk based approach in their formulation which does not guarantee human rights protections. 

Big Tech’s response has been inadequate. Compared to wealthier nations, African elections receive little investment from social media platforms in terms of content moderation, AI labeling, or political ad transparency. Encouragingly, organizations like the African Association of Election Management Bodies are stepping up, pushing for transparency in digital election practices. But will tech companies and governments act with urgency?

Building resiliency in media a key step to fortifying the truth

In 2024 WITNESS launched the Fortifying Community Truth project which focuses on supporting local and community based journalists to use video based strategies including OSINT to build local, national and cross-border accountability for perpetrators of human rights violations, including defending claims of communities facing abuse. In 2024 under this project WITNESS brought together 17 cohort members from West and Central Africa in a workshop on digital verification using a community based approach. 

While we grapple with the new and emerging threats that AI poses to information integrity it is important to note that the journalistic principles of verification, accuracy, fairness, transparency and accountability still apply. Frameworks such as the SIFT method (Stop, Investigate, Find other Sources and Trace the origin) are still effective in authenticating suspected AI generated content. 

On the other hand, ensuring local journalists and fact-checkers have timely access to assessments of the most difficult deepfake cases and claims of deepfakes remains critical. WITNESS’ Deepfakes Rapid Response Force is expanding its election support in Africa, moving beyond Ghana to Gabon in 2025 and Uganda in 2026.  

As threat actors gain increased capabilities to target, censor and surveil dissenting voices, initiatives like the Fortifying Community Truth project play a crucial role in bridging the gap between community response that are contextually relevant and systems level advocacy that have a pervading influence. By making long-term investments in newsrooms and strengthening their capacity for visual verification and AI resilience, mis/disinformation faces stronger resistance particularly during sensitive times like elections.

Africa must adopt a human rights-based approach to AI regulation to address harms that a purely risk-based framework might overlook. Privacy and data protection must be at the forefront, ensuring that at-risk groups are safeguarded. More critically, those most at risk of the malicious use of deepfakes and synthetic media including journalists and human rights defenders must be protected, and their voices must be centered in shaping an AI-powered information landscape.

RESOURCES ON IDENTIFYING ELECTION RELATED MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION

Tipsheet: Combating Misinformation and Disinformation in Elections

Video: How to spot AI Generated Content in Elections

Video: Understanding the Dangers of Gendered Disinformation

Webinar: AI, BIG TECH and THE BALLOT: Shaping Africa’s Election in the Digital Age

Joojo Cobbinah is the Group Managing News Editor – EIB Network Ltd in Ghana

Nkem Agunwa is the Africa Program Manager at WITNESS

The post AI, Disinformation and the Battle for Truth: How Ghana’s 2024 elections exposed the new age of political deception appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

As we celebrate the achievements of women globally on International Women’s Day we must also acknowledge the ongoing digital threats that disproportionately target them. From non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and deepfake abuse to algorithmically amplified harassment, technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) threatens gender equality, free expression, and personal safety.

To address the pressing problem of TFGBV, WITNESS has submitted recommendations to the United Nations Human Rights Council Advisory Committee as part of its study on TFGBV. Our submission highlights gaps in the current international human rights framework and offers concrete strategies to strengthen global responses to digital gender-based violence based on years of work on technology and with vulnerable communities globally.

Since 2018, WITNESS conducted global in-person consultations with journalists, technologists, community leaders and other human rights actors. During these conversations, AI-driven Sexual and Gender-based Violence (SGBV) was identified as one of the most pressing threats across regions, including South-East Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Brazil. The misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to create non-consensual sexual deepfakes of ordinary citizens is already a reality. Deepfakes depicting female leaders and activists in compromising or false situations could be used to discredit their authority, undermine their influence, erode public trust, and lead to physical harm. This could have a chilling effect, discouraging women from participating in political, social, and economic arenas, thereby reinforcing gender inequality. 

AI-Driven Gender-Based Violence

Years of WITNESS’ Technology Threats and Opportunities (TTO) program underscores how AI, particularly generative AI and deepfake technology, is being weaponized to silence and discredit vulnerable communities. Since 2018, WITNESS has led Prepare, Don’t Panic, the first civil society-led initiative tackling synthetic media threats on the information ecosystem. As part of this work, WITNESS has conducted extensive work on risk and harm assessments of provenance and authenticity standards, alongside advocacy for equitable and effective detection tools. Our expertise has revealed the significant limitations of these technologies in responding to TFGBV. 

Since 2023, WITNESS’s Deepfake Rapid Response Force (DRRF) has also provided real-time deepfake analysis in election and conflict contexts globally, highlighting the impact of AI-generated falsehoods on the information ecosystem, democracy and human rights.  Lessons learnt from the DRRF directly translate into the challenges faced when dealing with non-consensual sexual deepfake content which is increasingly used as a tool of intimidation, extortion, and misinformation. This has grave implications for democracy, free expression, and personal safety of women and gender minorities:

• Women in politics, media, and activism are being disproportionately targeted with AI-generated disinformation and online harassment, which could discourage them from participating in public life.
• AI is amplifying existing mis/disinformation risks and patterns of abuse which disproportionately impact already vulnerable groups, including women of colour, women with disabilities, migrant women, indigenous women, gender minorities and the broader LGBTQ+ community. 
• Current AI detection tools remain inadequate, particularly for non-English languages and low-resource communities, making justice inaccessible for many survivors. And in many cases, whether the content is AI-generated or manipulated does not change the harm inflicted—damage to reputation, credibility, safety, and personal security is already done, with little recourse for those affected.

Gaps in the International Human Rights Frameworks

Despite the growing prevalence of TFGBV, current frameworks are ill-equipped to address emerging digital threats, leaving survivors with limited legal recourse. Key shortcomings include:

• While international human rights treaties address gender-based violence broadly, they fail to account for the digital dimensions of abuse, including AI-driven threats, and the disproportionate impact of TFGBV on marginalized groups. 
• There is a lack of enforceable global standards and mechanisms for holding social media companies and AI developers accountable in responding to TFGBV.
• The cross-border nature of online abuse complicates legal enforcement and survivor protection, requiring stronger international cooperation.

Strengthening Protections

In our submission, WITNESS calls for urgent reforms to ensure digital spaces are not weaponized against marginalized communities. Our key recommendations include:

• Establishing international mechanisms and commitments with companies that help address and ensure accountability for the misuse of AI generated content for the purpose of creating and disseminating nonconsensual intimate images. 
• Ensure equitable access to detection solutions and strengthen accountability for tech platforms, App creators and App stores. 
• Creating survivor-centered policies that provide interoperability, swift removal of harmful content and accessible legal recourse.
• Equipping activists, journalists, and civil society organizations with tools and knowledge to navigate and counter TFGBV.
• Implementing binding global regulations that require transparency in takedown mechanisms and AI development practices by tech companies. 

As WITNESS continues to engage with the UN and other international bodies, we emphasize the urgent need for stronger global protections against TFGBV. On this International Women’s Day, we call on governments, technology companies, and civil society to take meaningful action in dismantling the structures that enable digital violence.

Published 6th March, 2025

The post Deepfakes and Digital Abuse: Dismantling Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

With the advent of generative AI and its increasing capacity to create realistic content, transparency is even more critical. This has been recognized by industry leaders, civil society and international organizations, as well as legislative and regulatory bodies across the globe, from the European Union to China, and Brazil to Australia, who have also begun to set some form of disclosure requirements to those creating or displaying AI-generated or edited content.

Bolstered by regulation and standardization, mechanisms of disclosure such as watermarks, cryptographic metadata or digital fingerprints are gaining momentum. For example, major platforms and services like Youtube, LinkedIn, and Adobe have already adopted the C2PA standard which can help capture the provenance of all types of content, including pictures taken with your camera or phone. The World Standards Cooperation has also been created by the IEC, ISO, and ITU to discuss priority areas and requirements in this field.

However, even as these technologies flow into the mainstream, a different reality is being unveiled: a significant portion of online content will always exist without traceable provenance.

Several factors make universal traceability unfeasible. First, because even if we succeed in creating accessible standards and a tightly regulated AI ecosystem, millions using open-source AI tools could still bypass these requirements. Others, even if willing to comply, may find it technically impossible–the C2PA standard, for instance, will not work with tools that grant users access to its system. Plus, there is the massive volume of legacy media—content created before the existence of these technologies—that could endure, ‘untraceable’, online. 

And it isn’t just that it is impractical to conceive that all media could somehow include its provenance, there are also human rights considerations at stake. Perhaps most concerning is the risk that authoritarian regimes or other malicious actors could suppress freedom of expression by exploiting security flaws in these mechanisms of disclosure, deriving private information from available metadata (such as device identifiers), or enacting laws that require personally identifiable information (PII) to be attached to a piece of content’s provenance. 

There are safeguards that could be put in place to try to avert this concern. Among others, users should be able to retain control over their information, and captured provenance should focus on the HOW of multimedia—how it was created or edited—not WHO—who created, edited or published it. But even with these and other guardrails in place, the risk of misuse and abuse remains significant. 

Given both the impossibility and potential harms of universal transparency based on the prevailing mechanisms of disclosure, we must now expand our focus to prepare for what we have set in motion: a digital world split between content that does have–varying levels and expressions of–verifiable provenance and content that does not.

This means preparing for–and trying to avert–a world where one journalist’s image could be trusted while another’s is not on the basis of not having access to, or not being able to, use tools that capture their source and history; where evidence of human rights violations could be dismissed in legal instances for not including cryptographic metadata; or where those speaking truth to power could be forced to choose between visibility and safety when platforms require potentially dangerous provenance information.

Tomorrow’s content divide requires clarity about what verifiable provenance means and what it doesn’t. It is a marker of authenticity–one among others, including fact-checking, forensic analysis or even personal and professional experiences. It does not mean that its content is necessarily true, or that it should be automatically trusted. By the same token, content without verifiable provenance should not be automatically discredited or undermined.

This emerging challenge will demand media literacy at all levels of society, not just among the general public. Key industries and communities will face distinct hurdles: for example, courts must develop new methods to determine truth in this dichotomous digital future, while social media platforms will need to reimagine content moderation to ensure fair treatment of the voices that may not or cannot add verifiable provenance to their content, and they must resist pressure to increasingly and arbitrarily tie social media activity to individual human identity rather than focusing on distinguishing AI creation from human activity. 

User experience will also be critical in shaping how people process provenance information. Too much information could be overwhelming and ultimately ignored; too little may be confusing or misleading. The challenge can become even more complex with aggregated content, such as in Google image search results, where provenance must be conveyed clearly across multiple items at once.

Finally, as we develop frameworks and strategies to address these and other challenges through policy, law, and standards, it’s crucial that we learn from diverse global perspectives – especially from vulnerable populations and those whose experiences can help us both prevent harm and leverage the potential that these technologies can offer. 

Published: 05 March, 2025

The post Tomorrow’s Great Digital Divide: Content With or Without Provenance appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

At WITNESS, our Deepfakes Rapid Response Force (DRRF) revealed the global repercussions of AI’s role in the 2024 election cycle. Weak AI detection compounded by systemic inequities, fragile media ecosystems, a lack of diverse linguistic and regional representation in training datasets, insufficient skills development, and increasing threats to safety, human rights, and democracy. Meanwhile, opportunities for AI to enhance public interest information-gathering and sharing remain underexplored.

WITNESS is attending the official French AI Action Summit in February 2025, where one critical focus will be on Public Interest AI. To build a resilient, safe, and inclusive information ecosystem, we must urgently invest in Public Interest AI that serves frontline journalism and human rights. These investments must ensure equitable access to AI tools, governance, innovation, and information integrity.

We Advocate for Four Key Investment Areas in Public Interest AI for a Resilient Global Information Ecosystem

Strengthening Policy and Governance Through Frontline Expertise

Frontline actors—fact-checkers, journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society organizations—are crucial in shaping and governing Public Interest AI. Positioned on the frontlines of AI’s societal impacts, they witness firsthand the consequences of AI-driven decisions and are uniquely equipped to identify gaps and mitigate immediate and emerging harms as well as systemic risks. Yet, their expertise is often marginalized, deepening regional disparities and perpetuating inequalities.

To ensure AI serves the public good, these actors must play a central role in shaping tools, policies, and governance frameworks and receive equitable investments in compute, talent, and data, ensuring they can actively participate in AI governance in a true multistakeholder fashion.

WITNESS’s DRRF initiative has demonstrated the transformative impact of empowering frontline actors. Collaborations with fact-checkers, journalists, and civil society groups in India, Mexico, Ghana, Sudan, Ukraine, and Georgia have addressed challenges such as the lack of training data for underrepresented languages, limited access to detection tools, and the weaponization of misinformation. Strengthening these partnerships and ensuring ongoing global consultations will create an essential, continuous feedback loop—allowing journalists, technologists, and human rights defenders with lived experience to shape AI development effectively.

Building Capacity to Resist and Engage with AI Advances

Frontline information actors face persistent gaps in AI literacy, access to detection technology, and capabilities to reinforce the credibility of trustworthy information. These challenges are exacerbated by the rapid pace of AI advancements. Furthermore, AI’s potential to enhance journalistic and human rights practices—such as streamlining workflows, anonymizing sources, and refining OSINT approaches—remains largely untapped.

Investment is needed, with a focus on the capabilities needed by low-resourced, under-risk frontline information actors, including journalists and civil society, to:

• Support journalists and civil society in detection and mitigation of malicious and deceptive uses of AI, as well as to improve the credibility and resiliency of trustworthy information. 
• Develop AI-driven solutions to enhance investigative reporting, protect sources, ensure accurate information, provide access to information, and support new forms of storytelling and reporting.
• Drive proactive engagement to fully leverage the potential of frontline media actors by fostering partnerships between local actors and AI specialists, expanding AI literacy programs, and providing access to tools and datasets tailored to their needs. 
• Implement multistakeholder approaches and effective grassroots participation in AI regulation and standardization.

Scaling Global and Regional Support Mechanisms

The growing demand for escalation responses on AI high-profile fakes (and claims of fakery), requires the expansion of initiatives like the DRRF both at a global level and at a regional level. 

Incident-based collaborations with frontline information actors serve critical public interest goals. Such collaborations support sociotechnical advocacy for vulnerable communities and information defenders. Feedback mechanisms on actual usages of detection and media transparency technologies from actual cases can support a vibrant public interest detection community, including media forensics experts volunteering as members of the DRRF (who represent a key cross-section of the detection community), as well as other relevant technical experts and policymakers globally. 

By scaling this model, we can ensure that lessons learned from real-world AI threats directly shape the development of more effective detection tools and policy responses (Read here more about our Benchmark work on the Equitable Effectiveness of AI Detection Tools).

Advancing Innovation Through Inclusion and Equitable Access to Talent, Data, and Resources

To build a truly inclusive Public Interest AI ecosystem, frontline actors must be integrated into collaborative innovation processes. AI-driven solutions must not be imposed top-down but instead emerge from the needs of those most affected to drive scalable, sustainable impact.

Over the next two to three years, frontline information actors—including civil society, journalists, and human rights defenders—must make critical decisions about their engagement with AI. Their responses will encompass strategies for:

• Tactical adaptation, adoption and resistance, leveraging AI to enhance impact, rights, trust, and voice, drawing on how AI changes efficiency, speed, or access – for example, to embrace the potential of AI to increase access to their information, to increase their effectiveness in communicating to multiple audiences, and to facilitate localization and translation. Similarly, they will have to make choices on resistance to the epistemic impacts of AI, for example, by forcefully defending the integrity of the ‘real’ and the notion of singular documentation of evidence or investigation of wrongdoing.
• Paradigmatic adaptation, addressing fundamental changes in the knowledge and communications environments brought by AI––for example, in the context of the epistemic threat of AI, how to ensure ethical, authentic narrative, both human and AI-facilitated, can compete with high-volume, hyper-realistic, personalized AI content and AI slop.

The future and resilience of global information ecosystems depends on how effectively frontline actors are resourced, empowered, and integrated into AI governance and innovation. Public Interest AI cannot be an afterthought for these communities. It must be a core investment priority—ensuring that those defending facticity, safety, rights, and democracy remain at the forefront of AI’s evolution.

The post French AI Action Summit: Critical Information Actors Must Be Centered in Public Interest AI appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

Blog ini ditulis oleh Yerry Niko Borang, dengan kontribusi dari tim WITNESS Asia-Pasifik.

Pada 17 Oktober 2024, sekelompok pembuat film, dan aktivis pembela hak asasi manusia, mayoritas dari Papua, yang beragam berkumpul secara daring untuk mengikuti webinar yang diselenggarakan oleh WITNESS berjudul “Pengarsipan Video Hak Asasi Manusia: Paradoks Bukti dan Impunitas di Papua” yang membahas soal tantangan proses penggunaan video sebagai alat bukti untuk mencapai keadilan dalam pelanggaran hak asasi manusia (HAM) yang sering menghadapi ketidakpedulian—atau lebih buruk lagi, digunakan untuk melanggengkan impunitas.

Perlu diketahui bahwa rekaman webinar tidak dipublikasikan karena pertimbangan keamanan. Mengingat sifat sensitif dari konten yang dibahas, serta kebutuhan untuk melindungi identitas para pihak yang terlibat.

Laporan lengkap webinar dapat diakses di sini.

Paradoks: Ketika Bukti Belum Cukup Menjadi Alat Keadilan

Penggunaan video sebagai bukti dokumentasi pelanggaran HAM dan proses mencari keadilan di negara lain sangat berperan kuat, namun pertanyaannya, kenapa cara itu tampak sulit untuk diterapkan di Papua? Inilah yang menjadi fokus utama dalam diskusi tentang bagaimana teknologi, kebenaran, dan keadilan dapat saling berhubungan untuk menyoroti apa yang terjadi di Papua dan potensi besar materi digital untuk memperkuat suara-suara dan menginspirasi perubahan, meskipun dihadapkan pada tantangan yang luar biasa.

Situasi di Papua dan di luar Papua terhadap orang Papua memang kompleks. Banyak sekali kasus rasisme seperti yang terjadi di tahun 2019 dimana terjadi perlakuan diskriminasi di pulau Jawa terhadap mahasiswa Papua yang berakhir eksodus massal mereka dari Jawa. Peristiwa penyiksaaan warga sipil oleh tentara yang viral hanya salah satu dari sekian banyak kisah horor yang selain sejumlah pembunuhan di luar hukum. Bahkan, meskipun ada video yang mendokumentasikan pelanggaran ini, seringkali bukti tersebut tidak menghasilkan pertanggungjawaban yang diharapkan para korban. Ironisnya, bukti-bukti ini justru bisa dimanipulasi atau digunakan dalam kampanye disinformasi oleh pihak-pihak yang berkuasa. Di balik semua tantangan ini, ada juga peluang untuk terus memperjuangkan keadilan dengan teknologi dan alat digital, yang memungkinkan suara-suara mereka yang terpinggirkan tetap terdengar.

Arul Prakkash dari WITNESS, dalam webinar menjelaskan meskipun penggunaan ponsel pintar dan media sosial semakin memudahkan warga untuk merekam dan membagikan rekaman kekejaman, teknologi juga membawa tantangan tersendiri. Di sisi lain, teknologi yang sama memungkinkan manipulasi, distorsi, atau penghapusan bukti-bukti penting. Di tempat seperti Papua, video kekerasan kadang-kadang dihapus, diabaikan, atau bahkan diputarbalikkan untuk mendukung narasi pihak yang berkuasa.

Namun, bukti video tetap memainkan peran yang sangat penting dalam advokasi hak asasi manusia. Tantangan utamanya sekarang adalah memastikan bahwa video-video ini tidak hanya terlihat, tetapi juga dilindungi dan disimpan dengan aman. 

Mengapa Suara Komunitas Penting

Tantangan dalam menunjukkan bukti pelanggaran HAM bukan hanya dalam hal teknis—tetapi juga tentang siapa yang mengendalikan narasi. Bernard Koten dari SKPKC Fransiskan Papua berbicara tentang pentingnya melibatkan komunitas lokal dalam mendokumentasikan pelanggaran HAM. Mennurutnya, orang-orang di kampung, di daerah terpencil—mereka yang paling tahu apa yang benar-benar terjadi. Organisasinya telah bekerja untuk memastikan bahwa orang Papua sendiri yang berada di garis depan dalam mendokumentasikan dan membagikan cerita mereka. 

“Lagipula, siapa yang lebih baik untuk menceritakan kisah orang Papua selain orang Papua itu sendiri?” – Bernard Koten

Perspektif lokal itu sangat penting, bukan hanya karena sifatnya yang otentik, tetapi juga karena membantu menciptakan gambaran yang lebih lengkap dan akurat tentang apa sebenarnya terjadi di lapangan. Ketika orang luar Papua mendokumentasikan situasi, mereka mungkin melewatkan konteks penting atau mengabaikan perjuangan sehari-hari dari orang-orang yang paling terdampak. Melibatkan komunitas secara langsung membantu mengatasi kekurangan ini dan memastikan bahwa narasi yang muncul berakar pada pengalaman yang nyata.

Fransiska Manam, yang merupakan bagian dari Papuan Voices, menegaskan hal ini. Sebagai seseorang yang secara pribadi merasakan dampak pelanggaran hak asasi manusia di komunitasnya, ia sangat berkomitmen untuk memperkuat suara mereka yang telah melewati pihak yang berkuasa tersebut. “Ketika orang Papua menceritakan kisahnya, itu berasal dari pengalaman nyata,” katanya. Ia menekankan betapa pentingnya bagi orang Papua untuk bersuara dan berbagi cerita sendiri —meskipun bisa sangat berbahaya.

Namun, menurutnya, berdiam diri bukanlah pilihan. Kebenaran harus disampaikan, apapun risikonya.

Video sebagai Bukti: Pedang Bermata Dua

Meskipun dokumentasi video semakin mudah berkat ponsel pintar, kenyataannya hal ini masih merupakan usaha yang berisiko. Di tempat-tempat seperti Papua, di mana aparat pemerintah menargetkan aktivis dan siapa pun yang berani menyatakan pendapat, merekam video bisa membahayakan nyawa seperti ancaman penangkapan atau mendapatkan intimidasi dan disinformasi dapat menenggelamkan bukti-bukti yang valid. Video bisa saja dibuang atau dimanipulasi, sehingga sulit untuk membedakan mana yang benar-benar terjadi dan mana yang tidak.

Sebuah video yang disiarkan di televisi nasional dan banyak dibagikan secara daring menggambarkan kekhawatiran ini. Video tersebut mencemarkan isu tentang protes sipil Papua pada di tahun 2019 yang disebut sebagai provokasi dan insiden yang didanai oleh orang-orang Papua yang tinggal di Eropa. Pergeseran narasi yang disengaja ini tidak hanya menyelewengkan kebenaran, tetapi juga menciptakan kebingungan dan keraguan dalam pemahaman publik tentang peristiwa tersebut. Hal ini menyoroti peningkatan risiko yang dihadapi oleh pembela hak asasi manusia yang menggunakan teknologi di kerja mereka dalam mengungkap pelanggaran.

Hal ini diyakini oleh Yokbeth Felle, dari Lao-Lao Papua, yang juga menyoroti isu penting yaitu bagaimana narasi dibentuk oleh bukti yang kita miliki. Ia membahas persoalan kolonialisme yang dipandang berat sebelah, di satu sisi penjajahan Belanda dianggap baik, sementara penjajahan Indonesia sebaliknya. Misalnya, banyak rekaman dari era kolonial Belanda lebih banyak berfokus pada upaya “pembangunan”, yang telah membuat sebagian orang melihat Belanda sebagai “kolonial yang baik” dan dibandingkan dengan pasukan Indonesia saat ini, yang sering diasosiasikan dengan kekerasan. Yokbeth menekankan bahwa dokumentasi selektif ini telah membentuk pemahaman orang Papua tentang masa lalu mereka dan terus memengaruhi bagaimana dunia memandang perjuangan mereka hingga hari ini.

Ini adalah pengingat tentang bagaimana kita menceritakan sebuah fakta—dan bukti yang kita gunakan—dapat membentuk pemahaman kita tentang sebuah situasi. Tanpa bukti yang akurat, orang luar Papua mungkin tidak akan pernah sepenuhnya memahami seberapa banyak kekerasan yang telah terjadi dan perjuangan orang Papua untuk mendapat keadilan.

Keamanan Digital untuk Melindungi Bukti

Raka Sudisman dari TAPOL memperkenalkan aspek penting lainnya dalam pengarsipan video, dan hubungannya dengan keamanan digital. TAPOL mengelola  Papuan Behind Bars untuk mendokumentasikan kehidupan para tahanan politik menghadapi tantangan tentang keamanan digital. Oleh karena itu mereka memastikan bagaimana platform mereka menggunakan sistem aman seperti UWAZI yang diinisiasi oleh Huridocs untuk menyimpan dan mengelola data, menjaga agar informasi tersebut tetap terlindungi dari upaya peretasan atau pemantauan oleh negara.

Pada akhirnya, perjuangan untuk keadilan di Papua bukan hanya tentang satu orang atau satu organisasi—ini adalah tentang solidaritas. Tantangan yang dihadapi oleh masyarakat Papua sangat besar, namun dengan bekerja sama—secara lokal, nasional, dan global—perubahan itu mungkin terjadi. Ini tentang berbagi informasi, melindungi mereka yang mendokumentasikan kebenaran, dan memastikan bahwa suara-suara mereka, orang Papua, yang paling terdampak didengar, apapun tantangannya.

Setiap langkah kecil itu berarti. Apakah itu mencadangkan video, memverifikasi informasi, atau sekadar memperkuat suara lokal. Setiap langkah menjadi penting, supaya terlihat, didengar, dan ditindak. 

Mengatasi Tantangan dan Sebuah Solusi

Meskipun banyak tantangan yang dihadapi, satu hal yang jelas: kerja-kerja dokumentasi ini harus terus berlanjut. Mengumpulkan, mengarsipkan, dan membagikan video sebagai alat bukti pelanggaran HAM memang sulit, tetapi itu sangat penting untuk dilakukan. Seiring dengan perkembangan teknologi, metode untuk mendokumentasikan pelanggaran HAM juga harus terus berkembang.

Misalnya, meskipun platform seperti media sosial bisa menjadi cara yang efektif untuk menyebarkan informasi, cara-cara tersebut juga memiliki risiko—terutama jika mereka menyensor konten atau memanipulasi algoritma. Oleh karena itu, penting bagi mereka yang mendokumentasikan pelanggaran HAM untuk menggunakan cara yang aman dan membuat cadangan data mereka di beberapa lokasi. Cara-cara untuk melawan impunitas juga harus selalu selangkah lebih maju dengan teknologi, beradaptasi dengan alat-alat baru, dan terus memperbarui upaya dokumentasi secara berkala.

Proses pendokumentasian untuk menyuarakan keadilan ini harus terus berlanjut dan cara dokumentasi tidak seharusnya hanya menjadi proyek yang dimulai dan berakhir dengan pendanaan. Ini harus menjadi upaya yang berkelanjutan, didorong oleh komunitas-komunitas yang langsung terdampak, secara kolektif. Di sisi lain, pekerjaan pengarsipan seperti TAPOL dalam mengelola  Papuans Behind Bars, ataupun yang dikelola oleh komunitas seperti Papuan Archive, juga menghadapi tantangan dalam memverifikasi informasi secara real-time, yang terutama sulit di lingkungan di mana fakta sering dimanipulasi. Namun, mereka berkomitmen untuk memastikan bahwa cerita para tahanan politik harus selalu disampaikan dengan akurat—dan secara aman.

Dalam hal pengarsipan, memastikan keamanan adalah kunci untuk memastikan bukti-bukti  tersebut dapat bertahan dalam jangka panjang dan digunakan untuk proses keadilan. Ini adalah bagian penting dari upaya melawan disinformasi dan memastikan bahwa kebenaran tidak terkubur oleh narasi yang telah diputarbalikkan oleh pihak-pihak yang berkuasa.

Kesimpulan: Panggilan Aksi Solidaritas

Pada akhirnya, memiliki strategi dan visi perubahan serta adanya komitmen, kolaborasi, dan kebenaran, meskipun dihadapkan pada banyak tantangan jadi lebih penting ketimbang ketergantungan akan alat rekam, ponsel, ataupun kamera yang bagus ataupun platform dimana Anda menyebarkan konten tersebut dengan tanpa internet.

Jika Anda ingin menjadi bagian dari gerakan ini, mulailah dengan mendukung dan bergabung dalam aksi-aksi  komunitas di akar rumput oleh organisasi seperti WITNESS, Papuan Voices, TAPOL, Lao-Lao Papua, SKPKC Franciscan Papua, dan inisiatif  seperti Papuan Behind Bars atau Papuan Archive. Bagikan cerita-cerita mereka di manapun Anda berada. Lindungi bukti-bukti video yang ada. Dan berdirilah dalam solidaritas dengan mereka yang berjuang untuk keadilan di Papua.

Untuk lebih mendukung gerakan ini, silakan mengakses materi kami mengenai cara mendokumentasikan protest di Papua dan panduan pengarsipan. Panduan Merekam Protes Sosial di Papua dan Panduan Pengarsipan kami menyediakan tips yang berguna untuk mendokumentasikan dan melestarikan bukti pelanggaran hak asasi manusia dengan aman. Materi ini sangat penting bagi mereka yang ingin berkontribusi pada perjuangan berkelanjutan untuk keadilan dan kebenaran di Papua.

Tentang Penulis: Yerry Niko Borang adalah jurnalis independen yang berbasis di Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Pada tahun 1998, ia bergabung dengan gerakan demokrasi mahasiswa dan menghasilkan beberapa buletin informasi. Pada 2004, ia ikut serta dalam pertemuan awal untuk membangun kembali Indymedia Jakarta. Dengan pengalaman lebih dari enam tahun sebagai jurnalis radio/web/video di VHR Media, ia juga bekerja dengan jaringan media dan radio komunitas. Sejak 2010, Yerry bergabung dengan EngageMedia, sebuah organisasi non-profit di bidang media dan teknologi yang berfokus pada kawasan Asia-Pasifik, dan telah memfasilitasi pelatihan keamanan digital dan produksi video di Asia dan sekitarnya.

Dipublikasikan tanggal 20 December 2024.

The post Video sebagai Bukti: Pedang Bermata Dua dan Kekuatan Suara Komunitas di Papua appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

This blog post was written by our consultant, Yerry Niko Borang, with contributions from the WITNESS Asia-Pacific team.

On October 17, 2024, filmmakers and human rights defenders (mostly from West Papua), participated in a webinar organized by WITNESS. The webinar discussed the challenges of using videos as evidence to obtain justice for cases of human rights violations. Such cases are often neglected in West Papua, or worse used to justify impunity.

While the webinar offered valuable insights from filmmakers and human rights defenders, the recording is not available for public viewing online. Given the sensitive nature of the discussion, particularly regarding the risks faced by those documenting human rights violations in West Papua, we prioritized the safety of those involved. We hope to find alternative ways to share key takeaways in the future while ensuring that the security of the participants and the integrity of the information are protected.

The full report of the webinar can be found here.

Paradox: When evidence is insufficient to be a tool of justice

Why does the utilisation of video in the pursuit of justice empower communities in some countries, but fall short as evidence of human rights violations in West Papua? This was the main focus of discussion during the webinar alongside how technology, truth and justice are interconnected in the events in West Papua.

The situation in West Papua is indeed a complicated one. There have been many human rights violations that have taken place in recent years including issues of racism in 2019, whereby Papuan students were discriminated against and forced to leave Java, torture of civilians by an army soldier, and other horrifying accounts, including extrajudicial killings. Despite video evidence documenting such violations, the perpetrators have yet to be held to account. Ironically, this evidence can actually be manipulated or used as part of a disinformation campaign by interested parties. Regardless of these challenges, there remain many opportunities for marginalised communities who wish to harness the power of technology to have their voices heard and to fight for justice.

During the webinar, Arul Prakkash from WITNESS highlighted that although the use of smartphones and social media have made it easier for people to record and share evidence of violence – technology also has its own threats and pitfalls. The same technology could be used to manipulate, distort, or even delete crucial evidence. In areas like West Papua, videos related to violence are occasionally deleted, ignored, or even twisted in order to support an authoritative narrative.

In spite of this, video evidence remains a crucial tool in advocating for human rights. The main challenge is ensuring that these videos are not only seen, but also safely archived.

Why the Community’s Voice Matters

Challenges pertaining to the showcasing of human rights violations are not just technical, but also an issue of who controls the narrative. Bernard Koten from SKPKC Fransiskan Papua lamented about the importance of engaging with local communities when documenting such human rights violations. In his opinion, the people who live in the villages and remote areas are the ones who truly understand the situation. His organisation works to ensure that it is the Papuans themselves who are at the front-line of documenting and sharing their stories.

“Besides, who better to tell the stories of the Papuan people other than the native themselves?” – Bernard Koten

The community’s perspective is important not only in terms of authenticity, but also because it helps to create a complete and accurate picture of what truly happens in the field. When observers outside of West Papua document the situation, they risk missing crucial contextual information or ignoring the daily struggles of those who are affected. Directly engaging with locals can help address these issues and ensure that the narrative is based on reality.

Fransiska Manam from Papuan Voices also echoed the same perspective during the webinar. She has first-hand experience of human rights violations in her community, which drives her commitment to amplify the voices of those whose rights have been violated. In her own words, “When the Papuans tell their stories, it comes from real experience”. She highlighted the crucial role Papuans have to keep sharing their own stories, in their own words, despite the risk.

Silence is not an option. She is of the opinion that the truth must be told, whatever the risk may be.

Video as Evidence: A Double-Edged Sword

Smartphones help people document video, but it remains a risky endeavor. In places such as West Papua, where government apparatus regularly targets activists and anyone who expresses their opinion, recording a video can be life-threatening. There is a real threat of arrest and/or intimidation. Disinformation can also help to bury valid evidence. Apart from that, videos can be deleted or manipulated, making it more difficult to authenticate.

A polished documentary video from West Papua that was broadcast on national television and widely shared online illustrates this concern. The video smeared the 2019 civilian Papuan protest as a provocation and incident well funded by Papuan exile in Europe. This deliberate shift in narrative not only undermined the truth, but also created confusion and doubt in the public’s understanding of the events. It highlights the increasing risks faced by human rights defenders who use technology to expose abuses.

That is what Yokbeth Felle of Lao-Lao Papua believes. During the webinar, she emphasised how a narrative is formed by the evidence we own. As an example, she spoke about the biases associated with colonialism. For example, most historical documents recorded how Dutch colonisation focused on “development”, which led a majority of people to conclude that the Dutch were “good colonizers”. In contrast, the present Indonesian army has been associated with violence. Yokbeth emphasised that these selective documentations have formed the Papuan perspective on their past and continue to influence the world’s perception toward their struggle to this day.

This is a reminder that our presentation of facts and the evidence we use to support them, can shape everyone’s understanding of events. Without accurate evidence, the people outside of Papua may never fully comprehend how much violence has occurred or the Papuan people’s struggle to obtain justice.

Digital Security to Safeguard Evidence

During the webinar, Raka Sudisman from TAPOL highlighted the importance of archiving video and its associations with digital security. TAPOL manages Papuan Behind Bars, which documents the lives of political prisoners, and the platform has itself faced numerous challenges related to digital security. As a result, they ensure that their platform utilises a safe and secure system such as Uwazi, initiated by Huridocs, to retain and manage their data. This measure is taken to protect the information from being hacked or monitored by the state.

At the end of the day, the fight for justice in West Papua is not the burden of one person or one organization—but a lesson in solidarity. Papuan people face enormous challenges, but through cooperation at the local, national, and international level, change is possible. This work involves sharing information, protecting those who document the truth, and ensuring that Papuan voices, the ones who are directly affected, are heard no matter what the challenges are.

Every attempt is meaningful, from backing up video, to verifying information, to amplifying community voices. These are crucial actions to ensure that events are seen, heard, and ultimately acted upon.

Addressing Challenge and A Solution

Whatever the challenges are, one thing is certain: the documentation work must continue. Collecting, archiving, and sharing video as evidence of human rights violations can be difficult, but it is crucial. As technology advances, the method to document human rights violations should likewise develop.

Social media can be an effective platform to disseminate information, but it also poses its own risks, especially when the content is censored or the algorithm is manipulated. Therefore, it is important for those who are documenting human rights violations to apply safe measures and to back up their data in several different locations. The efforts to fight impunity should be one step ahead by utilising technology, adapting to new tools, and continuing to regularly update documentation.

Documentation in the pursuit of justice must continue and should not be a project that merely starts and ends with funding. This should be a sustainable and collective effort, driven by directly-affected communities. Papuan Behind Bars, TAPOL, and other community-led archiving projects like Papuan Archive also face challenges, such as difficulties with information verification due to manipulation by unscrupulous parties. Nevertheless, they remain committed to ensuring that their stories are conveyed accurately and safely.

In terms of archiving, safety is key to ensuring that evidence can survive long term and be utilised in the judicial process. This is essential to fighting against disinformation and to ensure that justice is not lost to twisted narratives created by interested parties.

Conclusion: Call for Solidarity

Whatever the challenges may be, strategy and a vision for change, along with commitment, collaboration, and a pursuit of the truth, are more important than any recording tool or sharing platform you use. If you would like to participate in this movement, you can support and join activities organised by grassroot communities and organisations such as WITNESS, Papuan Voices, TAPOL, Lao-Lao Papua, SKPKC Franciscan Papua, and initiatives such as Papuan Behind Bars or Papuan Archive. Share their stories wherever you are. Protect existing videos and stand in solidarity with those fighting for justice in West Papua.

To further support this movement, please access our materials on how to filming protests in Papua and our archiving guidelines. Our tipsheet to Filming Protests in Papua and Archiving Quick Guide provide useful tips for safely documenting and preserving evidence of human rights violations. These materials are essential for those who wish to contribute to the ongoing struggle for justice and truth in Papua.

About the Author: Yerry Niko Borang is an independent journalist based in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. In 1998, he joined the student democracy movement, producing several bulletins, then helped rebuild Indymedia Jakarta in 2004. With over six years of experience as a radio/web/video journalist at VHR Media, he also collaborated with community radio and media networks. Since 2010, Yerry has worked with EngageMedia, a non-profit media and tech organization in the Asia-Pacific, and has facilitated digital security workshops across Asia and beyond.

Published on December 20, 2024.

The post Video as Evidence in West Papua: A Double-Edged Sword and Why Community Voices Matter appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

As generative AI technology evolves, so do the tools designed to detect it. Yet, in the race to develop high-performing detection systems, a critical element risks being overlooked. Effectiveness is often measured through technical benchmarks: accuracy, speed, scalability, and versatility. While these metrics are important, they fail to capture the full complexities of real-world use. At WITNESS, we’ve consistently observed a noticeable gap between the technical capabilities of AI detection tools and their practical value in high-stakes situations globally. This detection equity gap is most pronounced in the Global Majority world. 

Since March 2023, WITNESS has been leading the Deepfakes Rapid Response Force (DRRF), a pioneering initiative that connects frontline fact-checkers and journalists with leading media forensics and deepfake detection experts. This collaboration provides a timely, detailed analysis of content that threatens democracy and human rights. Additionally, through trainings with frontline journalists on detection and responding to AI over the past year, we’ve observed firsthand how our partners in the Majority world face compounded challenges: fragile media ecosystems, ineffective detection tools due to gaps in training data for local languages, accents, public figures and manipulation trends, along with widespread gaps in AI media literacy that are limiting the ability to interpret and trust detection outputs.

From combating AI-driven disinformation to safeguarding human rights, these challenges demand more than technical robustness—they require a broader, more holistic evaluation. This is where the concept of equitable effectiveness becomes crucial. It calls for evaluation frameworks that go beyond the lab and consider the sociotechnical realities in which these tools operate. For frontline users—journalists, human rights defenders, fact-checkers and civil society more broadly—facing disinformation head-on, detection tools must do more than deliver impressive results in controlled environments. They need to provide actionable, reliable insights amid the unpredictable and resource-constrained conditions of the real world.

The stakes of equitable effectiveness are underscored by real-world missteps. In one instance, DRRF received a suspected radio conversation recording from the ongoing civil war in Sudan. Verification was impossible because the detection models lacked training data specific to “radio conversations.” In another case, also from Sudan, a purported leaked conversation between the Sudanese Army Commander and Chief of Staff went unanalyzed because the available teams were unable to process content in Arabic. In the Philippines, a low-resolution video allegedly showing the president snorting cocaine posed another challenge. The video’s poor quality rendered AI detection tools ineffective. Similarly, journalists from Mexico testing two images—one original and one manipulated—encountered conflicting results from online detectors, with one falsely identifying the authentic image as AI-generated. Only after employing DRRF’s advanced tools were they able to confirm the manipulation. Inconsistencies across multiple tools are not uncommon. In some DRRF cases, different detectors offered varying results for the same content. Providing users with context—such as the types of manipulations a tool is designed to detect and how quality issues might affect outcomes—can make even inconsistent results valuable. 

The Technical vs. The Practical

To determine if a tool is genuinely effective, it must align not only with rigorous technical standards but also with the practical realities faced by those using it. These actors often operate under resource constraints, dealing with low-quality content or time-sensitive threats. Equitable effectiveness involves addressing six core considerations:

1. Real-World Challenges: The DRRF offers a valuable lens into these challenges, where, with many of the cases escalated to media forensic and synthetic media detection experts, we’ve observed that AI detection tools perform best on high-resolution, near-original, and clear materials. However, the reality is that much of the content they analyze—often sourced from social media—comes in compressed, noisy, and low-resolution formats. Audio files with background noise or poor quality frequently yield inconclusive results. Tools must be designed to adapt to these imperfect conditions, or frontline users must be equipped with complementary resources to navigate unpredictable cases.
2. Transparency and Explainability: Detection tools often provide binary results accompanied by confidence scores, but these alone are insufficient. To make results actionable and reliable, tools must also offer additional information, such as: guidance on interpreting results, the types of manipulations the tool was trained to detect, information on the dataset used for training, and limitations of the tool, including how content quality may influence outcomes. In today’s fast-paced media landscape, such transparency enables journalists and fact-checkers to navigate results and produce evidence-based reporting, building trust in the tool’s outputs.
3. Accessibility: Technical excellence is meaningless if tools are inaccessible to diverse communities. For instance, language barriers persist, with many tools primarily trained in English and Spanish, limiting their utility for other languages, accents and skin tones. Additionally, tools that require advanced computational expertise or resources risk excluding users in under-resourced areas. Simplifying interfaces and providing actionable and in depth insights are vital steps to ensure these tools serve a broader audience and fit into a broader journalistic capacity. 
4. Fairness: The fairness of detection tools hinges on the fairness of their training data. The demographic composition of training datasets significantly affects tool performance. For instance, researchers from the University of Southern California found that popular deepfake detection datasets were predominantly composed of Caucasian faces. This imbalance resulted in poorer performance on content featuring other demographics. Ensuring diverse and representative training data is essential for achieving fair and accurate detection outcomes.
5. Durability: As deepfake technology evolves rapidly, detection tools must keep pace. Tools need to be designed with adaptability in mind, capable of responding to the fast-changing landscape of generative techniques. Regular updates, maintenance and public communication about these changes are crucial to ensuring these tools remain effective against increasingly sophisticated manipulations. Without continuous refinement, even the most advanced tools risk obsolescence, leaving users vulnerable to emerging threats.
6. Contextualization to other skill sets: AI detection tools are frequently applied to complex, unpredictable content, where relying on them as standalone solutions often falls short. Instead, when possible, these tools should be considered as part of a broader verification process and not as a complete solution.

A Framework for Equitable Effectiveness AI Detection

In response, WITNESS is developing a framework to assess AI detection tools based on these six principles that prioritize equity and social context. Built from insights gathered through our work with the Deepfakes Rapid Response Force and informed by consultations with fact-checkers, AI forensic specialists, and digital rights defenders, this framework centers on guiding questions designed to ensure these tools serve the communities that need them most. It moves beyond purely technical benchmarks to consider the lived experiences of those using these tools to counter disinformation daily.

Equitable effectiveness requires asking critical questions, including:

• What are the intended outcomes of using this tool?
• What unintended consequences could arise?
• Can frontline users understand and trust the outputs?
• Are the tools accessible and affordable to diverse users?
• How effectively are the tool’s limitations communicated to users?
• What additional information does the tool provide to support responsible use and reporting on AI?
• How effectively does a detection approach complement other relevant, existing expertise?
• Are biases adequately mitigated to ensure reliable results across different contexts?

By addressing these considerations, we can ensure AI detection tools are not only technically sound but also equitable and effective in practice.

An Opportunity for Real-World Standards

Beyond tool development, this framework can inform crucial policy conversations. As lawmakers and regulators consider mandates on AI transparency and detection, an equitable framework could shape the compliance standards of the future. By centering the needs of communities on the frontlines of our information and disinformation ecosystems, we can influence AI development practices and establish fair, effective standards for the entire ecosystem, ensuring that detection tools fulfill their purpose: safeguarding truth and protecting human rights.

We are at a pivotal moment. The future of AI detection must be guided by values that reflect the lived realities of those impacted by its failures. WITNESS’ framework isn’t just a guide for creating fairer detection tools––it’s a call for an AI field that upholds the principles of equity, inclusivity, and accountability in every stage of technology design and deployment.

Published 19 November 2024

The post Toward Equitable and Effective AI Detection Tools: A Call for Standards That Serve All Communities appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

The preservation of collective memory in Africa has a rich history that dates back centuries, with Indigenous communities passing down knowledge and history through oral traditions, storytelling, art, and music. A key element of preservation in African culture has been the emphasis on storytelling as a means of capturing and transmitting important information from one generation to the next. Many African societies did not have a tradition of a written language but instead relied on oral storytelling, art and music to preserve their history, cultural practices, and traditions. 

While modern archiving methods are important for documentation and preservation, oral traditions, art, and music continue to play essential roles in ensuring that African heritage is passed down to future generations.

The evolution of archiving in African communities has seen a transition from traditional methods of storytelling, art, and music to embrace more formally structured approaches like, memorialisation, transitional justice archiving, cultural heritage archiving and other forms of institutional archiving. This shift reflects the changing needs of communities to record and preserve crucial information, including human rights violations which has been a recurring issue on the African continent, spanning a range of situations, from oppressive authoritarian regimes to civil wars, armed conflicts, revolutions, refugee crises, violent extremism, insurgency, and the spread of misinformation and disinformation.

Archiving for human rights serves as a vital tool for promoting accountability and preserving evidence of abuses. It allows for the identification of patterns of abuses, which can be crucial for understanding the context and scale of human rights violations. Furthermore, archiving enables the future use of evidence for legal proceedings, truth-seeking initiatives, and historical research.

Role of Community-owned archives

Archiving has become crucial in both preserving the past and empowering the future in many different ways and regions. Video stands as one of the most potent tools for storytelling and documenting human rights violations, as it captures the voices and images of affected communities, vividly telling the story of their pain, struggles, and enduring hopes in the face of injustice. However, without proper archiving and preservation, these videos may be lost forever, along with their messages. Here are some organizations working to preserve human rights content in Africa, ranging from institutional to more grassroots archives. 

The Refugee Law Project in Uganda, a community outreach initiative associated with Makerere University, houses a digital archive that serves as a comprehensive repository dedicated to safeguarding and preserving the voices and experiences of forced migrants, primarily from Uganda. This digital archive encompasses a diverse collection of oral history documentation, research papers and publications, heritage-promoting objects, multimedia resources, and educational materials.

Patrick Otim of the  Refugee Law Project cites how archiving has provided support with memorialization to compare and tell stories, social therapy, educational tools, advocacy, conflict resolution in communities and other different justice goals. 

The Genocide Archive, located at the Kigali Memorial Center in Rwanda, is a digital collection of over 8,000 photographs and videos documenting events before, during and after the Rwanda genocide including reconciliation and recovery efforts.

Connect HUB Nigeria is a grassroots initiative that collects and shares videos depicting state violence in Nigeria using social media platforms like Instagram and X (formerly known as Twitter). Through the use of video documentation, the platform aims to bring visibility to instances of human rights abuses, shed light on the lived experiences of those affected, and advocate for accountability and change. Further to that, the organization is developing approaches to ensure the long-term preservation of this important documentation. 

Challenges faced by archives in Africa

WITNESS sent out a survey to some of the community-owned archives globally including in Africa and they told us that archiving and preserving videos has not been easy. There is limited funding support for archive projects leading to a variety of negative consequences like insufficient infrastructure that have impeded the progress of the development and implementation of community-owned archiving models. 

While social media platforms are not designed to function as archives, many communities use them to  share and preserve evidence of human rights violations. Unfortunately, the increasing practice of content removal by social media platforms in the name of enforcing community standards has led to the erasure of crucial evidence related to human rights abuses. 

Other challenges enumerated are around security, safety, privacy and a lack of technical capacity to set up and run formal archives. 

Additionally, watch our huddle on You Tube on Community-based archiving practices

Resources on Archiving

WITNESS remains committed to supporting communities with their archiving needs spanning from directly providing assistance to partners on their archiving needs to developing easily shareable resources like our “Activists’ Guide to Archiving Video“. This year we launched a global social media campaign named Archive Life that aims to raise awareness of human rights community video archives and similar initiatives of recording resistance. Follow the hashtag #ArchiveLife across X, Instagram and Facebook to track the conversation. 

• How To Export Content from WhatsApp
• Blogpost on Cataloguing Tools for Human Rights Video
• Quick Guide to Video Archiving 
• Findings from Our Global Survey of Archiving Needs and Practices

The post From Oral Traditions to Digital Archives appeared first on WITNESS Blog.

This workshop is part of ongoing efforts at WITNESS to engage with communities that conduct crucial human rights, media and civil society work, to ensure that the development of emerging technologies reflect their global needs and risks. Our pioneering work convening these critical voices on matters related to deepfakes and synthetic media started in 2019 in South Africa, Brazil and continued in 2020 in the United States and Southeast Asia. In addition to online consultations 2021-22, more recently, we held similar workshops in São Paulo, Brazil, Nairobi, Kenya, and Bogotá, Colombia.

The full report of the workshop can be found here.

Context considerations for Asia Pacific

Previous consultations have underscored the need to understand the context within which synthetic media and generative AI are emerging and becoming more widely developed and used. 

In discussing what currently threatens freedom of expression, assembly, and association in the region, participants highlighted that intimidation and censorship, online harassment, and data security were of particular concern, and they pointed to mass arrests and enforced disappearances in Bangladesh; blasphemy laws and online harassment, particularly against women journalists, in Pakistan; and legal and extrajudicial suppression of dissent in Thailand, as examples (see the CIVICUS Monitor 2023 for more information on the threats against freedom of expression, assembly, and association in APAC).

Participants noted that rampant disinformation has had a significant impact on trust and truth in the information ecosystem, and they agreed that synthetic media and generative AI were already part of this expanding challenge. There were other areas of concern in this space too, such as insufficient and disparate levels of digital literacy, challenges to independent media, and social media platforms with harmful content moderation policies and inadequately regulated––all of which add to an already burgeoning crisis of trust.   

While discussing what stands in the way of equity and inclusion, participants described concerns around economic exclusion and the marginalization of religious and ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+ individuals, and women. As in previous consultations, participants argued that these people and communities, along with activists, civil society, and journalists were the most at risk from the threats from synthetic media and generative AI. 

Identifying and Prioritizing Threats

The context described above framed the discussions focused on identifying and prioritizing threats from synthetic media and generative AI. 

One of the more striking conclusions from these discussions was the concerns around the accessibility and ease of use of generative AI tools––not as a problem in and of itself, but as the basis for manipulation, deception and confusion in the information ecosystem. It was noted that the ability to create sophisticated content at volume could be misused nefariously, or unintentionally used in a way that ultimately undermines truth. This was well reflected in our ‘Spectrogram’ exercise, where participants identified ‘synthetic histories’ as the number one threat from synthetic media. 

It is worth stressing, as participants did, that this has serious implications for fact-checkers, journalists, and anyone speaking truth to power. It creates an additional burden to develop mechanisms and strategies to prove the authenticity of their content to audiences, while also enabling those who seek to deceive or manipulate to plausibly cast doubt on the truth or present falsehoods as fact.

The weaponization of synthetic media and generative AI to attack and undermine activists, civil society, and journalists was, again, prioritized as a major threat. Among those, women were particularly vulnerable to AI-facilitated sexual and gender-based violence. Throughout the event, participants brought up numerous examples that already point to a growing trend, especially in the context of elections where synthetic media has been used to threaten, intimidate and undermine women candidates.  

Interestingly, in contrast with what seems to be top of mind among tech companies and technologists, especially in the United States, ‘Agentic AI’–an AI system designed to autonomously make decisions, adapt to environments, and pursue goals with minimal human intervention–was not a major concern among participants. 

Taking action

When considering the responses to the threats from synthetic media, participants seemed to emphasize the need to focus on developing the foundations that can help respond to an ever evolving landscape. For example, establishing clear mechanisms for collaboration between governments and legislators, technology companies, journalists, and civil society organizations was reiterated on numerous occasions as the basis for effective solutions. 

Multi-stakeholder collaboration could guide the creation of more locally relevant ethical and legal frameworks; it could facilitate strategic litigation aimed at ensuring accountability across the pipeline of actors in the synthetic media ecosystem; and it could help put in place time-sensitive, and scalable solutions for fact-checking, including through more trustworthy and accessible detection tools.

As hinted above, another recurring theme during the workshop was the need to ‘move the conversation away from the west’. In coming up with responses to threats from synthetic media, it is necessary to bring different voices, especially those most vulnerable, to the table. Some specific actions include the creation of new tools or the adaptation of existing ones to meet the language needs of minorities and involving community leaders in education and fact-checking processes as a way to promote trust.

Technical mechanisms for disclosure and transparency, such as provenance, watermarking and fingerprinting, were also discussed extensively, and there was a general agreement that these will play a critical role in addressing the threats discussed previously. These too, however, need to be built over the foundations discussed in this section; that is, these need to be designed and implemented with input and participation from different communities in the region, and they need to be enabled to ‘fortify the truth’ while addressing privacy and accessibility concerns.

Become part of the response: a call for researchers, technology companies, legislators, policy makers, activists, journalists, creators and campaigners

WITNESS will continue to consult globally with journalists, fact-checkers, technologists, policy advocates, creators, human rights defenders and community activists about the threats and opportunities that generative AI and synthetic media bring to audiovisual witnessing, and the responses that these communities prioritize to build a stronger information landscape. 

If you want to be part of the conversation, or have suggestions for collaborations, please get in touch with us by emailing Jacobo Castellanos: jacobo@witness.org

The post Fortifying the Truth in the Age of Synthetic Media and Generative AI: Perspectives from Asia-Pacific appeared first on WITNESS Blog.