The defense of human rights in Latin America faces both historical and emerging challenges. Beyond traditional physical threats, human rights defenders are increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks, surveillance, tech-facilitated violence, and other digital risks. In this context, the research conducted by TEDIC (Paraguay) and Fundación Karisma (Colombia) is essential, offering insights into the digital security and cybersecurity issues faced by human rights defenders in Paraguay and Colombia.
This blog analyzes and compares the main findings of both investigations, highlighting their similarities, differences, and contributions. Based on these findings, we reflect on the challenges and opportunities that digital environments present for human rights defenders in both countries.
Context and Purpose of the Research
In recent years, the terms cybersecurity and digital security have become common expressions of concern, reflecting critical aspects of human activities. Particularly relevant to human rights defenders, these terms are central in Latin America, where contexts of violence, inequality, and unequal access to technology pose significant challenges to advancing the human rights agenda. In Colombia and Paraguay, those fighting for fundamental rights face not only physical threats but also increasing risks in the digital realm.
This blog aims to compare two recent studies that examine the dynamics of digital appropriation and the risks faced by groups of human rights defenders in both countries. The goal is to identify key commonalities and differences that can inform the development of better digital protection strategies. In both Colombia and Paraguay, human rights defenders play a crucial role in promoting social justice and protecting vulnerable communities. However, their work is marked by vulnerabilities in all aspects of their lives, including the digital sphere, where attacks on privacy, online harassment, and the misuse of personal data have become everyday threats.
While both investigations followed a similar structure, their development reveals significant differences that must be considered in the comparative analysis. One key limitation lies in the approaches taken by each report and the populations they consulted. The Paraguayan report approaches the issue from a cybersecurity perspective, focusing on technical protections against cyberattacks, whereas the Colombian report takes a digital security approach, offering a more holistic perspective to protect all digital activities, assets, and identities. Despite these differences, both reports focus on analyzing the risks these individuals face in the digital environment and propose measures to mitigate these risks.
Given this shared objective, the comparison will focus on the common aspects of both approaches, whether cybersecurity or digital security. Additionally, as will become evident in the methodological descriptions, both studies conducted surveys involving approximately 100 human rights defenders. Both studies targeted experiences outside major urban centers; however, the Paraguayan report focused on urban areas, while the Colombian report adopted a more rural perspective. It is also worth noting that while both surveyed a similar number of participants, Paraguay’s population is around 7.5 million, compared to Colombia’s 45 million.
The comparison of these studies reveals significant differences in risk and protection dynamics. In Colombia, the focus on digital appropriation highlights the importance of human rights defenders not just as technology users but as active agents in adapting and leveraging technology for human rights advocacy. Conversely, the study in Paraguay emphasizes perceptions and knowledge about cybersecurity, offering a clearer understanding of the strengths and weaknesses in using digital tools for daily work. This methodological difference provides an opportunity to explore how digital solutions can better align with the local needs of defenders in each country.
Within these limitations, this comparative analysis seeks to offer a broader view of the digital security conditions for human rights defenders in Colombia and Paraguay. By examining the methodological approaches and key findings of both studies, the analysis aims to provide valuable inputs for the creation of regional strategies that strengthen digital security and technological appropriation for human rights defenders in Latin America. Ultimately, the convergence of these realities can contribute to the development of more inclusive and effective public policies to address the digital risks faced by those who advocate for fundamental rights.
Throughout this blog, we will address these differences and similarities, highlighting how each approach responds to local needs and their broader implications.
Definition of a Human Rights Defender
The investigations from Paraguay and Colombia on human rights defenders highlight their crucial role in promoting and protecting fundamental rights, although they approach this reality from distinct perspectives.
In Paraguay, the emphasis lies on the UN definition of human rights defenders, highlighting their right and duty to protect these rights in a context of increasing technological dependence and surveillance. The report stresses the need for specific legislation to strengthen their work in the face of digital risks, particularly in the realm of cybersecurity.
Conversely, in Colombia, an inclusive approach expands the definition of a defender to include social leaders and individuals committed to peaceful actions in favor of human rights, regardless of their context or profession. This perspective underscores the diversity of actors involved in defending rights and the necessity of protecting them from digital threats.
Both reports agree on the importance of digital security as a key element to ensure the integrity of defenders and the effectiveness of their work. While Paraguay advocates for a technical and collaborative approach across sectors, Colombia acknowledges the multiplicity of contexts and the need for strategies tailored to each reality. Together, these perspectives emphasize the critical role of human rights defenders in building just and democratic societies.
Methodological Approaches of the Research
Both investigations employ mixed methods but differ in participant selection, data collection techniques, and specific contexts. The study in Paraguay takes an exploratory approach, aiming to establish a baseline for the cybersecurity of human rights defenders. This work builds upon a previous, unpublished study conducted by Fundación Karisma in Colombia, indicating an intention to leverage prior research. In contrast, the Colombian investigation also utilizes a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques, but focuses on obtaining a comprehensive understanding of digital appropriation and the risks faced by human rights defenders.
In Paraguay
- Sample: 130 human rights defenders selected in collaboration with the Coordinadora de Derechos Humanos del Paraguay (CODEHUPY).
- Data Collection: Descriptive surveys administered synchronously (via telephone) and asynchronously (via WhatsApp), complemented by interviews with key informants and two focus groups.
- Analysis: Descriptive statistics to identify patterns in technology use, risks, and protection measures.
In Colombia
- Sample: 107 human rights defenders identified through networks associated with the foundation, with an emphasis on rural areas.
- Data Collection: Probabilistic surveys with closed questions, five focus groups, and detailed qualitative analysis.
- Analysis: Construction of indicators to measure digital appropriation and security risks, employing a technical approach to data triangulation.
Sociodemographics of Participants
The sociodemographic analysis of surveyed human rights defenders provides valuable insights into who faces digital risks in both countries.
Similarities
- Age: Both reports show a majority of young participants. In Paraguay, 68.4% are under 45 years old, compared to 82% in Colombia.
- Education: Human rights defenders in both countries have high levels of education. In Paraguay, 57.4% hold a university degree, while in Colombia, the figure is 30.84%.
Differences
- Geographical Distribution:
- In Paraguay, defenders are concentrated in urban areas (60.8% in Asunción and Central).
- In Colombia, rural and jungle regions dominate, with 54% of participants from the Orinoquía and Amazonia regions.
- Gender Diversity:
- In Paraguay, 61.5% of participants are women, and 2.3% identify as non-binary.
- In Colombia, 53.27% are women, with greater diversity in trans identities (4.67%).
Geographical representation and gender diversity reflect the unique characteristics of each country, influencing how digital risks are perceived and addressed.
Vulnerabilities, Risks, and Digital Incidents
Both reports highlight significant deficiencies in training and the adoption of digital protection measures:
- Training: In Paraguay, 76.2% of surveyed defenders have not received training in digital security, a figure similar to 75% in Colombia. This lack of preparation leaves defenders vulnerable to digital risks.
- Unsafe Practices:
- In Paraguay, 56.2% reuse passwords, and 70% allow automatic login, increasing the risk of hacking. In Colombia, while specific figures are not provided, password reuse is also identified as a high-risk factor.
- Antivirus usage is low in both contexts: 37.7% in Paraguay and 15% in Colombia, reflecting limited protection against malware.
Backup and Information Protection
- Data Backup: Only 52.3% of respondents in Paraguay back up their information, compared to a significantly lower 12.15% in Colombia, where this practice is even less common.
- Wi-Fi Security: In both countries, 70% of human rights defenders use passwords to secure their networks, but few update them regularly (10.8% in Paraguay and 25.23% in Colombia). This highlights a critical vulnerability in connection security.
Reported Digital Security Incidents
Human rights defenders in both countries face similar threats, though their frequency varies:
- Hacking and Unauthorized Access: More common in Paraguay (38.9%) than in Colombia (19%).
- Phishing: A prevalent issue in both countries, affecting 24.1% of respondents in Paraguay and 22% in Colombia.
- Identity Theft: Reported by 22% of defenders in both countries, undermining trust in digital communications.
- Digital Violence: In Paraguay, social media violence and aggression in WhatsApp groups are perceived as the most frequent threats, with significant psychological impacts. In Colombia, while less reported, it remains a relevant risk.
Notable Differences
- Communication Interception: Higher in Paraguay (20.4%) than in Colombia (4.67%), indicating greater surveillance risks in the Paraguayan context.
- Device Confiscation: More frequent in Paraguay (3.74%) compared to Colombia (1.9%), reflecting differences in institutional and social security contexts.
In Paraguay, the predominant use of WhatsApp for communication and document sharing in rural areas increases vulnerabilities due to over-reliance on this platform. Additionally, the lack of data protection laws exposes defenders to higher risks, such as the misuse of recorded meetings without consent, a striking example documented in the report.
Gender-Based Violence Facilitated by Technology
Research from Paraguay and Colombia highlights the persistence and severity of various forms of gender-based violence facilitated by technology, significantly affecting human rights defenders. While there are similarities in the most common forms of aggression, such as cyberbullying and discrimination, differences also emerge in the frequency and nature of these incidents.
Similarities
- Cyberbullying: One of the most reported forms in both countries, affecting 21.6% of respondents in Paraguay and 14% in Colombia.
- Discrimination Based on Gender, Sex, or Sexual Orientation: Affects 21.6% in Paraguay and 14.9% in Colombia, underscoring deeply rooted biases and social stigmas.
- Sexual Harassment: Via social media, emails, or text messages, it impacts similarly in both countries: 15.7% in Paraguay and 14% in Colombia.
Differences
- Sexual Offenses: In Colombia, verbal or written offensive expressions are more prevalent (16.8%) than in Paraguay (13.7%), reflecting higher levels of verbal aggression in the Andean context.
- Doxxing: The unauthorized disclosure of personal information is significantly higher in Paraguay (9.8%) than in Colombia (2.8%), indicating greater privacy risks for Paraguayan defenders.
- Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images and Sextortion: Though less common, these forms of violence are present in both countries. In Paraguay, 3.9% reported non-consensual sharing of intimate images, compared to 2.8% in Colombia. Sextortion affects 2% in Paraguay and 0.9% in Colombia.
While similarities exist in the digital violence faced by human rights defenders in Paraguay and Colombia, differences in prevalence and severity reflect the unique characteristics of each context. This underscores the need for locally adapted strategies to address gender-based violence in digital spaces.
Lessons and Recommendations
Despite differences in their approaches, the research conducted by TEDIC and Fundación Karisma offers valuable insights to enhance the digital protection of human rights defenders. Key recommendations include:
- Digital Security Training: Both reports highlight the need to train defenders in basic protection practices, such as using secure passwords and encrypting information.
- Adaptation to Local Contexts: Solutions must consider the specific realities of each country, such as Paraguay’s reliance on WhatsApp and Colombia’s access inequalities.
- Inclusive Public Policies: It is essential to develop legal frameworks that safeguard defenders from digital threats, including data protection and surveillance legislation.
Ultimately, both studies emphasize the importance of strengthening the digital capabilities of defenders, not only to mitigate risks but also to empower them as autonomous agents in the defense of human rights within an increasingly digital world.
Explore the findings by downloading the report in spanish.