Posts Tagged ‘zoom’

ASEAN Human Rights Advocacy Academy 2021: how to apply

August 20, 2021

What is the ASEAN Human Rights Advocacy Academy?

The ASEAN Human Rights Advocacy Academy is a 15-hour online capacity building workshop (spread into weekly sessions) for young activists and professionals in Southeast Asia on effective human rights advocacy in ASEAN.

Organised by FORUM-ASIA, the Academy will bring together the expertise of human rights practitioners and provide necessary tools to enhance participants’ knowledge on the role of ASEAN and its human rights mechanisms.

What will participants learn?

  • Human rights situation in ASEAN
  • ASEAN human rights framework
  • Best practices and case studies on human rights mechanisms
  • Advocacy strategy

Programme Duration: 2 to 30 September 2021, 2-5 PM every Thursday (GMT+7)

Platform: Zoom

Who can apply?

  • Southeast Asian and Timor Leste nationals in their junior and mid-level career (those with 2 to 5 years of relevant experience working in NGOs, Think Tanks, academic institutions, non-profit and social enterpreneurship collectives) and working in the fields of social justice, human rights, peace and conflict, and democracy in Southeast Asia (local, national, or regional level)
  • Those with two to five years experience in the above-mentioned fields;
  • Have prior knowledge and engagement with ASEAN and its human rights mechanism (can be in terms of activism, research, and other means of engagement);
  • Those who do not have prior knowledge and engagement with ASEAN (e.g. university students) will need to demonstrate how participating in  the Academy will contribute to their work or associated organisations towards advancing human rights in the region;
  • Excellent command of English, both spoken and written.
  • All qualified individuals regardless of age, race, colour, sex, gender orientation, religion, national origin, disability, or veteran status are encouraged to apply.

How can you apply?

To register for the workshop, kindly fill up the necessary information and submit your CV (maximum 3 pages) through this link: https://bit.ly/ASEANHRAcademy

Deadline of Submission

23 August 2021, midnight (GMT+7)

For inquiries about the Academy,  please email us at ea-aseanATforum-asia.org

https://www.forum-asia.org/?p=35520

In-depth interview with Ron Deibert, Citizen Lab’s founder

May 31, 2021
a smiling man in a collared shirt standing in front of a staircase

Ron Deibert is director of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. (Courtesy of Ron Deibert)

On 25 May 2021 Nathaniel Basen for TVO.org spoke with professor Ron Deibert about internet censorship, espionage, and getting threats from authoritarian regimes. It is a long but rich interview: In 2001, Ron Deibert, a professor at the University of Toronto, founded Citizen Lab to help understand and track the spread of digital human-rights abuses around the world. 

In the 20 years since, the interdisciplinary lab has made headlines for protecting journalists and human-rights defenders from digital attacks; one of its researchers helped identify members of the group that attacked the United States Capitol earlier this year.

TVO.org: Let’s start at the beginning. How and why did Citizen Lab start, and what did it look like at the time? 

Ron Deibert: Back in the late 1990s, I was doing what I would consider to be conventional academic research — the lone professor studying a topic. A lot of desktop research. A student was taking a course of mine proposed doing a paper where he would explore censorship in China. This was a new topic back then — there was not any evidence really that China was censoring the internet — but people assumed they would, and there was a lot of uncertainty about what was going on there. 

He was kind of a self-taught hacker, and he put together this research paper where he connected to computers in China using some proxy servers and started comparing the results he got to what he could see here in Canada, doing it very systematically. It opened my eyes to the ways in which methods from computer science and engineering science — technical interrogation tools and techniques — could be used to surface real primary evidence about what’s going on beneath the surface of the internet around information control. Especially what governments, and also private companies, are doing that isn’t in the public domain. No one was really doing that at the time, and a lightbulb went on, where I realized that this is a really powerful way of surfacing primary evidence and data in a way that really no one else was doing. 

So I put together a prospectus for a lab that would be interdisciplinary, that would bring together people who have these skills to work systematically on uncovering information-control practices and look at surveillance and censorship and information warfare, from the standpoint of risks to citizens from a human-rights perspective. I was very fortunate at the time to get support from the Ford Foundation — I got a grant from them in 2001 — and I put the proposal together for the Citizen Lab from that. 

TVO.org: And at the time you were in a pretty small basement lab.

Deibert: Actually, it was my office in political science where it all got started. When I got the grant, the Munk Centre was just being established, and the building at Devonshire [at the University of Toronto] was under construction. I went over to that building and scoped out what I thought would be a room that no one else would want, to increase my chance of getting approval. I found this space, and I went to Janice Stein, the director, and said, “Hey, I’ve got this grant. I’ve got this idea. I need some space.” And she said, “Okay, you can have it.” 

So she supported the idea and took a risk. Space is a very valuable asset on campus. And even though it sounds less glamorous, we were really happy to have that room.

After 10 years, we moved to the new Munk building, the observatory, where we’re located now, and that was really great, because we needed more space. Security is not perfect — where we are there are lots of problems — but it is much better than it was in the old building, where people would just wander in and could easily locate us. Now we’re wrapped behind several layers of access control…..

TVO.org: Let’s talk a little bit about your process. How does Citizen Lab decide what to look into next?

Deibert: It’s a combination of factors. First and foremost, we are looking at the topic, at the domain, broadly speaking, which for us is global in scope. We don’t have a particular regional focus. We’re looking at risks to human rights that arise out of information technology: that’s the broadest possible definition of what we do.

That also limits our selection of cases that we want to examine. We assume that, however problematic cybersecurity is for big banks or government, they have resources — they can go hire a private company. But journalists, human-rights defenders, people living in the global south who are human-rights defenders and are advocating for policy change, they really lack capacity. So we put our effort into identifying cases that present the highest risk to human rights and, ideally, affect the most vulnerable parts of the population. 

We divide our work systematically. So there are certain teams that we organize around, though there’s a bit of overlap. It’s fluid, but we have some teams that are more interested in applying network-measurement techniques to uncovering internet censorship, let’s say, and that’s probably the area where we’ve doing the most work for the longest time. Then there’s what we call the targeted-threats group, which is really the most serious stuff around espionage, and it certainly has the highest risk and has gotten us in the crosshairs of some bad actors, to such an extent that we’ve now become a target. We also apply non-technical methods in an interdisciplinary way — we have people who are trained in law and policy. So we’ve done a lot of work around legislation of analyzing national security laws and practices in Canada. 

I would say how things are chosen depends on the opportunities that come up. We may hear about something, some preliminary evidence, perhaps a journalist tips us off or a victim comes forward. Or the team itself decides, hey, this is something we should look into. A good example of that is Zoom. We knew about Zoom: it was a kind of obscure business, networking-communications platform, until the pandemic hit. Suddenly, everyone was on Zoom. So our researchers got together and said, “Hey, we better take a look at this” and indeed uncovered some highly problematic security and privacy issues.

TVO.org: Your work with Zoom is a good example of getting immediate results from your work. If I’m correct, after a public outcry, Zoom cleaned up a lot of what you found. How does that feel to have an immediate impact on the world in that way? 

Deibert: It’s actually super-rewarding in a number of ways. First of all, there’s the gratification to get the message out. Ultimately, we see ourselves as a university-based watchdog group, so if you can publish something and the next day everybody’s reading about it because it’s on the front page of the New York Times? That’s phenomenal. We’ve been actually really fortunate to have high-profile coverage for our research. I think we’ve had, like, close to 30 front-page stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, other global media, the Financial Times, about different reports of ours over the last 20 years. 

Going further, ultimately, we don’t just want to get attention for what we’re doing — we want to see some change. So there have been so many cases now where we’ve seen consequences, actions taken, policy changes, or advocacy campaigns started as a result of the work that we’ve done. 

Probably the biggest one was back in 2016, when we investigated a targeted espionage attack against a human-rights defender in the United Arab Emirates. He shared with us an SMS message that was tainted with malware that the UAE government was using to try to hack his phone, and when we reverse-engineered it, that malware infected our own device, our own iPhone. We realized that it was so sophisticated and involved what were then three software flaws in the Apple operating system, that even Apple itself didn’t know about. We did a responsible disclosure to them and, within two weeks, they pushed out a patch that affected directly the security of more than 1 billion people. So, to be able to say, “Hey, we were responsible for that” is, I think, quite an accomplishment.

TVO.org: On the flip side, there are people that don’t like the work you do. What has it been like for you to become a target? I can’t imagine when you started this thing that you pictured yourself coming under threat. 

Deibert: Well, first of all, you’re right. I grew up studying world politics as something out there, and I’m a spectator. There were a couple of instances before this, but, really, when we published the GhostNet report in 2009, which was the first public-evidence-based report on cyber espionage, it was the one that involved the hacking of the office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and we uncovered this massive Chinese espionage operation. 

It suddenly dawned on me, okay, we’ve gone from kind of just observing and recording to becoming a factor, because very quickly thereafter, we had all sorts of inquiries and veiled threats and concerns about physical security. From that point on, from 2009 to today, they’ve really only amplified. The worst is probably when we were targeted by Black Cube, the same private-intelligence firm made up of ex-Mossad agents that notoriously went after the accusers of Harvey Weinstein. Now, that’s really frightening to be in their crosshairs. We ended up actually exposing that operation, but to know that something like that is going on, frankly, is very disturbing. It really forces you to change your behaviour, think about practical issues: when you’re travelling, hotels, getting into elevators, who’s accessing the same building as you. 

At the same time, though, I think it’s a mark of success. If we’re not successful, those people wouldn’t care. It’s just something you have to factor into your risk calculation and take all the precautions, and we’re most concerned about the risks to the subjects of our research. Frankly, we go to extraordinary lengths to protect the security in terms of the data we handle, how we interact with them and interview them. But, yeah, it’s just constant. Actually, every day there’s something, ranging from people who, unfortunately, maybe are mentally disturbed, and they read about us and want to visit us, all the way to, you know, the world’s worst authoritarian regimes that are trying to threaten us. 

TVO.org: A lot of this work is global in nature, but some Ontarians might be surprised to know a lot of it is quite local. I’m thinking about your work with internet-filtering technology and Waterloo-based Netsweeper. What makes filtering technology so important, and what was Netsweeper up to? 

Deibert: As the internet evolves, there are all sorts of reasons why people want to control access to certain content online — beginning, I would say, with schools and libraries. There are legitimate concerns among parents and teachers that children have access to pornography or other types of content. Service providers like Netsweeper fill the market niche, providing filtering technology to those clients. 

But, very quickly, there grew a need among governments — national-level internet censorship. In the beginning, like I talked about with the Chinese, it was very rare in the 1990s or 2000s. I could count on one hand the number of governments that were doing this sort of thing. Now, it’s routine, and it’s big business. So with a company like Netsweeper, for us, it was, frankly, a no-brainer to zero in on it, and not even because they’re based in our own backyard. There’s certainly a motivating factor there because we’re Canadians, and we want to make sure that, as best we can, we identify businesses operating out of Canada to see if they’re in compliance with Canadian law or Canadian values. Here, we had a company that seemed to be not just kind of stumbling into selling internet-censorship services to some of the world’s worst violators of human rights, but actively courting them. 

They were showing up all over the world, especially in the Middle East. The Middle East is where Netsweeper really profited from selling internet-censorship services to governments that routinely violate human rights and block access to content that would be considered protected legally here in Canada. And they were also doing this in a non-transparent way. 

This is not something they openly advertised, and yet we knew, from our research and technical investigation, we could identify basically unquestionable proof that their technology was being used to filter access to content that would be legally protected here in Canada, in places like Bahrain and Yemen and in the Gulf. 

So we did a report about Netsweeper’s technology in Yemen, and at this time, the main telco, YemenNet, was controlled by Houthi rebels, and of course there’s an ongoing civil war, which at that time was really quite intense. We simply documented that Netsweeper’s technology was being used to actually block the entire Israeli top-level domain — the only time we’d ever seen that in the world, with the exception of Iran. 

We published this report, and we mentioned in the commentary around it that, in providing services to one participant in an armed conflict, who is censoring information, including information related to international news, they’re effectively inserting themselves in an armed conflict, and it raises all sorts of ethical, moral, and potentially even legal issues. Netsweeper sued me and the University of Toronto for defamation for over $3 million. Of course, we thought that was entirely baseless, and six months later, they simply withdrew the suit. 

Coincidentally, their suit came shortly before the Ontario government passed anti-SLAPP legislation to prevent lawsuits that chill free expression, which in our opinion, is very much what it is, because as we were going through the litigation, we couldn’t report on Netsweeper. After the lawsuit was dropped, we then published several subsequent reports on Netsweeper…..

TVO.org: In your 20 years, what is the work you’re most proud of?

Deibert: What I’m most proud of is the staff. I’d say a skill that I have is, I think I would make a good NHL scout or a band manager. I have the ability, for what it’s worth, to identify talented people and give them the support they need. So there’s not a particular report that I’m proud of; I’m most proud of the people who work at the lab. I’m so fortunate to be surrounded by these extremely talented, ethical, dedicated people, most of whom have been with me for over 10 years. It’s rare to have that in a small university. And that’s what I’m most proud of.

TVO.org: The lab itself, as we talked about a little bit, is somewhat unique: you’re working outside of government or corporations and working in the interest of human rights. Others around the world have taken note of your model. Do you hope to export it? 

Deibert: It’s beginning to be surprising to me that there aren’t more Citizen Lab–like organizations at other universities. To me, this is a field with such endless opportunity. There’s so much unfortunate malfeasance going on in the digital world. 

And, yet, you have these extremely powerful methods and techniques, as we’ve demonstrated, that, by way of analogy, act like an X-ray on the abuse of power. That’s the way I think about it. It’s astonishing. 

Sometimes I sit back and shake my head. A lot of the stuff we don’t even publish. It’s remarkable what you can see when you use these very precise, careful methods to uncover and track abuses of power. Why haven’t other university professors jumped on this and tried to mimic it? I don’t really know. I suppose there’s no one answer. There are risks involved with it, and it’s actually not easy to cross disciplinary boundaries. 

So I think that we’re helping to build the field, at least I hope, and you’re right that there are a few other places where I’m seeing either professors or, in some cases, human-rights organizations, attempting to build something like this. That is fantastic. That’s really where my effort and the next phase of my career is, around really field-building by promoting that model and hoping that others build up centres like the Citizen Lab at other universities, while also ensuring the sustainability of the lab.

This is a bit “inside university,” but the reality is, as the only professor in the lab, I’m the weakest link. So if something happens to me, the lab would really fall apart. Not because I’m the wizard directing everything — purely because I’m the responsible principal investigator for the grant, and you need that at a university. What I hope to do is ensure the sustainability of the lab outside of me, and that means recruiting other professors to the lab. We’re actively fundraising to do that and to try to get more tenure-track positions connected to the lab so that it can continue once I move on.

TVO.org: And what will the next 20 years hold for the lab itself?

Deibert: Hopefully, we ‘ll be able to continue. We know we have the support from the University of Toronto; they’ve been incredible in a number of ways. We live in a time when big university bureaucracies are criticized, sometimes rightfully so — I’ve been critical of my own university in various areas. But one thing I can say, they have been so supportive of work that we do in a variety of real practical ways, including legal support. 

I just want the lab to not be something that is tied to one profession. I want it to continue and to duplicate what we do globally. If we had 25 Citizen Labs sprinkled around the planet, it would be better for human rights overall, because there would at least be another protective layer, if you will, of dogged researchers who aren’t afraid to uncover abuses of power, no matter where they are.

https://www.tvo.org/article/x-ray-on-the-abuse-of-power-citizen-labs-founder-on-fighting-for-human-rights

ZOOM accused of suspending accounts of human rights defenders

July 29, 2020

Bernise Carolino on 28 July 2020 wrote in the Canadian lawyers Magazine that Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada has condemned Zoom Communications Inc.’s suspension of the accounts of human rights activists, calling it a breach of its responsibility to respect the rights to free expression, association and assembly.

A letter from Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada called upon Zoom to ensure that the communications of its users are not similarly suspended or disrupted in the future. The group urged Zoom to establish a company policy to clarify how it intends to adhere to its international legal responsibility under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The group also requested that Zoom refrain from blocking participation of users based on geography.

In June, Zoom suspended three accounts of activists based in the U.S. and Hong Kong in compliance with a request from the government of China, which claimed that the activists were trying to use Zoom to host meetings commemorating the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Zoom then reinstated the accounts and said that it would not in the future permit such requests to affect individuals outside mainland China.

Despite the reinstatement of these accounts, the lawyers’ rights group took issue with Zoom’s plans to develop technology that will allow it to remove or block participants based on their location in response to requests from local authorities claiming that certain activity on the platform is prohibited based on their country’s laws.

All international businesses, including Zoom, must ensure that all their users can enjoy the rights and freedoms afforded to them under international law,” wrote Joey Doyle, a director of Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada and an author of the letter, in the organization’s press release. “This is particularly important in this present world where most communication takes place over online platforms such as Zoom.”

Zoom has an international law obligation to respect the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, the right to access information and the right to privacy, said Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as legal bases. The group also called attention to the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which recognizes the right of such defenders to advance the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Joshua Lam, another director of Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, and executive director Catherine Morris co-authored the letter, addressed to Eric S. Yuan, Zoom’s founder and chief executive officer, and Lynn Haaland, the company’s chief compliance and ethics officer.

See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/07/21/frontlines-guide-to-secure-group-chat-and-conferencing-tools/

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/lawyers-rights-watch-canada-urges-zoom-to-abide-by-international-human-rights-obligations/331904

Frontline’s Guide to Secure Group Chat and Conferencing Tools

July 21, 2020

With teams increasingly working remotely during COVID-19, we are all facing questions regarding the security of our communication with one another: Which communication platform or tool is best to use? Which is the most secure for holding sensitive internal meetings? Which will have adequate features for online training sessions or remote courses without compromising the privacy and security of participants?

Front Line Defenders presents this simple overview which may help you choose the right tool for your specific needs.

FLD Secure Group Chat Flowchart

Download PDF of the flow chart

Note:

  • With end-to-end encryption (e2ee), your message gets encrypted before it leaves your device and only gets decrypted when it reaches the intended recipient’s device. Using e2ee is important if you plan to transmit sensitive communication, such as during internal team or partners meetings.
  • With encryption to-server, your message gets encrypted before it leaves your device, but is being decrypted on the server, processed, and encrypted again before being sent to recipient(s). Having encryption to-server is OK if you fully trust the server.

Why Zoom or other platforms/tools are not listed here: There are many platforms which can be used for group communication. In this guide we focused on those we think will deliver good user experiences and offer the best privacy and security features. Of course none of the platforms can offer 100% privacy or security as in all communications, there is a margin of risk. We have not included tools such as Zoom, Skype, Telegram etc. in this guide, as we believe that the margin of risk incurred whilst using them is too wide, and therefore Front Line Defenders does not feel comfortable recommending them.

Surveillance and behaviour: Some companies like Facebook, Google, Apple and others regularly collect, analyse and monetize information about users and their online activities. Most, if not all, of us are already profiled by these companies to some extent. If the communication is encrypted to-server owners of the platform may store this communication. Even with end-to-end encryption, communication practices such as location, time, whom you connect with, how often, etc. may still be stored. If you are uncomfortable with this data being collected, stored and shared, we recommended refraining from using services by those companies.

The level of protection of your call depends not only on which platform you choose, but also on the physical security of the space you and others on the call are in and the digital protection of the devices you and others use for the call.

See also:

Caution: Use of encryption is illegal in some countries. You should understand and consider the law in your country before deciding on using any of the tools mentioned in this guide.

Criteria for selecting the tools or platforms

Before selecting any communication platform, app or program it is always strongly recommended that you research it first. Below we list some important questions to consider:

  • Is the platform mature enough? How long has it been running for? Is it still being actively developed? Does it have a large community of active developers? How many active users does it have?
  • Does the platform provide encryption? Is it end-to-end encrypted or just to-server encrypted?
  • In which jurisdiction is the owner of the platform and where are servers located? Does this pose a potential challenge for your or your partners?
  • Does the platform allow for self-hosting?
  • Is the platform open source? Does it provide source code to anyone to inspect?
  • Was the platform independently audited? When was the last audit? What do experts say about the platform?
  • What is the history of the development and ownership of the platform? Have there been any security challenges? How have the owners and developers reacted to those challenges?
  • How do you connect with others? Do you need to provide phone number, email or nickname? Do you need to install a dedicated app/program? What will this app/program have access to on your device? Is it your address book, location, mic, camera, etc.?
  • What is stored on the server? What does the platform’s owner have access to?
  • Does the platform have features needed for the specific task/s you require?
  • Is the platform affordable? This needs to include potential subscription fees, learning and implementing, and possible IT support needed, hosting costs, etc.

The document then proceeds to give more detailed information related to each tool/service listed in this guide

Signal – https://signal.org/

Delta Chat – https://delta.chat/

Wire – https://wire.com/

Jitsi Meet – https://jitsi.org/jitsi-meet/

BigBlueButton – https://bigbluebutton.org/

Whereby – https://whereby.com

Blue Jeans – https://www.bluejeans.com/

GoToMeeting – https://www.gotomeeting.com/

Facetime / iMessage –https://www.apple.com/ios/facetime

Google Meet – https://meet.google.com/

Duo – https://duo.google.com/

WhatsApp – https://www.whatsapp.com/

Video calls, webinar or online training recommendations

Video calls recommendations: In the current situation you will undoubtedly find yourself organizing or participating in many more video calls than before. It may not be obvious to everyone how to do it securely and without exposing yourself and your data to too much risk:

  • Assume that when you connect to talk your camera and microphone may be turned on by default. Consider covering your camera with a sticker (making sure it doesn’t leave any sticky residue on the camera lens) and only remove it when you use the camera.
  • You may not want to give away too much information on your house, family pictures, notes on the walls or boards, etc. Be mindful of the background, who and what is also in the frame aside from yourself? Test before the call by, for example, opening meet.jit.si and click on GO button to get to a random empty room with your camera switched on to see what is in the picture. Consider clearing your background of clutter.
  • Also be mindful who can be heard in the background. Maybe close the door and windows, or alert those sharing your space about your meeting.
  • Video call services may collect information on your location and activity, consider using a VPN (see Physical, emotional and digital protection while using home as office in times of COVID-19 guide).
  • It is best to position your face so your eyes are more or less at the upper third of the picture without cutting off your head. Unless you do not want to reveal your face, do not sit with your back to a light or a window. Daylight or a lamp from the front is the best. Stay within the camera frame. You may want to look into the lens from time to time to make “eye contact” with others. If you are using your cellphone, rest it against a steady object (e.g. a pile of books) so that the video picture remains stable.
  • You may want to mute your microphone to prevent others hearing you typing notes or any background noise as it can be very distracting to others on the call.
  • If the internet connection is slow you may want to switch off your camera, pause other programs, mute the microphone and ask others to do same. You may also want to try sitting closer to the router, or connecting your computer directly to the router with an ethernet cable. If you share internet connection with others, you may ask them to reduce extensive use of internet for the duration of your call.
  • It it very tempting to multitask especially during group calls. But you may very soon realise that you are lost in the meeting and others may realize this.
  • If this is a new situation for you or you are using a new calling tool, you may want to give yourself a few extra minutes to learn and test it prior to the scheduled meeting to get familiar with options like turning on/off the camera and the microphone, etc.
  • If possible, prepare and test a backup communication plan in case you will have trouble connecting with others. For example, adding them to a Signal group so you can still text chat or troubleshoot problems on the call. Sometimes it helps to have an alternate browser installed on your computer or app on the phone to try connecting with those.

If you would like to organise a webinar or online training, you can use tools outlined above in the group communication. Some of best practices include:

  • Make sure that you know who is connected. If this is needed check the identities of all people participating by asking them to speak. Do not assume you know who is connected only by reading assigned names.
  • Agree on ground-rules, like keeping cameras on/off, keeping microphone on/off when one is not speaking, flagging when participants would like to speak, who will be chairing the meeting, who will take notes – where and how will those notes be written and then distributed, is it ok to take screenshots of a video call, is it ok to record the call, etc.
  • Agree on clear agendas and time schedules. If your webinar is longer than one hour, it is probably best to divide it into clear one-hour sessions separated by some time agreed with participants, so they have time to have a short break. Plan for the possibility that not all participants will return after a break. Have alternative methods to reach out to them to remind them to return, like Signal/Wire/DeltaChat contacts for them.
  • It is easiest to use a meeting service that participants connect to using a browser without a need to register or install a special program, one that also gives the webinar organiser the ability to mute microphones and close cameras of participants.
  • Prior to the call, check with all participants whether they have particular needs, such as if they are deaf or hard of hearing, if they are visually impaired or blind, or any other conditions which would affect their participation in the call. With this in mind, ensure that the selected platform will accommodate these needs and to be sure, test the platform beforehand. Simple measures can also improve inclusion and participation in your calls, such as turning on cameras when possible, as it can allow for lip-reading.
  • Encourage all participants to speak slowly and to avoid jargon where possible, as the working language of the call is most likely not everyone’s mother tongue language. Naturally, there will be moments of silences and pauses, embrace them. They can help to support understanding and can be helpful for participants who are hard of hearing, interpreters and will also aid assistive technology to pick up words correctly.

https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/resource-publication/guide-secure-group-chat-and-conferencing-tools