 As we think about the availability of web access around the world we have to think about whether we discriminate against people by putting things on the web. I didn't think there's any question at all that people who do not have access to the internet are being discriminated against not necessarily intentionally but certainly from the point of view of accessing education and information. I think that anybody that lives in a remote place even if they live in the UK is going to get a different level of service than if they live somewhere where they have extremely fast broadband speeds. So already we're seeing reports coming out from school associations saying that school children living in remote areas are not getting the same degree of access to online resources in the same way as children that live in houses that have good broadband coverage. But I don't think the answer to that is to not have things on the internet I think it's to provide people with better internet and make sure that all rural communities have access to and also you know older people who might not be able to use the internet very well to provide them with training and help because I think the internet's a brilliant thing and it really helps a lot of people and it's made things a lot better in many ways. One of the biggest the most interesting questions we're often asked is whether access to the internet in itself should be a human right. Because access to the internet is now a way in which so many other rights are protected like freedom of expression and freedom of assembly do we need to in itself protect our access to that web and to that world in order to ensure people's other rights are protected and enforced in the future. And I believe yes as a government crosses that line to predominantly offering education and government services over the internet it does become a fundamental human right to have access to the internet. There are quite a lot of tools online that people can use to to hide what they're doing to get round blocks on illegal material. Organisations such as GCHQ which is the intelligence service in the UK and the National Security Agency in the US which is the equivalent are starting to get very twitchy about this they're not sure that they want people to be completely anonymous because they want to be able to still track the people that they think are doing bad. I don't think that means that those blocks or monitoring suspicious activity online is completely pointless some people won't know how to use the tools some people will make mistakes in using them not all of the tools are completely protective. I think we're going to see more encryption services I think we hope that young people will find ways to get around things and find new ways to do things and so actually to imagine that those tools are not going to be in existence or that people aren't going to use them is a bit naive. I think censorship isn't just misguided it's it's probably impossible as well and you know people worried about the printing press just as much as they worry about the internet now in the end we're better off with the freedom in the end we have more to gain than lose. In some ways censorship is a waste of time because of these tools and if you have a very determined person they will use them which is why I always come back to the idea that we need to look at societies as a whole and educate people and change the way we are as a society rather than just provide these rules online because if someone really really wants to harm someone using the internet they're going to so what you want to do is stop them from wanting to do it in the first place. So you do hear government saying that this crisis is so deep we have to turn off the internet now when you see governments attempting to do this what you discover is that the part of society they're trying to control or inhibit simply uses a different medium to communicate. It's conceivable that there might be such a cataclysmic crisis that the government might be able to take emergency measures this is what they are able to do offline and I guess they should be able to do it online as well but goodness me I'm afraid of the permanent emergency. Amnesty knows better than most how dangerous and difficult it is for human rights defenders around the world and how important the internet is for people who are defending human rights to communicate. We've seen in Turkey just last year Twitter was shut down by the government in order to stifle free speech and criticism of the government and why it's absolutely acceptable for governments to take steps to restrict freedom of speech it should only do so where it's necessary and proportionate to do it in pursuit of a legitimate aim and criticism of the government that sort of thing that wouldn't be a legitimate aim. Censoring the internet just in case terrorists communicate also prevents citizens from communicating about how bad terrorists are. It also prevents people from organizing to disrupt terrorist activities. It means that the only people in society who can be agents of change become official members of the government and history has shown that they are rarely the people who alone can make society right again. I think a digital Magna Carta or an internet bill of rights might help clarify how all of these very important human rights that people fought to achieve over almost a thousand years with the original Magna Carta just how they do apply online. A Magna Carta would not only mean a set of rules and a code of conduct for how to work interact and play on the internet but it would also be a step forward where we have conquered cyberbullying ended abuse on the internet and allowed people to recognize and understand the importance of how our actions displayed who we are when we're on the internet. I don't think that it needs to be too prescriptive I just think it needs to be a few basic guidelines to what we do in our digital world that can help us all get the most out of the internet.