Sun. June 25, 2017 Get Published  Get Alerts
To Be or Not To Be (Connected): The Right to be Disconnected


By Dr. Jasna Cošabic 

From the proclaimed right to be connected to the evolving right to be disconnected, only a few years have passed. However, in internet sphere, prompted by the fast developing world of technologies, law has to catch up as well.

As of 1 January 2017, France has effected a law providing that companies with more than 50 employees should establish hours when staff should not send or answer emails. The law comes as a response to increasingly present praxis that workers, after leaving their place of work, actually stay at work, but this time, through their various electronic devices, being obliged to check on their mail, respond and eventually work from home, during the time that should be their private time dedicated to their private life and family. Health and psychology experts were concerned about the consequences such connectivity may have on health and personality of workers, who were thus not able to close the door of their office completely at the end of their working day.

So what happened between the right to be connected and the right to be disconnected?

Back in 2010, a great breakthrough into the freedom of expression in ‘online’ context occurred when Finland, being a pioneer, provided its citizens with the legal right to access a 1 Mbps (megabit per second) broadband connection. It led to broadband access being included in basic communications servers, like telephone and postal services, and making Finland first country to provide for such a right.

Soon thereafter, in May 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in his Report, made a step further towards the protection of right to expression online, acknowledging that ‘the Internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’[1]. A huge step was made in the new digital era when the classic human rights instruments have spread their effects to ‘online’ sphere as well.

The above Report pointed out two segments of the right to internet which would enable individuals to exercise their right to internet:

  • Access to online content, and
  • Availability of the necessary infrastructure and information communication technologies

The problem of access to internet would include arbitrary blocking or filtering of content, with the exception of legitimate grounds of state interference, criminalization of legitimate expression, imposition of intermediary liability, disconnecting users from internet access, cyber attacks and inadequate protection of the right to privacy and data protection.

Countries worldwide have provided for access to fast internet, and the technology has adequately responded with the storming of devices that provide such access.

The Internet may be one of the most important instruments of the 21st century. In 2016, there were 46.1% of internet users globally.[2]  In 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution for the promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, as a logical sequence to its resolution on internet access in 2012 and 2014.  It provided that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.  In particular, it concerned the freedom of expression, that is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one's choice. It has recognized the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms.

However, globally prevailing access to the Internet raised some legal concerns of being constantly online. They concern, in particular, the work-home balance, and relying back to some long ago established principles such as work hours, absence, annual leave etc.

A year ago, the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’), in the case of Barbulescu v. Romania, dealt with the question of whether an employer is entitled to look into his employee’s private messages at Yahoo Messenger, written during the working time. The employer monitored and made transcript of messages made at the Yahoo Messenger account that was created at the employer’s request for the purposes of contacts with clients, but the transcript also contained five short messages that Mr. Barbulescu, the employee, exchanged with his fiancée using a personal Yahoo Messenger account. The ECtHR found no violation of the right to respect the private life by such actions of the employer, having in mind, inter alia, that the company did adopt internal rules according to which it was strictly forbidden to use computers, photocopiers, telephones, telex and fax machines for personal purposes.

This case alerted employees and employers worldwide, as to the right of the employers to monitor private messages made using the internet during work hours in certain circumstances, and employees at the same time, to abstain from it.

However, the issue which exists is vice-versa and not addressed at that time. It is the question of whether an employer has the right to request his employee to be connected, and to stay online, outside of working hours. If so, does that time count as overtime? Is it to be considered as ‘work from home’? Does that interfere with the right to leave / rest between two working days. What may be the psychological effects of being constantly ‘on call’? How that affects the health?

The first act on labor standards that International Labour Organization adopted was the Convention Limiting the Hours of Work in Industrial Undertakings to Eight in the Day and Forty-eight in the Week (Entry into force: 13 Jun 1921). The international labor standards, such as the need to protect workers’ health and safety by providing adequate periods of rest and recuperation, including weekly rest and paid annual leave, may appear affected by the overuse of internet technologies. Some companies adopted flexible working hours and flexible place of work. But one should be concerned that these temporal flexibility and spatial flexibility, does not diminish workers’ rights that took so long to be established.

First came the right to internet, or the right to be connected. Later, followed by the development of technologies, social online interactions, came the right of employers to review employees private messages and correspondence during work hours. Then, starting in France, came finally the right not to be connected. If a person cannot communicate privately during work hours, then he should not communicate for work, during private hours.

The ratio of work/private life has a long history and has been the cause of many social revolutions which have resulted in decrease of working hours, right to free time between two working days, right to annual leave, and the scope of overtime. France is the best example of when we should say stop to technologies, for the preservation of basic human rights.

The new French law means a small but important victory of human rights over IT, and a victory of workers’ rights and rights to privacy over IT technologies and smart communications. How that victory will influence further developments in labor law when speaking of its online element, remains to be seen.

Dr. Jasna Cošabic is Professor of IT law and EU law at Banja Luka College, Bosnia and Herzegovina.


[1] Para 20 of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom

of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue

[2] according to

Comments in Chronological order (0 total comments)

Report Abuse
Quick Links Twitter Face Book Get Alerts Contact Us Enter Ia-Forum Student Award Competition
06/23/2017: What Americans Really Want from Health Care Reform Is Impossible More
06/23/2017: Health Care Bill Would Rescue ObamaCare and Take Democrats off the Hook More
06/23/2017: Leadership on green finance and sustainable infrastructure – how can China and Sweden work together on the Belt and Road Initiative? More
06/23/2017: Laurence Tribe's Impeachment Hysteria More
06/23/2017: If Russia Wants the Syria Mess, Let Them Have It More
06/23/2017: The Labour Party's Disregard for Property Rights Is Extraordinarily Worrying More
06/23/2017: Slave to the Blog: North Korea and the Borderlands More
06/23/2017: Man on the Run More
06/23/2017: Man on the Run More
06/22/2017: Reflection Paper on the Deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union More
06/22/2017: Reflection Paper on the Deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union More
06/22/2017: Reflection Paper on the Deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union: Panel 1 More
06/22/2017: Reflection Paper on the Deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union: Panel 2 More
06/22/2017: New finance for old (technology) problems? Saving the planet with better cook stoves More
06/22/2017: New finance for old (technology) problems? Saving the planet with better cook stoves More
06/22/2017: Trump Would Further Damage U.S. Manufacturing if He Restricts Steel Imports More
06/22/2017: Trump Panders on Cuba, Preferring Cold War over Progress More
06/22/2017: Will Germany Fulfill Its Responsibility for Europe's Defense? More
06/22/2017: The Challenges of Engagement More
06/22/2017: If Trump, Modi talk climate More
06/21/2017: China Does Not Have the Highest Tariffs Among the Big Countries More
06/21/2017: Private Briefing: Survey on India’s Role in the Indo-Pacific More
06/21/2017: Student Activists Hurt the Workers They Try to Help More
06/21/2017: The Case for an American Productivity Revival More
06/21/2017: Take a Look at the New 'Consensus' on Global Warming More
06/21/2017: Marc Noland on Why Sanctions and Inducements on North Korea Don’t Work More
06/20/2017: India, China, and differing conceptions of the maritime order More
06/20/2017: Is China the Most Protectionist Country? No, Not By a Long Shot More
06/20/2017: Is China the Most Protectionist Country? No, Not By a Long Shot More
06/20/2017: Forget About Brexit, Focus on the Euro Area Future More
06/20/2017: Americans want states to pick up federal climate policy slack More
06/20/2017: Why Sanctions and Inducements On North Korea Don’t Work More
06/20/2017: The Eurogroup on Greece: Debt Relief with a Fiscal Straitjacket More
06/20/2017: Keeping the internet open for the future More
06/20/2017: Does Classical Liberalism Have a Chance in South Africa? More
06/20/2017: America Is Getting Sucked into Another Middle East Quagmire More
06/20/2017: I Was in Pyongyang When Otto Warmbier Was Released More
06/20/2017: Cooking: From Full-Time Job to Hobby More
06/19/2017: Pandemics and the poor More
06/19/2017: Puntland’s problems More
06/19/2017: Chinese politics in the Xi Jinping era More
06/19/2017: Taking the edge off U.S.-Russia strategic relations More
06/19/2017: The Price of Ignoring Human Rights: Lost Credibility, Brutal Allies and New Enemies More
06/19/2017: Even Sex Offenders Have First Amendment Rights More
06/18/2017: Trump's Massive Afghanistan Mistake More
06/17/2017: The danger of picking sides in the Qatar crisis More
06/16/2017: Future Development Reads: The future of work for our children and global internet trends More
06/16/2017: Jeff Sessions's Reefer Madness More
06/16/2017: The Border-Adjustment Tax Is No Free Lunch More
06/16/2017: An Old Nightmare Returns: The Balkans Simmer Again More
About | Contact Us | Support Us | Terms and Conditions

All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2002 - 2017