A/HRC/29/37 investigation of digital evidence, including the capture of websites and seizure of hard drives. III. Conclusion 107. ICTs have had a profound effect on the impact and character of human rights work. However, it is important that the process not be taken too far, especially in information-scarce environments, where it will be increasingly important to resist the temptation to privilege digital material. While new technology may raise expectations for information, it should be noted that traditional human rights monitoring and reporting make no claim to comprehensiveness, and neither should analysis of new ICT-enabled data streams. The latter should not be viewed as a shortcut, but rather as part of a complementary process that fits into pre-existing strategies used by human rights actors. 108. It is also important that ICTs be embraced with due acknowledgement of their risks. While in many cases, technology can be a vehicle for pluralism, issues of a digital divide remain. In order to benefit from digital protection measures, human rights defenders need to know about them. The digitally enabled promotion of human rights may contribute to a culture of awareness, but if promotion resources for those initiatives are diverted away from more traditional channels, this will be to the detriment of vulnerable groups who are not online. 109. It is also important to acknowledge the importance of ownership and control of the mechanisms of digital ICTs. The use of digital evidence often depends on the willingness of technology corporations to host, store and facilitate searches for this information. Moreover, in some States, access to externally owned commercial social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, are blocked. In others, entire communication networks have been shut down to suppress the flow of information. 110. Keeping up with digital literacy and paying for new technology can be difficult for human rights organizations. One solution would be collaboration between ICT specialists and human rights experts to develop, implement and even commercialize new applications for human rights, or to negotiate low-cost or free licensing for the use of existing solutions. Donors are interested in funding technological developments, but reportedly can focus more on the technology than on the training that is required to deploy it. However, technology can be useless or even dangerous without training. As one observer noted, “sooner or later, all technology problems become education problems.”66 111. The collaborative framework can be extended further. Indeed, a wide range of organizations are willing to assist international human rights mechanisms in more fully benefiting from ICTs. Coordination efforts have been made in that regard, but it seems that the human rights community is currently far behind other international agencies — most notably in terms of crisis response — in fully realizing that potential.67 66 67 Christopher Neu, “Mobile applications for atrocity prevention require mobile students”, TechChange, (19 February 2013), http://techchange.org/2013/02/19/mobile-applications-for-atrocity-preventionrequire-mobile-students/. In the humanitarian response context, Digital Humanitarian Network has produced two reports aimed at both sides of such partnerships: see http://digitalhumanitarians.com/content/guidance- 21