Search by property
This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.
List of results
- Gender and Technology Institute, Panama + (Regarding the agenda, it started with a fi … Regarding the agenda, it started with a first preparatory day where all participants engaged together around the objectives of the GTI, collective shared agreements, media and documentation protocols, and other important logistics information. Then during the afternoon participants shared in little groups about their first memories and practices with technologies and how their relations with those are influenced by their gender and by other intersectionnal dimensions such as their geographical origin, social background, access to education and learning opportunities, sexual orientation and so on. From those conversations they moved towards a first collective session aimed at designing and updating an integral security plan. Participants worked around four different cases studies where they assessed actors, risks and mitigation strategies in order to design a protocol taking into account the inter-relation between physical integrity, digital security and psychosocial well-being. This inaugural session enabled to visibilize the diversity of knowledge and practices of security already in place among the participants and their networks. It enabled the group to understand that they were already applying in their daily routine as pro-choice activists the basic principles of the four digital mitigation strategies namely called “fortification”, “reduction”, “obfuscation” and “compartimentalisation”. During the wrap up we introduced briefly the main results from our research on risks and attacks faced by pro-choice activists in LAC and checked with them that the information made sense and resonate with their own experience. We also discovered that some of them had answered the online survey or provided us with an interview through email. This first day enabled participants to share a common vocabulary and to have a better understanding of the diversity of their contexts, challenges and strategies. At the same time it informed them about which sessions they should attend during the next days. In the same way, facilitators could have a general sense of the levels of knowledge and practices regarding security and to better feel how they should adapt their contents and facilitation methodologies during the next days. The schedule generally offered 2 different sessions in parallel enabling participants to engage in the session that better suited their level of practice and knowledge. Besides that all sessions were distributed among 2 or 3 facilitators and an extra facilitator was taking notes of the session. Added to this, all facilitators had a formal debrief meeting every night to evaluate how the day and the sessions went on and where they could get extra support for adapting methodologies, contents, hands-on exercises and the overall training spaces. Finally the last day, the agenda was shaped along the conversations that the group of participants felt they need to go more in-depth, namely a session for sharing about their security protocols, one session about lobbying towards public institutions and developing campaigns together and a session about how to be supported and support others when they are facing technology related violence. This was followed up by a closing session regarding updating and maintaining integrated security protocols where participants review the cases studies they analized during the first day and complemented those with the new contents, tools and methodologies they discovered during the GTI. We moved finally to a closing session where we discussed the next steps after the meeting, which training or advocacy activities participants where planning once back home, how they wanted to stay in contact, how the documentation of the sessions should be managed and where everyone could achieve a formal evaluation of the event (see annex 1).mal evaluation of the event (see annex 1).)