refer or apply to how an individual can exercise their rights and freedoms in digitally networked spaces. Examples here are laws on electronic patient files, consumer protection, or issues such as privacy in the workplace. Finally, in some countries, laws having no specific language on digital rights had been used to repress free expression. For example, in Tunisia, drug laws have been used to prosecute alleged speech crimes.43 Around the world, anti-terror laws are regularly being used against journalists.44 In the US, a law meant to curtail copyright infringement was ultimately rejected for its potential to chill speech.45 And in Vietnam, tax laws are regularly used to prosecute bloggers.46 To acknowledge this phenomenon, we created a category of other laws to capture the counterintuitive and sometimes systematic use of laws not in the first four categories. Identification of these laws often depends on monitoring and analysis of case law. Because legal systems are always changing, being amended, reinterpreted, appealed, the triangulation process and the five-category structure did not always support clear-cut decisions. The research process surfaced differing opinions about which laws qualified as affecting digital rights, where to categorise a law, or whether one law could fit into two categories. For example, some researchers elected not to include press and publications laws if they did not expressly mention electronic media. Others saw the potential for these laws to be used to restrict digital spaces, so they listed them. Then, there were divergent approaches to categorisation: does a press and publications law belong in the fundamental rights and freedoms category or is it a sectoral law? While perfect precision is not possible, the aim was to help researchers blaze a path through complex and evolving legal systems by offering several entry points where one might find digital rights-relevant law. Grounding the research and review process in a consistent approach would yield more or less comparable results that could be further refined during peer and expert reviews. The next challenge was to transform these underpinnings 43 Ben Hassine, W. (2016a). Op. cit. 44 Ginsberg, J. (2017, 26 October). Targeting journalists in the name of national security. Index on Censorship. www.indexoncensorship. org/2017/10/targeting-journalists-name-national-security 45 SOPA/PIPA: Internet Blacklist Legislation, Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/issues/ coica-internet-censorship-and-copyright-bill 46 Jansen, N. (2013, 9 July). Advocates Keep Spotlight on Le Quoc Quan. Global Voices. https://advox.globalvoices.org/2013/07/10/ advocates-keep-spotlight-on-le-quoc-quan – the working definition of digital rights, the triangulated criteria for identifying relevant laws, and the five-category structure – into a usable, adaptable research methodology and to launch the research process. Step 4: Concretising and implementing the methodology We had three main goals when developing the research methodology and guidance. First, we wanted it to be simple and accessible enough that any researcher – even ones without legal research experience – could use it. Second, we wanted it to be flexible enough that it could be adapted by other initiatives around the world doing similar types of work. Third, we wanted to be able to share this methodology and a collection of user scenarios for using the data with a technologist to develop a machine-readable data model that would undergird future applications that make use of the data. The implementation phase by and large demonstrated that the methodology successfully met our goals of being rigorous enough to gain credibility among users seeking verified legal information yet flexible enough to be adapted to different jurisdictions and legal themes. There were challenges, however, and for future applications, we have identified opportunities for further refinement in each section below. Creating data collection tools and guidance For data collection, we created a multi-tab workbook in Google spreadsheets and individual folders for each country on Google Drive. We then produced two research guidance documents: ADRD Research Guidance and ADRD File Management and File-Naming Formats. Both these documents are included in the Resources section. The data collection workbooks functioned as an index for three key types of information: original laws, case law and draft law. Researchers were asked to name the laws in the original language and to upload the document to a corresponding Google Drive folder – using the prescribed file-naming convention – and indicate the link to the law in that folder. For each type of information, we also asked for relevant translations. For laws and bills, we asked researchers to identify the key provisions that affect digital rights. For case law, we asked for a summary of the impact of the decision on digital rights. In addition to this key data, we also gathered metadata such as dates, keywords and sources. The workbooks also included a cover sheet with links to the research guidance, a tab where researchers 14 / Unshackling Expression