Connect with us

Science & Technology

Quo Vadis Digital Citizen? Can a person be only partially forgotten?

Jasna Čošabić, PhD

Published

on

In normal life, the answer would be no.
Usually, whether we are going to be remembered or forgotten is not something that we could opt for. We can indeed thrive to by our actions or deeds, but the final outcome of this psychological process is up to third persons having a good or bad perception about us.

In May 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the ECJ’) has come to a milestone judgment saying that a person has a right to be forgotten. But the context where the person ought to be forgotten is internet. Not the real world. However, real enough to influence the life of a real person. Thus the ECJ tangled the right to privacy, the right to data protection and the right to expression in a digital world. It brought to internet life Directive 95/46, originaly designed to protect private data of persons processed either by automated means (computer data bases) or by non-automated means (traditional paper). The said Directive could not have envisaged the need for the protection of data on internet, since the internet itself was underdeveloped then.

Mr. Mario Costeja González, the complainant in this case, wanted the Google to remove information on the auction of his property which was published in a local newspapers distributed in Catalonia, Spain, 16 years before. The information consisted of 36 words only. It was published on two dates only. However, still after so many time has lapsed, anyone searching through the name of Mr. Gonzáles using Google, would be offered information about the said auction.

No society would benefit from knowing these few words on selling of his property. Nor would third persons. The only benefit, or more properly malafit was done to Mr. Gonzáles. He wished his name not to be connected with an event that existed many years before, that implied no criminal act nor offence nor damages to third persons.

The ECJ has recognised that by saying that the information to be erased is inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the lapse of time. It authorised Mr. Gonzáles, and other Gonzáleses alike to request search engines to erase the data.

However there we come to a problem. The search engine at issue is Google Inc. But it has its subsidiaries in all the European countries, such as google.es, google.fr, google.at, etc. Therefore Google could come to an idea to erase Mr. Gonzales’s name only from its European subsidiaries.

Why?
Because the judgment was issued by the ECJ, which is called the supreme court of the EU. And which formally does not have jurisdiction over USA, Australia or New Zealand.

And why not?
Because it is internet at issue. And internet does not have borders, at least not the classic ones. And because anyone in Europe could access google.es, but at the same time google.com. So if a person was erased from google.es, he still remains at google.com. And he is visible within Europe, at google.com, but also within USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Let’s imagine that the ECJ judgment implies only his erasure from European Google subsidiaries. What could he do to have his name erased from Google.com accessible worldwide? Well, he could initiate the same proceedings before USA court. And Australian court. And New Zealand court. And African court. Actually before all other courts, apart from European which already gave its ruling. Would that be feasible? Justified? Protective of human rights? An answer may already appear to us.

But what is the relation between the real law and cyber law?
Classic legal theories recognise the teritorrial principle in law. With the emerging of international law, the strictly teritorrial approach was a bit modified, by spreading certain features to supranational level. We now face the emerging of a cyber law. In cyber law, uncertain is the teritorry, its control, the area of application. What is not uncertain are the subjects of law. They are still real. Their status is still certain. Therefore the ECJ judgment pointed out that the subjects of the right to erasure are the inhabitants of the EU. The category ‘inhabitants’ is in this case certain.

If we recall the well established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it has defined the jurisdiction of a state on a less formal manner. It took into consideration the effective jurisdiction. Not the one which was determined by borders. Nor the one recognised internationally. Therefore the formally Cyprus teritorry could be considered as belonging to Turkey for the purpose of Turkey being respondent party for violations of human rights (see Cyprus v. Turkey, ECtHR judgment of 2001). Such a legal construction enabled the Court to act in an effective manner when dealing with human rights violations which needed a real remedy. A remedy which is effective.

In this case, strictly formally speaking, Google supsidiaries at the European teritorry would be liable. However, can we restrict the information so as to flow only in Europe? Can we determine with certainty that no person in Europe will use the Google.com world url. The answer would be NO. If we have a new media for spreading information potentially violating human rights, we must adjust our legal rules applicable to it. And apparently the praxis.

On this account, the ECJ did make a step further by giving the Directive 95/46 its cyber life, although almost twenty years ago when it was created no such spread of internet was imaginable. It also did make a link of the right to be forgotten to the right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights, the instrument which already celebrated its 60 years birthday. Such connections make those instruments living together with the growth of society.

Should we then confine ourselves to some old outdated theories? Should we close eyes to real life? The European Court of Human Rights pointed that the right to privacy should not be interpreted restrictively (Amann v. Switzerland, ECtHR judgment of 2000, Rotaru v. Romania, ECtHR judgment of 2000, etc.). Why should we then restrict the application of ECJ judgment to European subsidiaries of Google? Would the purpose of the protection of EU inhabitant be achieved if we act restrictively? If an international principle in dealing with human rights violations is restitutio in integrum, can then a person be ‘in integrum’ forgiven if we allow only for narrow application of ECJ judgment? By answering these questions, we will determine the tommorow’s effect of similar violations. We have to imagine how the tommorow would look like in order to act now. And to act with no constraints that would impair the efficiency of law.

The Hong Kong Deputy High Court Judge, Marlene NG, on the other side of the world, in her judgment of August 2014, in a similar case, has said in concluding remarks to her judgment: ‘…the internet has become a universal medium.  The advantages of having easy access to a rich store of information are many, and they have been widely applauded.  But such benefit comes at a price; any risk of misinformation can spread easily as users forage in the web. The art is to find the comfortable equilibrium in between.’

We therefore have to accept the fact that the law must follow the growth of society, and not walk by it. The law should follow life and each segment of its development.

So the only logical answer to the first question of this text would remain: No, the person cannot be partially forgotten, neither in real life, nor in the cyber world.

Continue Reading
Comments

Science & Technology

After Google’s new set of community standards: What next?

Sisir Devkota

Published

on

After weeks of Google’s community standard guidelines made headlines, the Digital Industry Group Inc. (Australia based NGO) rejected proposals from the regulating body based in the southern hemisphere. The group claimed that regulating “fake news” would make the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission a moral police institution. In late August, Google itself forbade its employees from indulging in the dissemination of inadequate information or one that involved internal debates. From the outset, the picture is a bit confusing. After the events in Australia, Google’s latest act of disciplinary intrusion seems all but galvanizing from certain interests or interest groups.

A year earlier, Google was shaken by claims of protecting top-level executives from sexual crimes; the issue took a serious turn and almost deteriorated company operations. If anything but Google’s development from the horror of 2018 clearly suggests a desperate need from the hierarchy to curb actions that could potentially damage the interests of several stakeholders. There is no comprehensive evidence to suggest that Google had a view on how the regulations were proposed in Australia. After all, until proven otherwise, all whistleblowing social media posts and comments are at one point of time, “fake”. Although the global giant has decided to discontinue all forms of unjustifiable freedom inside its premises; however, it does profit by providing the platform for activism and all forms of censure. The Digital Industry Group wants the freedom to encourage digital creative contents, but Google’s need to publish a community guideline looks more of a defensive shield against uncertainties.

On its statement, the disciplinary clause, significantly mentions about the actions that will be taken against staffs providing information that goes around Google’s internal message boards. In 2017, female employees inside the Google office were subjected to discrimination based on the “gender-ness” of working positions. Kevin Kernekee, an ex-employee, who was fired in 2018, confirmed that staff bullying was at the core of such messaging platforms. Growing incidents inside Google and its recent community stance are but only fuelling assumptions about the ghost that is surrounding the internet giant’s reputation. Consequently, from the consumer’s point of view, an instable organization of such global stature is an alarm.

The dissidents at Google are not to be blamed entirely. As many would argue, the very foundation of the company was based on the values of expression at work. The nature of access stipulated into Google’s interface is another example of what it stands for, at least in the eyes of consumers. Stakeholders would not wish for an internal turmoil; it would be against the enormous amount of trust invested into the workings of the company. If google can backtrack from its core values upon higher forces, consumers cannot expect anything different. Google is not merely a search engine; for almost half of the internet users, it is almost everything.

“Be responsible, Be helpful, Be thoughtful”. These phrases are the opening remarks from the newly engineered community guideline. As it claims in the document, three principles govern the core values at Google. Upon closer inspection, it also sounds as if the values are only based on what it expects from the people working for the company. A global company that can resort to disciplining its staff via written texts can also trim the rights of its far-reaching consumer groups. It might only be the beginning but the tail is on fire.

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

How to Design Responsible Technology

MD Staff

Published

on

Biased algorithms and noninclusive data sets are contributing to a growing ‘techlash’ around the world. Today, the World Economic Forum, the international organisation for public-private cooperation has released a new approach to help governments and businesses counter these growing societal risks.

The Responsible Use of Technology report provides a step-by-step framework for companies and governments to pin point where and how they can integrate ethics and human rights-based approaches into innovation. Key questions and actions guide organizations through each phase of a technology’s development process and highlight what can be done and when to help organizations mitigate unethical practices. Notably, the framework can be applied on technology in the ‘final’ use and application phase, empowering users to play an active role in advocating for policies, laws and regulations that address societal risks.

The guide was co-designed by industry leaders from civil society, international organizations and businesses including BSR, the Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics, the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Microsoft, Uber, Salesforce, IDEO, Deloitte, Omidyar Network and Workday. The team examined national technology strategies, international business programmes and ethical task forces from around the world, combining lessons learned with local expertise to develop a guide that would be inclusive across different cultures.

“Numerous government and large technology companies around the world have announced strategies for managing emerging technologies,” said Pablo Quintanilla, Fellow at the World Economic Forum, and Director in the Office of Innovation, Salesforce. “This project presents an opportunity for companies, national governments, civil society organizations, and consumers to teach and to learn from each other how to better build and deploy ethically-sound technology. Having an inclusive vision requires collaboration across all global stakeholders.”

“We need to apply ethics and human rights-based approaches to every phase in the lifecycle of technology – from design and development by technology companies through to the end use and application by companies across a range of industries,” said Hannah Darnton, Programme Manager, BSR. “Through this paper, we hope to advance the conversation of distributed responsibility and appropriate action across the whole value chain of actors.”

“Here, we can draw from lessons learned from companies’ efforts to implement ‘privacy and security by design,” said Sabrina Ross, Global Head of Marketplace Policy, Uber. “Operationalizing responsible design requires leveraging a shared framework and building it into the right parts of each company’s process, culture and commitments. At Uber, we’ve baked five principles into our product development process so that our marketplace design remains consistent with and accountable to these principles.”

This report is part of the World Economic Forum’s Responsible Development, Deployment and Use of Technology project. It is the first in a series tackling the topic of technology governance. It will help inform the key themes at the Forum’s Global Technology Governance Summit in San Francisco in April 2020. The project team will work across industries to produce a more detailed suite of implementation tools for organizations to help companies promote and train their own ‘ethical champions’. The steering committee now in place will codesign the next steps with the project team, building on the input already received from global stakeholders in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America.

About the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network

The Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network brings together more than 100 governments, businesses, start-ups, international organizations, members of civil society and world-renown experts to co-design and pilot innovative approaches to the policy and governance of technology. Teams in Colombia, China, India, Israel, Japan, UAE and US are creating human-centred and agile policies to be piloted by policy-makers and legislators, shaping the future of emerging technology in ways that maximize their benefits and minimize their risks. More than 40 projects are in progress across six areas: artificial intelligence, autonomous mobility, blockchain, data policy, drones and the internet of things.

The Network helped Rwanda write the world’s first agile aviation regulation for drones and is scaling this up throughout Africa and Asia. It also developed actionable governance toolkits for corporate executives on blockchain and artificial intelligence, co-designed the first-ever Industrial IoT (IIoT) Safety and Security Protocol and created a personal data policy framework with the UAE.

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Digitally shaping a greener world

MD Staff

Published

on

For the first time, Burhans is setting out to digitally map the land assets of one of the world’s largest land-owners. Photo by UN Environment Programme

Women were not allowed on map-making ship voyages until the 1960s—it was believed that they would bring bad luck. Spanish nuns made maps in the 10th century.

The first A-Z street map of London was created after one woman got lost on her way home from a party, then woke up every day at 5 a.m. to chart the city’s 23,000 streets.

As it turns out, women have always contributed to the drawing of maps despite hurdles.

This puts Molly Burhans, founder of GoodLands, in good company. For the first time in history, she is setting out to digitally map the land assets of one of the world’s largest land-owners—the Catholic Church. 

The journey has been spiritual. Instead of becoming a nun, she decided to pursue digital mapping instead. “Our work is grounded in science, driven by design and inspired by values of stewardship and charity,” she explains.

Unchartered waters

It all started when a course in biological illustration turned into a fascination with how everything fits together. 

“You can’t do surgery unless you’ve studied human anatomy—and you can’t really do sound environmental work unless you’ve mapped the environment and landscape, and can visualize it,” she explains.

She was introduced to digital mapping by Dana Tomlin, the originator or Map Algebra and Geographic Information Systems professor at the University of Pennsylvania and Yale University. When she visited the Vatican in 2016, it got her thinking.

“The Vatican has the most fantastic maps I’ve ever seen,” she said. “White, gold, platinum frescoes flanked the doors. I thought they must have the most incredible land datasets anywhere in the world.”

The Vatican is the smallest state in the world, and its biggest land owner. There are 250,000 Catholic-affiliated parishes, orphanages, community centers and retreat monasteries around the world, reaching an estimated 57.6 million people globally.

It is also the world’s largest non-government health care provider. The Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health Care workers estimates that around 26 per cent of healthcare facilities are operated by the Roman Catholic Church.

Iyad Abumoghli, Principal Coordinator of UN Environment Programme’s Faith for Earth Initiative, said:

“Globally, faith-based organizations own 8 per cent of habitable land on the surface of the earth and 5 per cent of all commercial forests. There are around 37 million churches and 3.6 million mosques around the world.

“Burhans’ work supports UNEP’s Faith for Earth Initiative to harness the socio-economic power of faith-based organizations, where preaching meets practice.

“Mapping faith-owned assets will contribute to strategically employ faith values in managing them, ultimately leading to fighting climate change and curbing ecosystem degradation.”

Fear of the unknown

Burhans reflects: “Why not leverage this network for environmental good?”

But then the hurdle hit. The data wasn’t digital. In fact—it wasn’t even there. 

“None of the land had been digitally mapped. I was surprised – this was bigger than I’d realized. We can’t manage property without foundational data—never mind ecosystem restoration. So, I just kept going to find the data.”

When she confirmed that data did not exist, Burhans asked the Holy See for permission to create the first comprehensive global digital data map of the Catholic Church’s footprint and people in history, working with a large team at mapping software company Esri, as Chief Cartographer.

Her mission: to help faith-based communities, such as religious orders, dioceses, and the Vatican to first understand what land assets they own. Next, figure out how to leverage those assets for ecosystem restoration on a scale parallel to its massive global health network.

The power of knowing

For Burhans, maps represent the power to shape our world for better health and environmental protection. “We dare to use land for environmental good. I can’t emphasize how important our surroundings and environment are,” she notes.

“Maps are just the tool, allowing us to capture complex information, from biodiversity to soil type, all in one place. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a map is worth a million.”

“We can map where ecological failure might trigger heavy migration. Or, where sea level rise might force poor communities to move. We can see where more trees could cool hot cities; where green spaces could bring health benefits in areas with high respiratory problems.”

For Burhans, the potential of a large data hub capturing all this information across the church’s land portfolio is exciting—and unprecedented. It also has implications for all land owners and governments around the world.

Her team maps environmental, social and financial factors of a property portfolio. Centralizing information in one digital hub across sectors—health care, education, relief—could save tens of millions each year, she reflects.

She is also asking bigger questions: “How will artificial intelligence transform our world? How can we leverage land and religion to become the solution to our crises? We must be at the forefront of these issues.”

Mapping the church’s global footprint

Honing big data for environmental restoration is part of Burhans’ vision. Some of this is technical: bringing the Catholic Church into the digital area: “With relevancy, with the right information to roll out safety.”

But the vision is also about people. “We want to help people realize that mapping assets is vital to manage them responsibly. We cannot help the church improve its footprint if we don’t know what is has.”

“We all have different talents and gifts. Mine lean towards creating new technology and applying it to make land work for the greater good. That’s my vocation: to make sure that’s done—and done with integrity.”

UN Environment

Continue Reading

Latest

East Asia40 mins ago

China & Nepal working towards a genuine good-neighbour tie

Authors: Himal Neupane & Jamal Ait Laadam Although China and Nepal are very different in terms of each territorial size,...

Newsdesk3 hours ago

ADB Support to the Philippines to Reach Record High in 2020–2022

The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) sovereign lending for the Philippines is expected to reach $9.1 billion between 2020 and 2022,...

East Asia5 hours ago

Semiconductor War between Japan and South Korea

Authors: Gleb Toropchin and Anastasia Tolstukhina In the summer of 2019, a trade conflict broke out between Tokyo and Seoul...

Reports11 hours ago

Reforms in Latvia must result in stronger enforcement to tackle foreign bribery

Latvia has continued to improve its framework against bribery of foreign public officials and subsequent money laundering but the reforms...

South Asia13 hours ago

Kashmir Issue at the UNGA and the Nuclear Discourse

The Kashmir issue has more significance in view of the nuclearization of South Asia as many security experts around the...

Urban Development15 hours ago

Cities Around the World Want to Be Resilient and Sustainable. But What Does This Mean?

Cities around the world, large and small, face common challenges, especially due to rapid urbanization and climate change. According to...

Middle East17 hours ago

Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy