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

Huawei case: The HiFi Geostrategic Gambit

Juan Martin Gonzlez

Published

on

In a general, comprehensive, strategic outline of the global scenario we can see that China is being harassed on several fronts by the US: commercial pressures, diplomatic maneuvers to block the progress of infrastructure projects (OBOR/New Silk Road), at technological level, the boycott/ restrictions against Huawei. These are some of the current modalities of strategic competition between great powers, without involving the direct use of hard / military power, which we could well consider a Cold War 2.0.

Analyzing the factors and interests at stake, the events in full development during the last months are not surprising, as the advances of the US government against the Chinese technological giant Huawei. Since the arrest of its CFO, Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the founder of the company, to accusations of espionage, boycotts and diplomatic pressure to annul Huawei’s advances in several countries.

Huawei is the flagship, the spearhead of the Chinese technological advance. This onslaught is not a coincidence. While formally not having direct links with the Chinese government, Huawei has a prominent role in the Chinese strategic technological plan “Made in China 2025”, because of its development and implementation of 5G networks, key part of the plan, which are estimated to be available around soon.

The strategic approach is to change the Chinese productive matrix towards a “High Tech” economy, of design and innovation, to position China in the forefront in the technological advanced sectors of the modern economy (artificial intelligence, biotechnology, robotics, automation, the internet of things, telecommunications, software, renewable energies, and the element that is in the most interest for us to analyze, the 5G). In Washington, they do not feel comfortable with Chinese advances.

The Eurasia Group consulting firm argues that the installation of 5G networks will involve one of the biggest changes in our time, comparing its appearance with major breaks in the technological history such as electricity. Some specialists, websites and the press have coined the term “Sputnik” moment, by comparing the potential impact of competition for the development of 5G technologies with the space race in the Cold War at the time.

The 5G will allow the use of faster network data, as well as the widespread and coordinated use of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, the internet of things, smart cities, automation, improvements in health, and in the military field.

The US has put pressure on several of its allies (Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Great Britain, and Canada to name some) to block Huawei’s advances in services and investments in their countries, while restricting the purchase of Huawei’s products and services on North American soil.

While it is true that several countries could give in from the pressure from Washington to “encircle” Huawei and restrict its services and products, so is the fact that many other countries, especially the many that have China as their main trading partner, in addition to all the pleiad of emerging and developing countries that are being seduced by the economic possibilities, and in this specific case, technology offered by China and its companies. What it would imply, a worldwide competition between American diplomatic muscle and Chinese sweet money.

And also in commercial terms, the progress of Huawei into the top of the tech companies is remarkable, due to its production methods and its business model, having surpassed, for example, APPLE among the largest companies that sells mobile phones being only second to Samsung.

Does anyone remember free trade? Competition? What’s up with that? Or was it just a trick? It seems that in the global economic game, the US throws the chessboard away when it loses, and uses the geopolitical muscle, without any problem, following the Groucho’s Marx doctrine: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”

The fears about Huawei’s technology are hiding a power struggle, a hegemonic dispute over technology. So far the accusations of espionage against this corporation perhaps are valid in theoretical sense, but unprovable in facts, what left them as mere speculations. The accusations by the US against Huawei, through the speech of “the threat of espionage” are unbelievable, and hypocritical in some sense, and the speech is marked by a double standard… Who represents the threat?

is the same US that nowadays “advises” its allies and other countries to “protect” themselves against the “threat” of Huawei’s espionage in favor of its government, the same country that spied on its own allies in a wicked way, if we remember the cases that Assange and Snowden brought to light.

We can also highlight recently the Cambridge Analytica scandal – much of which has been well predicted by prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic in his influential manifesto about the McFB world of tomorrow. The Cambridge Analytica fiasco plainly showed the unholy relations between the big technological “independent” corporations like Facebook and Google with the political power in the West.

Conclusions

Technological competition is another chessboard of this new multilevel and multidimensional XXI Century Great Game, where the great actors move their pieces.

5G is the focal point for a global rush to dominate the next wave of technological development – a race many policymakers worry the U.S. is already losing, and that’s why they act in this aggressive way. The strategic competition for advanced, high technologies such as 5G, and innovations in the fourth industrial revolution, will mark the “podium” of the great powers of the 21st century.

The technological new cold war between the two largest economies and powers in the world shows no signs of diminishing, either the strategic competition.

Who will win this Great Game on the chessboards? The patience / precaution and forecast of the game of Go, or the strong bets and bluffs of poker.

The geostrategic chessboard is already deployed. Players already have their cards in hand, and have moved their tokens. Prestige is to come.

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Youth in the Global South Must Join Forces for Their Future of Work

Maria Victoria Alonsoperez

Published

on

I believe that the developing world is full of opportunities for young people because many of us have the energy and eagerness to make a difference in the world. In many cases the solutions to problems in communities are simpler than they appear. It just needs someone to push. I know from first-hand experience that there is nothing more rewarding than creating a venture or project that has an impact.

In 2001 I witnessed a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak among cattle that severely damaged the economy of Uruguay, as well as other countries’ in the region. Many years later, in 2012, after graduating as an electrical engineer and working with small satellites, I heard about a competition for young innovators organized by the International Telecommunication Union. They were looking for technological inventions that could solve a problem in a particular region. I immediately thought about the foot and mouth disease outbreak and used my knowledge of space technology to create a system that could monitor anomalies in cattle remotely. I submitted the idea and some months later found out I had won the competition! With the cash prize I founded Chipsafer, a monitoring platform that analyses cattle behaviour using data transmitted from trackers installed in their collars. Besides detecting anomalies in cattle behaviour and combating cattle theft, Chipsafer can also help improve the decisions farmers make relating to the production process.

Countries from the Global South should join forces to surf on the wave of technological revolution and benefit from innovative solutions like these to overcome challenges and to achieve a better and more sustainable future. That’s what we mean by South-South cooperation.

Young people – students, entrepreneurs, professionals, activists – need to play a part in this too because they are drivers of change. Yet, with 65 million young people unemployed globally, they still face many challenges.

In a few weeks I will be part of a panel at an ILO event in Argentina on the future of work for youth, with a focus on developing countries. It will take place on the sidelines of the Second High-level United Nations Conference on South-South cooperation (BAPA+40).

My fellow panellists will include Rebeca Grynspan, who was a member of the ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work, as well as workers’ and employers’ representatives. We’ll look at the issue from three angles; policies for skills development, green jobs, and social dialogue. The aim of the session is to provide recommendations for BAPA+40 participants on the effective integration of youth employment policies into South-South and triangular cooperation (where developed countries or multilateral organizations support South-South cooperation).

I plan to talk about the challenges for youth in the context of the future world of work and discuss the impact of South-South cooperation in promoting decent jobs for youth.

Technology is revolutionising the world, and the world of work is no exception. I believe all stakeholders, whether they are international institutions, governments, employers’ or workers’ organizations, must accept responsibility and take collective action to build the future of work that we want. South-South and triangular cooperation must be part of the answer.

ILO

Continue Reading

Science & Technology

Artificial Intelligence in Knowledge Societies: A ROAM Approach – Open Data and AI

MD Staff

Published

on

The session “Open Data and AI” organized within the framework of “Principles for AI: Towards a Humanistic Approach?” on 5 March 2019 requested UNESCO to continue leveraging its convening power to increase awareness around artificial intelligence and big data,  support development of inclusive policy on Open Data and support upstream and downstream capacity enhancement.

The workshop noted Data as an essential element for the development of artificial intelligence. The availability of large amounts of user data through services on mobile phones and internet of things among other sources, has led to a variety of AI applications and services. However, there remain many challenges. These challenges encompass issues of access, privacy, discrimination and openness. Several of these challenges are within UNESCO’s mandate of building inclusive knowledge societies for peace and sustainable development.

Ms Dorothy Gordon, Chair of the Information for All Programme at UNESCO pointed out that “despite the fact that we have a huge interest from many donors, we do not seem to have done very much systematically to prepare African countries to have useful data … [and] in a searchable format that can be combined with other sources to … yield something [beneficial]”. She stressed the need to bridge gaps in terms of the availability of legacy data, setting policy standards, and enhancing capabilities of people to work with local data sets.

Ms Constance Bommelaer, Senior Director of Global Internet Policy and International Organizations at The Internet Society underlined ‘data commons’ as an interesting solution to explore but one that needs a nuanced discussion around ownership and privacy. She highlighted the need to challenge existing notion of competition and a need for “reconsideration of market values and monopolies”. Stressing the importance of access, she shared the findings of a joint study carried out by ISOC and UNESCO that showed how a combination of local language content and better access policies results in immediate economic benefits at the local level.

As a government representative, Ms Veronika Bošković Pohar, Deputy Permanent Delegate of the Republic of Slovenia to UNESCO discussed ‘regulatory sandboxes’ as a means to provide controlled environment for AI. She hoped that Slovenia’s proposed Category 2 Centre on Artificial Intelligence would be able to make several informed decisions, provide insights into technology and societal interface and create mechanisms for continuous monitoring and reporting to reduce risks posed by AI to vulnerable groups.

Speaking as a panelist representing a knowledge organization, Prof. Maria Fasli, UNESCO Chair in Analytics and Big Data at University of Essex noted the lack of understanding on AI and Big Data and expressed concerns for the difficulty faced by the academic community in accessing data collected by large technology firms for research purpose. She further highlighted the need for high quality representative data to ensure that algorithms are not biased.

Given their experience in tracking innovation trends across the world. Mr Marcus Goddard, Vice President of Intelligence at Netexplo Observatory underlined that “access to data is a necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation. Pointing out the general trends in openness, he mentioned that openness is not Silicon Valley’s top priority and convenience seems to be the norm when it comes to launch of new products and services. He highlighted that even as data is being used in smart cities to improve access and sustainability, it is also increasing the threat of surveillance.

Mr Philippe Petitpont, Co-founder of Newsbridge, a Paris based AI and Media startup, presented the scale of the data problem that the media faces today. He remarked that media companies are gathering 30 million hours of video content every year, a number that does not include social media videos. In this situation, extracting useful insights from these videos is a cumbersome task albeit one that can be performed by AI. They try to leverage AI to help journalists process large amounts of data at lower costs.

The session brought the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders to the discussion table and some of the key concerns included were:

  • Urgent need to increase awareness around artificial intelligence and big data;
  • Developing strategies to strengthen access to data for training machine learning algorithms;
  • Supporting both upstream and downstream capacity enhancement to leverage data for benefit;
  • Involving private sector actors in the discussion around access to data and data monopolies; and
  • Creating systems for addressing discrimination and biases originating through data and algorithms.

The panel members congratulated UNESCO for facilitating important discussions around issues of rights, openness, access and multistakeholder participation in the governance of data and hoped to engage with the organization for further development of issues around Open Data and AI.

UNESCO

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy