DOCSLIB.ORG

Study on Digital Technologies As a Means of Repression and Social Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study on Digital Technologies As a Means of Repression and Social Control STUDY Requested by the DROI subcommittee Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control @Adobe Stock Authors: Dorota GŁOWACKA, Richard YOUNGS, Adela PINTEA, Ewelina WOŁOSIK European Parliament coordinator: Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 653.636 - April 2021 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control ABSTRACT The proliferation of new and emerging technologies over the past two decades has significantly expanded states’ toolkit for repression and social control, deepening human rights problems. While these technologies still have the potential to positively enhance democratic values and human rights, they are now also actively deployed and shaped by many repressive regimes to their own strategic advantage. Globally and regionally, efforts have been made to tackle the challenges that digital technologies pose to human rights, but a lot remains to be done. The EU must enrich global legal and standard-setting efforts, as well as improve its own core foreign policy instruments. The EU’s foreign policy toolbox has become more comprehensive in the last several years, with the addition of a number of different strands to its efforts against ‘digital authoritarianism’. The challenge related to the use of digital technologies by authoritarian regimes has continued to deepen, however. The EU must therefore continue to find ways to fine-tune and add to this toolbox. A core finding that runs through this report is that the EU has undertaken many valuable and well-designed policy initiatives in this field, but still has to decide whether tackling digital repression is a core geopolitical interest at the highest political level. EP/EXPO/DROI/FWC/2019-01/LOT6/R/04 EN April 2021 - PE653.636 © European Union, 2021 AUTHORS • Dorota GŁOWACKA, Panoptykon Foundation, Poland; • Richard YOUNGS, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe, Brussels & Professor of International Relations, University of Warwick, UK; • Supporting researchers: Adela PINTEA, Ecorys, Poland; Ewelina WOŁOSIK, Ecorys, Poland; • Reviewers: Christoph O. MEYER, Professor of European & International Politics, King’s College London; Adamantia RACHOVITSA, Assistant Professor of International Law, University of Groningen, Netherlands; Aleksandra DUDA, Ph.D., Ecorys, Poland; PROJECT COORDINATOR (CONTRACTOR) • Joanna SMĘTEK, Ecorys, Poland This study was originally requested by the European Parliament's European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights. The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author(s), and any opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. CONTACTS IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Coordination: Marika LERCH, Policy Department for External Policies Editorial assistant: Daniela ADORNA DIAZ Feedback is welcome. Please write to [email protected] To obtain copies, please send a request to [email protected] VERSION English-language manuscript completed on 23 April 2021. COPYRIGHT Brussels © European Union, 2021 Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. This paper will be published on the European Parliament's online database, 'Think Tank' ISBN: 978-92-846-8024-5 (pdf) ISBN: 978-92-846-8025-2 (paper) doi:10.2861/953192 (pdf) doi:10.2861/6706 (paper) Catalogue number: QA-05-21-111-EN-N (pdf) Catalogue number: QA-05-21-111-EN-C (paper) Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control Table of contents Executive summary 4 1 Introduction 9 1.1 Objectives and scope of the study 9 1.2 Definitions of key concepts 10 1.3 Note on methodology 13 2 Trends in the use of digital technologies for repression and social control 14 2.1 Expansion of widespread biometric surveillance and algorithmic decision-making 14 2.2 Emergence of public health surveillance systems 18 2.3 Digital tools of information control 20 2.4 Next generation repression toolkit 25 2.5 Transnational dimensions of digital repression 29 2.6 Conclusions 31 3 Overview of the international human rights framework 33 3.1 Introduction 33 3.2 AI and algorithmic decision-making systems 35 3.3 Surveillance in a digital age 40 3.4 Disruptions to free flow of information online 43 3.5 Human rights and private actors 47 3.6 Conclusions 50 4 The EU’s democracy and human rights toolbox 53 4.1 General evolution of the EU toolbox 54 4.1.1 Evolution of the core toolbox 54 4.1.2 Digital elements in the policy framework 55 4.1.3 EU Human Rights Guidelines for Freedom of Expression Online and Offline 56 4.1.4 Other instruments and initiatives 56 4.2 Restrictive measures and conditionality 57 4.2.1 Democracy and Human Rights Sanctions 57 4.2.2 Cyber sanctions 59 1 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies 4.2.3 Conditionality 59 4.2.4 Restrictions on surveillance equipment 60 4.3 Dialogues and multilateral engagement 61 4.3.1 Human rights dialogues 61 4.3.2 Multilateral dialogue and engagement 62 4.3.3 Engaging the private sector 63 4.4 Funding 64 4.4.1 European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 65 4.4.2 Media pluralism 66 4.4.3 Civil society and digital activism 66 4.4.4 Protecting activists from repression 67 4.4.5 European Endowment for Democracy 68 4.5 Overlaps with cyber-security and influence operations 69 4.5.1 Stratcom 69 4.5.2 Cyber funding 69 4.6 EP instruments and contributions 70 4.7 Conclusions - assessment of the toolbox’s evolution 71 5 Conclusions and recommendations 73 Annex 1: Sources of information 78 Bibliography 78 Primary sources 78 Secondary sources - books and articles 87 Non-governmental organisations, media and joint publications 91 List of consulted stakeholders 96 Annex 2: Research tools 97 Interview topic guide – EU institutions 97 Interview topic guide – CSOs and other respondents 100 2 Digital technologies as a means of repression and social control List of boxes Box 1: Examples of algoritmic harm .......................................................................................................................................21 Box 2: Implications of internet shutdowns in the COVID-19 era ..................................................................................21 Box 3: Cyber sovereignty in China and Russia ....................................................................................................................21 Box 4: Digital dominance of the largest online platforms in numbers ..........................................................................28 Box 5: Pegasus - A global espionage tool? ...........................................................................................................................31 Box 6: Main human rights international treaties and rights most affected by the use of digital technologies for repression and social control ....................................................................................................34 Box 7 : International human rights mechanisms undermined .....................................................................................39 Box 8: Three pillars of the of the ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework .........................................................48 Box 9: Civil society and multistakeholder initiatives on business & human rights in a digital space .............49 Box 10: EU toolbox on the ground: Myanmar .....................................................................................................................67 Box 11: EU toolbox on the ground: Kyrgyzstan ..................................................................................................................68 List of tables Table 1: Examples of human rights implications of mandatory pandemic related apps ....................................19 Table 2: Examples of new laws challenging internet freedom .....................................................................................23 List of figures Figure 1: Number of documented internet shutdowns across the world between 2015 and 2019 ...............21 3 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies Executive summary Study objectives and scope The main objectives of the study on digital technologies as a means of repression and social control were to provide: • an overview of the normative framework as regards the human rights standards to be respected in the use and regulation of digital technologies, as established by regional and international human rights bodies as of 2020; • an assessment of the existing EU policy framework and toolbox to respond to the use of digital technologies for repression and control in third countries; • recommendations for EU institutions, and the European Parliament (EP) in particular, on how the policy framework and the toolbox could be further developed to take into account current geopolitical trends and challenges to the multilateral system. The study focused specifically on situations outside of the EU, and the EU’s external policy framework. EU internal policies and regulations were also referred to where these are relevant for bilateral and multilateral relations, however. The main findings from this study derive from in-depth desk research and a series of interviews with representatives from institutions (EU, international), civil society and the private sector. Trends in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Content Regulation in the Digital
    Content Regulation in the Digital Age Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) February 2018 Introduction 1 I. Company compliance with State laws 2 Terrorism-related and extremist content 3 False news, disinformation and propaganda 4 The “right to be forgotten” framework? 7 How should companies respond to State content regulation laws and measures that may be inconsistent with international human rights standards? 8 II. Other State Requests 9 State requests based on platform terms of service (ToS) and “shadow” requests 9 Non-transparent agreements with companies 10 III. Global removals 11 IV. Individuals at risk 12 V. Content regulation processes 15 VI. Bias and non-discrimination 16 VII. Appeals and remedies 17 VIII. Automation and content moderation 17 IX. Transparency 18 X. General recommendations from APC 19 Introduction The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non- profit organisation founded in 1990 that works to help ensure everyone has affordable access to a free and open internet to improve lives, realise human rights and create a more just world. We welcome this topic because it is current and integral to our work. On the one hand there is a lot of ‘noise’ in the mainstream media about so-called “fake news” and what appears to be a fairly rushed response from platforms consisting of increasing in-house regulation of content. On the other hand, human rights defenders and activists we work with express concern that 1 platforms are removing some of their content in a manner that suggests political bias and reinforcing of societal discrimination.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurostat: Recognized Research Entity
    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/overview This list enumerates entities that have been recognised as research entities by Eurostat. In order to apply for recognition please consult the document 'How to apply for microdata access?' http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/overview The researchers of the entities listed below may submit research proposals. The research proposal will be assessed by Eurostat and the national statistical authorities which transmitted the confidential data concerned. Eurostat will regularly update this list and perform regular re-assessments of the research entities included in the list. Country City Research entity English name Research entity official name Member States BE Antwerpen University of Antwerp Universiteit Antwerpen Walloon Institute for Evaluation, Prospective Institut wallon pour l'Evaluation, la Prospective Belgrade and Statistics et la Statistique European Economic Studies Department, European Economic Studies Department, Bruges College of Europe College of Europe Brussels Applica sprl Applica sprl Brussels Bruegel Bruegel Center for Monitoring and Evaluation of Center for Monitoring and Evaluation of Brussels Research and Innovation, Belgian Science Research and Innovation, Service public Policy Office fédéral de Programmation Politique scientifique Centre for European Social and Economic Centre de politique sociale et économique Brussels Policy Asbl européenne Asbl Brussels Centre for European Policy Studies Centre for European Policy Studies Department for Applied Economics,
    [Show full text]
  • Claiming and Reclaiming the Digital World As a Public Space
    Claiming and Reclaiming the Digital World as a Public Space Experiences and insights from feminists in the Middle East and North Africa www.oxfam.org OXFAM DISCUSSION PAPER – NOVEMBER 2020 This paper seeks to highlight the experiences and aspirations of young women and feminist activists in the MENA region around digital spaces, safety and rights. It explores individual women’s experiences engaging with the digital world, the opportunities and challenges that women’s rights and feminist organizations find in these platforms, and the digital world as a space of resistance, despite restrictions on civic space. Drawing on interviews with feminist activists from the region, the paper sheds light on women’s online experiences and related offline risks, and illustrates patterns and behaviours that prevailed during the COVID-19 pandemic. © Oxfam International November 2020 This paper was written by Francesca El Asmar. Oxfam acknowledges the assistance of Hadeel Qazzaz, Manal Wardé, Neus Tirado Gual, Salma Jrad, Joane Cremesty, Suzan Al Ostaz, Fadi Touma and Mounia Semlali in its production, as well as the contributions of the interviewees who participated in the research process. It is part of a series of papers written to inform public debate on development and humanitarian policy issues. For further information on the issues raised in this paper please email [email protected] This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Edri Submission to UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye's Call on Freedom of Expression and the Private Sector in the Digital Age
    EDRi submission to UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye's call on freedom of expression and the private sector in the digital age Introduction EDRi is a not-for-profit association of digital civil rights organisations. Our objectives are to promote, protect and uphold civil rights in the field of information and communication technology. European Digital Rights (EDRi) welcomes the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye’s public consultation on the role of ICT companies vis-à-vis freedom of expression in the digital environment to identify: I. the categories of actors in the ICT sector whose activities implicate the freedom of opinion and expression; II. the main legal issues raised for freedom of opinion and expression within the ICT sector; and III. the conceptual and normative work already done to develop corporate responsibility and human rights frameworks in these spaces, including governmental, inter-governmental, civil society, corporate and multistakeholder efforts. I. ICT actors with a potential to impact freedom of expression and opinion In order to communicate online, it is necessary to rely on a chain of different service providers, often based in different jurisdictions and with whom one may have no direct relationship at all. For example, if "zero-rating" or even data caps are imposed by Internet access providers in a country and you have no organisational and financial capacity to be "zero-rated", your ability to communicate with people that are using such restricted services is limited and there is no "leverage" with the ISPs that connect your intended audience with the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Privacy and Censorship of the Internet
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1998 Intellectual Privacy and Censorship of the Internet Julie E. Cohen Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1963 8 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 693 (1997-1998) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons 1998 INTERNET SYMPOSIUM INTELLECTUAL PRIVACY AND CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET ProfessorJulie E. Cohen Good morning. I would like to thank the Constitutional Law Journal for inviting me to be here today. I am not a First Amendment lawyer. I am not really a constitutional law- yer, so why am I here? I think that after having heard Dan Burk's presenta- tion, you should realize that intellectual property lawyers need to be First Amendment lawyers as well. You have all heard the aphorism that the Internet interprets censorship as a malfunction and routes around it.' You also may have heard that censorship on the Internet is a terrible thing; in particular, you may have heard this in the context of debates about pornography on the Inter- net or hate speech on the Internet. I would like to suggest to you today, how- ever, that the single most prevalent problem involving censorship on the Inter- net has to do with the protection of intellectual property. If you think about it, intellectual property protection, and particularly copy- right protection, is a form of censorship.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Views on Digital Rights and Digital Commons
    Adopted Policy Paper GREEN VIEWS ON DIGITAL RIGHTS AND DIGITAL COMMONS Introduction As information, digital technologies and the internet play an increasingly important role in today’s society, new forms of cooperation and work can emerge, as well as alternative economic models and new possibilities for involving citizens in society and political participation. Meanwhile, a whole array of new laws since the end of the 90s – from “intellectual property” to security – keep raising deep concerns. We Greens are taking a stand to defend individual rights and serve public interests. The European Greens want to take a leading role in building and strengthening digital commons and enabling all people to take part in digital society. As Greens we like to see the internet, the worldwide digital infrastructure as digital commons1. That means a free and open common ground for all citizens to communicate, share and profit from available resources. However, we know that in reality the internet is far from being free, open and for the benefit of all citizens. We also recognise the limits of governmental intervention in a global infrastructure and the dangers of state interference in the free flow of information. But to safeguard digital rights we need the intervention by national states, the European Union and the entire global community. We Greens want to achieve an internet and digital society where civil rights are respected and all citizens can profit equally from the rich amounts of information and culture that are now accessible while acknowledging author rights. In view of rapid technological developments these goals must also be applicable to devices and tools outside the internet where the right to privacy is at stake.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age
    The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age April 9, 2018 Dr. Keith Goldstein, Dr. Ohad Shem Tov, and Mr. Dan Prazeres Presented on behalf of Pirate Parties International Headquarters, a UN ECOSOC Consultative Member, for the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Our Dystopian Present Living in modern society, we are profiled. We accept the necessity to hand over intimate details about ourselves to proper authorities and presume they will keep this information secure- only to be used under the most egregious cases with legal justifications. Parents provide governments with information about their children to obtain necessary services, such as health care. We reciprocate the forfeiture of our intimate details by accepting the fine print on every form we sign- or button we press. In doing so, we enable second-hand trading of our personal information, exponentially increasing the likelihood that our data will be utilized for illegitimate purposes. Often without our awareness or consent, detection devices track our movements, our preferences, and any information they are capable of mining from our digital existence. This data is used to manipulate us, rob from us, and engage in prejudice against us- at times legally. We are stalked by algorithms that profile all of us. This is not a dystopian outlook on the future or paranoia. This is present day reality, whereby we live in a data-driven society with ubiquitous corruption that enables a small number of individuals to transgress a destitute mass of phone and internet media users. In this paper we present a few examples from around the world of both violations of privacy and accomplishments to protect privacy in online environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy International, Human and Digital Rights Organizations, and International Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
    No. 17-2 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States IN THE MdATTER OF A WARRANT TO SEARCH A CERTAIN EMAIL ACCOUNT CONTROLLED AND MAINTAINED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, —v.— MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF OF PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL, HUMAN AND DIGITAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT LAUREN GALLO WHITE BRIAN M. WILLEN RYAN T. O’HOLLAREN Counsel of Record WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH BASTIAAN G. SUURMOND & ROSATI, P.C. WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH One Market Plaza Spear Tower, & ROSATI, P.C. Suite 3300 1301 Avenue of the Americas, San Francisco, California 94105 40th Floor (415) 947-2000 New York, New York 10019 [email protected] (212) 999-5800 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae (Counsel continued on inside cover) CAROLINE WILSON PALOW SCARLET KIM PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL 62 Britton Street London, EC1M 5UY United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether construing the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) to authorize the seizure of data stored outside the United States would conflict with foreign data-protection laws, including those of Ireland and the European Union, and whether these conflicts should be avoided by applying established canons of construction, including presumptions against extra- territoriality and in favor of international comity, which direct U.S. courts to construe statutes as applying only domestically and consistently with foreign laws, absent clear Congressional intent. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE QUESTION PRESENTED ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2017
    101110101011101101010011100101110101011101101010011100 10111010101110110101001 10101110001010 EDRi EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS 110101011101101010011100101011101101010011100101 10101110110101000010010100EUROPEAN010 DIGITAL001 RIGHTS11011101110101011101101100000100101101000 DEFENDING RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ONLINE 01000111011101110101 101011101101010000100101000100011101110111010101110110110000010010110100001000111011101110101 101110101010011100 101110101011101101010011100 101011101101010000100101000100011101 101011101101010000100101000100011101110111010101110110110000010010110100001000111011101110101 101110101010011100 101110101011101101010011100 1010111011010100001001010001000111011101110101011101101100000 101011101101010000100101000100011101110111010101110110110000010010110100001000111011101110101 101110101010011100 101110101011101101010011100 10101110110101000010010100010001110111011101010111011011000001001011010000100011101110111010 101011101101010000100101000100011101110111010101110110110000010010110100001000111011101110101 101110101010011100 101110101011101101010011100 101011101101010000100101000100011101110111010101110110110000010010110100001000111011101110101 101110101010011100 101110101011101101010011100 EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS EUROPEAN DIGITAL RIGHTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017 1011011101101110111010111011111011 January 2017 – December 2017 1011011101101110111011101100110111 101011101101010000100101000100011101110111010101110110110000010010110100001000111011101110101 101110101010011100 101110101011101101010011100 101011101101010000100101000100011101110111010101110110110000010010110100001000111011101110101
    [Show full text]
  • 00047-82167.Pdf (548.01
    CYVA Research Corporation Abstract Data Slave Trade An Argument for the Abolition of Digital Slavery: The Intrusive & Coercive Collection and Trafficking Of Personal Information for Profit and Power For a Better Union of Social, Economic and Political Liberty, Justice and Prosperity Recognize and Secure the Mutual Rights & Responsibilities of Human-digital Existence Contact: Kevin O’Neil Chairman & CEO 858 793 8100 [email protected] This Abstract (“Abstract”) and the contents herein are owned by CYVA Research Corporation (“CYVA”, “we”, “our”, “us”, or the “Company”) and are being furnished solely for informational purposes. The information contained herein is intended to assist interested parties in making their own evaluations of CYVA. This Abstract does not purport to contain all information that a prospective investor might need or desire in properly evaluating the Company. In all cases, interested parties should conduct their own investigation and analysis of the Company. By accepting this Abstract, each recipient agrees to keep confidential the information contained herein or made available in connection with further investigation of the Company. Each recipient agrees not to reproduce or disclose any such information, in whole or part, to any individual or entity, without the prior written consent of the Company. DRAFT Abstract DRAFT Table of Contents Document Audience, Structure and Purpose 4 Preface 5 Slave Trade Metaphor 5 Network Community 6 1. Introduction: The Data Slave Trade 7 1.1. Our Human Dignity - What Dignity? 7 1.2. Data Protection Laws: Unending Catch-up Game 8 1.3. Awakening: Informational Self-determination 8 1.4. Privacy and Human Dignity Taking a Back Seat to Profits and Power: Recognition and Resistance 9 1.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Statement to Safeguard Data Protection and Privacy In
    CONSUMER AND DIGITAL RIGHTS GROUPS CALL ON THE GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL JOINT INITIATIVE ON E-COMMERCE TO STATEMENT SAFEGUARD DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY Since January 2019, more than 80 countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been negotiating a new rule book for digital trade. This process is called the Joint Statement Initiative on e-commerce (JSI). The announced goal of this initiative is to define global rules to make it easier for consumers and companies to trade online. Cross-border data flows are one of the key provisions in these negotiations. The purported objective is to facilitate international data transfers across national borders. It is crucial to consider the broad implications of any cross-border data flows provisions, which could undermine people’s human right to privacy and personal data protections1. Failing to do so would defeat another ostensible purpose of these negotiations: to enhance consumer trust online. Many digital services rely on the collection and processing of personal data. At the same time, consumers wish to have control over their personal data. Scandals like Cambridge Analytica, the invasive and constant tracking and exploitation of people’s data have eroded people’s trust in cross-border data transfers2. 72% of surveyed consumers across the globe are concerned about the collection of their personal data by companies online3. That is why consumer and digital rights groups around the world are uniting their voices to call for strong and meaningful privacy protections in any international agreements that touch on cross-border data transfers. The outcome of the JSI negotiations must put people’s rights to privacy and personal data protection first.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Artificial Intelligence Development on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law
    HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE Governing the Game Changer – Impacts of artificial intelligence development on human rights, democracy and the rule of law Conference co-organised by the Finnish Presidency of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe 26 – 27 February 2019, Helsinki, Finland – Finlandia Hall Conference Report by Joe McNamee1 Introduction The growth of artificial intelligence in its various forms has a wide range of impacts on our society. We are very much at the beginning of this phenomenon, with the challenges and opportunities, risks and possible risks becoming more obvious as new technologies and applications start to be used. It is therefore clear that it is important to facilitate a critical, open and inclusive discussion, in order to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks to society of such technological developments. To achieve this goal, the Finnish Presidency of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe worked together to organise a multi- stakeholder discussion of the impact of artificial intelligence on the three pillars on which the Council of Europe is founded, namely its impact on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Core points of discussion emerging from the conference During the discussions, several points emerged as themes, raised by multiple speakers: - the Council of Europe has a significant and global role in promoting human rights compliant and supportive AI. This is due to its core competence and its responsibility for key Conventions that are open for signature globally. - there are potential positive and negative impacts anticipated in the area of AI.
    [Show full text]