2023.06.20

Digital Rights Archive Newsletter - Seventh edition

On its face, the title of Merten Reglitz’s article, “The socio-economic argument for the human right to internet access,” harkens back to a simpler time, in the 1990s and early 2000s, when the biggest digital problem was that governments weren’t getting people on the internet quickly enough. Those were the days of information wants to be free and libertarian dreams of the death of the state, unfettered freedom of expression, “that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.”

Things, as we know, have turned out differently, and a commercial, libertarian approach to the development of the internet has created entire sets of problems that we now have to deal with. Including, as Reglitz – who’s very much of the present – points out, new obligations not only to guarantee Internet “access for everyone,” but to mitigate against “certain objectionable interferences (e.g., surveillance, censorship, online abuse).” All of which involves the heady task of “Internet that is crucially different from the one we currently have.”

The myriad attempts at government regulation of online content, digital currencies and the hodgepodge of tech that now goes by the increasingly unhelpful term “artificial intelligence” are, I’d argue, an attempt to do just that.

Here in Canada, Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, has been the subject of a shocking number of polemics for what is effectively a cultural policy bill designed to bring content intermediaries (think YouTube and TikTok) under Canadian regulation. Reactions have been over the top: people who should know better are equating the Canadian government to the Soviets and specifically Stalin, and the bill to something dreamt up by the Nazi propagandist Joseph Gobbels. For those outside of Canada wanting to understand what the fuss is about (and even those of us within the country looking for some run-of-the-mill – in a good way – reportage, the BBC has you covered. Spoiler: Canadians will still be able to find The Master and Margaritaonline if you want).

Europe remains at the heart of moves to regulate the digital economy. This month, FES Global looks at European platform workers and the state of play of platform work in France, Greece, Italy and Germany. While Steven Feldstein (open access) looks at the extent to which European AI regulatory initiatives are influencing actions elsewhere, Soraj Hongladarom and Jerd Bandasak go deep to consider, via an examination of AI guidelines from non-Western countries, exactly how deep “universal agreement on the key ethical principles underlying AI ethics” actually goes.

As Reglitz suggests, the internet has created a whole new set of problems and obligations. Case in point: Rainer Mühlhoff (open access) introduces the concept of “predictive privacy,” “a novel form of privacy violation through inferred or predicted information” that “is violated when personal information about them is predicted without their knowledge and against their will based on the data of many other people.” While this concept is not reflected in privacy laws, Mühlhoff argues they should be. And when you consider that predictive analytics lies at the heart of the promises of “Big Data,” “machine learning,” “artificial intelligence” – pick your term – the challenge such a framing poses to the very use of these technologies becomes clear.

- Blayne Haggart

Journalism
Book
Video
Article
Article
Document
Article
Article
Journalism
Journalism