From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Digital self-determination is a multidisciplinary concept derived from the legal concept of self-determination and applied to the digital sphere, to address the unique challenges to individual and collective agency and autonomy arising with increasing digitalization of many aspects of society and daily life.
Origins
There
is no philosophically or legally agreed-upon concept of digital
self-determination yet. Broadly speaking, the term describes the attempt
to comprehensively project the pattern of human self-determination (as
first explored in disciplines like philosophy and psychology, and in the
law) into the digital age.
The concept has been included in an official document for the first time by ARCEP, the French Telecoms Regulator, in a section of its 2021 Report on the State of the Internet, exploring the work on "Network Self-determination" conducted by Professor Luca Belli.
Self-determination
Philosophy
The concept of self-determination relates to concepts of subjectivity, dignity, and autonomy in classic central-European philosophy and derived from Immanuel Kant's
conception of freedom. Self-determination presupposes that human beings
are entities capable of reason and responsibility for their own
rationally chosen and justified actions (autonomy), and ought to be
treated accordingly. In formulating his categorical imperative
(kategorischer Imperativ), Kant suggested that humans, as a condition
of their autonomy, must never be treated as a means to an end but as an
end in itself. The pattern of self-determination similarly aims at
enabling autonomous human beings to create, choose and pursue their own
identity, action, and life choices without undue interference.
Psychology
In psychology, the concept of self-determination is closely related to self-regulation and intrinsic motivation,
i.e., engaging in a behavior or activity because it is inherently
rewarding to do so, as opposed to being driven by external motivations
or pressures, like monetary incentives, status, or fear. In this
context, self-determination and intrinsic motivation are linked to
feeling in control of one's choices and behavior and are considered
necessary for psychological well-being. Self-determination theory (SDT), first introduced by psychologists Richard Ryan and Eduard Deci in the 1980s,
and further developed through the 1990s and 2000s, has been largely
influential in shaping the concept of self-determination in the field of
psychology. Ryan and Deci's SDT proposed that individuals' motivated
behavior is characterized by three basic and universal needs: autonomy,
competence, and relatedness.
Autonomy refers here to the need to feel free to decide one's course of
action. Competence refers to the need to have the capacity and skills
to undertake and complete motivated behavior in an effective manner.
Finally, relatedness refers to the need to experience warm and caring
social relationships and feel connected to others. According to SDT, all
three needs must be fulfilled for optimal functioning and psychological
well-being. However, other psychologists like Barry Schwartz have
argued that if self-determination is taken to extremes, freedom of
choice can turn into the "tyranny of choice".
In this view, having too much autonomy and too many choices over our
course of action can be perceived as overwhelming, make our decisions
more difficult, and ultimately lead to psychological distress rather
than wellbeing.
Law
Human rights
In international law, the right of a people to self-determination is commonly recognized as a ius cogens
rule. Here, self-determination denotes that a people, based on respect
for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have
the right to freely choose their sovereignty, international political
status, economic, social, and cultural development with no interference.
In the framework of the United Nations, fundamental rights like
self-determination are mainly defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Informational self-determination in German law
The concept of informational self-determination
(informational Selbstbestimmung), considered as a modern fundamental
right which protects against unjustified data processing, has featured
prominently in the German Federal Constitutional Court's
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) jurisprudence and might be the most direct
precursor and inspiration to the concept of digital self-determination.
In 1983, the Bundesverfassungsgericht ruled that "in the context
of modern data processing, the general right of personality under
Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic Law encompasses
the protection of the individual against unlimited collection, storage,
use and sharing of personal data. The fundamental right guarantees the
authority conferred on the individual to, in principle, decide
themselves on the disclosure and use of their personal data."
(Volkszählungsurteil, headnote 1).
Philosophically, the right to informational self-determination is
deeply rooted in the Bundesverfassungsgericht's understanding of
inviolable Human Dignity (Article 1 of the Grundgesetz) as a prohibition
of human objectification (in German: Objektformel; see for example n°33
of BVerfGE 27, 1 - Mikrozensus). This understanding refers back to the
late 18th-century German philosophy of Enlightenment. The
Volkszählungsurteil was inspired by the concern that modern data
processing technology could lead to a "registration and cataloging of
one's personality in a manner that is incompatible with human dignity"
(Volkszählungsurteil, headnote 4). In this view, human beings, due to
their inviolable dignity, may never be treated like depersonalized and
objectified resources that can be harvested for data. Instead humans,
due to their capacity for autonomy, are self-determined agents
possessing a significant degree of control over their informational
images.
Self-determination in the digital sphere
The
increasing digitization of most aspects of society poses new challenges
for the concept and realization of self-determination.
While the digital sphere has ushered in innovation and opened up new
opportunities for self-expression and communication for individuals
across the globe, its reach and benefits have not been evenly
distributed, oftentimes deepening existing inequalities and power
structures, commonly referred to as a digital divide.
Moreover, the digital transformation has enabled, oftentimes
unbeknownst to individuals, the mass collection, analysis, and
harvesting of personal data by private companies and governments to
infer individuals' information and preferences (e.g., by tracking
browsing and shopping history), influence opinions and behavior (e.g.,
through filter bubbles and targeted advertisements), and/or to make
decisions about them (e.g., approving or not a loan or employment
application), thus posing new threats to individuals' privacy and
autonomy.
Although the definition of digital self-determination is still
evolving, the term has been used to address humans' capacity (or lack
thereof) to exercise self-determination in their existence in and usage
of digital media, spaces, networks, and technologies, with the
protection of the potential for human flourishing in the digital world
as one of the chief concerns.
Starting in the 2010s, a few multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral
initiatives around the world have been working on developing a
theoretical framework for the concept of digital self-determination.
In 2015, the Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and
Social Sciences of Health, housed at the University of Cologne (CERES),
conducted a study to help define digital self-determination and develop
metrics to measure its fulfillment.
Their study report defines digital self-determination as "the concrete
development of a human personality or the possibility of realizing one's
own plans of action and decisions to act, insofar as this relates to
the conscious use of digital media or is (co-)dependent on the existence
or functioning of digital media".
In 2017, Professor Luca Belli presented at the United Nations Internet Governance Forum
the concept of Network Self-determination as the "right to freely
associate in order to define, in a democratic fashion, the design,
development and management of network infrastructure as a common good,
so that all individuals can freely seek, impart and receive information
and innovation."
Arguing that the right to network self-determination finds its basis in
the fundamental right to self-determination of peoples as well as in
the right to informational self-determination, Belli posits that network
self-determination plays a pivotal role allowing individuals to
associate and join efforts to bridge digital divides in a bottom-up
fashion, freely developing common infrastructure. The concept gained
traction at the Latin American level, starting to form a core element of
research and policy proposals dedicated to community networks.
In 2018, the Swiss government launched a Digital
Self-Determination network in response to the action plan for the
Federal Council's 'Digital Switzerland' strategy, including
representatives from the Swiss Federal Administration, academia, civil
society, and the private sector.
The work of this network conceptualizes digital self-determination as
"a way of enhancing trust into digital transformation while allowing all
actors of society to benefit from the potential of the data economy".
This work proposes that the core principles of digital
self-determination are transparency and trust, control and
self-determined data sharing, user-oriented data spaces, and
decentralized data spaces that operate in proximity to citizens' needs.
The work of the network aims "to create an international network that
represents the basic principles of digital self-determination and on
this basis will elaborate best practices, standards, and agreements to
develop international data spaces".
In 2021, the French Telecoms Regulator (ARCEP) referred to the concept of Digital Self-determination in its official annual report dedicated to "The State of the Internet", drawing on the IGF output document report on "The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis".
In 2021, the Centre of AI & Data Governance at Singapore
Management University launched a major research project focusing on the
concept of digital self-determination, in collaboration with the Swiss
government and other research partners. Their theoretical framework
focuses on data governance and privacy, and proposes that the core
components of digital self-determination are the empowerment of data
subjects to oversee their sense of self in the digital sphere, their
ability to govern their data, consent as a cornerstone of privacy and
data protection, protection against data malfeasance, and accuracy and
authenticity of the data collected. This proposed framework also
emphasizes that digital self-determination refers to both individuals
and collectives and that the concept should be understood in the context
of "rights dependent on duties" and in parallel to concepts of a social
or relational self, social responsibility, and digital solidarity (see
below: 3.1. Addressing the multilevel 'self' in digital
self-determination)
In 2021, the Digital Asia Hub in collaboration with the Berkman Klein Center
at Harvard University and the Global Network of Internet & Society
Centers, conducted a research sprint to explore the concept of digital
self-determination from different perspectives and across cultural
contexts. This initiative approached digital self-determination "as an
enabler of - or at least contributor - to the exercise of autonomy and
agency in the face of shrinking choices", to address questions of
control, power, and equity "in a world that is increasingly constructed,
mediated, and at times even dominated by digital technologies and
digital media, including the underlying infrastructures."
In addition to the work of governments and research centers,
civil society members have also advocated for digital
self-determination. For example, Ferdinand von Schirach,
a legal attorney and widely-read German writer of fictional legal short
stories and novels, has launched an initiative entitled "JEDER MENSCH",
which translates to "Every human". In "JEDER MENSCH", von Schirach
calls for the addition of six new fundamental rights to the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 2 of this proposal is
entitled "right to digital self-determination", and proposed that
"Everyone has the right to digital self-determination. Excessive
profiling or the manipulation of people is forbidden."
In October 2021, an International Network on Digital Self-Determination
was created with the intention of "bringing together diverse
perspectives from different fields around the world to study and design
ways to engage in trustworthy data spaces and ensure human centric
approaches."
The network is composed of experts from the Directorate of
International Law of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs; the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Data Governance at Singapore Management University; the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University; the Global Tech Policy Practice at the TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology and The GovLab at New York University.
Practical elements
Different
sectors of society, ranging from legislators and policy-makers, to
public organizations and scholars, to activists and members of the civil
society, have called for digital infrastructure, tools and systems that
protect and promote individuals' self-determination, including equal
and free access, human-centered design, better privacy protections and
control over data. These elements are closely connected and complement
one another. For example, equal access to digital infrastructure can
enable the representation of diverse viewpoints and participatory
governance in the digital sphere, and decentralized systems might be
necessary to ensure individuals' control over their data.
Access to digital infrastructure and tools
Bridging the various forms of existing digital divides
and providing equitable and fair access to digital technologies and the
internet has been proposed as crucial to ensure that all individuals
are able to benefit from the digital age, including access to
information, services, and advancement opportunities.
In this sense, the concept of Digital Self-determination overlaps with the concept of "Network Self-determination"
as it emphases that groups of unconnected and scarcely connected
individuals can regain control over digital infrastructures, by building
them and shaping the governance framework that will organise them as a
common good.
As such, Belli stresses that network self-determination leads to
several positive externalities for the affected communities, preserving
the Internet as an open, distributed, interoperable and generative
network of networks.
Digital literacy
Digital literacy and media literacy
have been proposed as necessary for individuals to acquire the
knowledge and skills to use digital tools as well as to critically
assess the content they encounter online, create their own content, and
understand the features and implications of the digital technology used
on them as well as the technology they consciously and willingly engage
with.
In addition to basic digital navigation skills and critical consumption
of information, definitions of digital literacy have been extended to
include an awareness of existing alternatives to the digital platforms
and services used, understanding how personal data is handled, awareness
of rights and existing legal protections, and of measures to
independently protect one's security and privacy online (e.g., the
adoption of obfuscation techniques as a way of evading and protesting
digital surveillance).
Representation of diverse realities and viewpoints
Internet activist Eli Pariser coined the term filter bubble
to refer to the reduced availability of divergent opinions and
realities that we encounter online as a consequence of personalization
algorithms like personalized search and recommendation systems.
Filter bubbles have been suggested to facilitate a warped understanding
of others' points of view and the world. Ensuring a wide representation
of diverse realities on digital platforms could be a way of increasing
exposure to conflicting viewpoints and avoiding intellectual isolation
into informational bubbles.
Human-centered design of user interfaces and experiences
Scholars have coined the term attention economy
to refer to the treatment of human attention as a scarce commodity in
the context of ever-increasing amounts of information and products. In
this view, the increasing competition for users' limited attention,
especially when relying on advertising revenue
models, creates a pressing goal for digital platforms to get as many
people as possible to spend as much time and attention as possible using
their product or service. In their quest for users' scarce attention,
these platforms would be incentivized to exploit users' cognitive and
emotional weaknesses, for example via constant notifications, dark patterns, forced multitasking, social comparison, and incendiary content. Advocates of human-centered design in technology (or humane technology)
propose that technology should refrain from such 'brain-hacking'
practices, and instead should support users' agency over their time and
attention as well as their overall wellbeing.
Data governance
Scholar Shoshana Zuboff coined the term surveillance capitalism to refer to the private sector's commodification of users' personal data for profit (e.g. via targeted advertising),
leading to increased vulnerability to surveillance and exploitation.
Surveillance capitalism relies on centralized data management models
wherein private companies retain ownership and control over the users'
data. To guard against the challenges to individuals' privacy and
self-determination, various alternative data governance models have been
recently proposed around the world, including trusts, commons, cooperative, collaboratives, fiduciaries, and "pods".
These models have some overlap and share a common mission to give more
control to individuals over their data and thus address the current
power imbalances between data holders and data subjects.
Current issues
Addressing the multilevel 'self' in digital self-determination
Digital self-determination for individuals
An individual's exercising of self-agency can be intimately connected to the digital environments one is embedded in, which can shape one's choice architecture,
access to information and opportunities as well as exposure to harm and
exploitation, thereby affecting the person's capacity to freely and
autonomously conduct his or her life. A variety of digital technologies
and their underlying infrastructure, regardless of their relatively
visible or indirect human interfaces,
could contribute to conditions that empower or disempower an
individual's self-determination in the spheres of socio-economic
participation, representation of cultural identity and political expression.
An illustration depicting the use of facial recognition technology on a woman
The extent of technologically-mediated spheres where such influence
could take place over an individual's self-determined choices has been
the focus of growing contemporary debates across diverse geographies.
One of the debates concerns whether an individual's privacy, as a form of control over one's information, may or may not be sufficiently protected from exploitative data harvesting and micro-targeting
that can exert undue behavioural influence over the individual as part
of a targeted group. Developments in this area vary greatly across
countries and regions where there are different privacy frameworks and big data policies, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and China's Social Credit System, which approach personal data distinctly.
Other debates range from whether individual agency in decision-making can be undermined by predictive algorithms; whether an individual labor, particularly in the Global South, may encounter new employment opportunities as well as unique vulnerabilities in the digital economy; whether an individual's self-expression may be unduly and discriminately policed by surveillance technologies deployed in smart cities, particularly those integrating facial recognition and emotion recognition capabilities which run on biometric data, as a form of digital panopticon; and whether an individual's access to diverse information may be affected by the digital divide and dominance of centralized online platforms, potentially limiting one's capacity to imagine his or her identity and make informed decisions.
Digital self-determination for children
Digital media
and technology afford children the opportunity to engage in various
activities that support their development, learning, and pleasure time.
Such activities include play, interactions with others, sharing and
creating content, and experimenting with varied forms of identities
afforded by mediums they engage with .
At the same time, despite digital media affordances, children are users
who are under 18 years old, which can have unintended consequences on
how children consume content, be vulnerable, and ways interactions with
technology impact the child's emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development. Therefore, calls within digital literacy
and children technology interaction research assert that ethical design
of technology is essential for designing equitable environments for
children.
Work in digital media and learning acknowledges the affordances of
technology for creating expansive ways for learning and development for
children, at the same time, pays attention to that children should learn
critical digital literacies that enables them to communicate, evaluate,
and construct knowledge within digital media. Additionally, ethical consideration should be taken into account to support children's self-determination.
For instance within this body of work, there is an attention to
involving children in the decision making process of technology design
as an ethical methodological approach in engaging the design of
technology for children. In other words, involving children within the
design process of technologies and thinking about ethical dimensions of
children interactions enables a shift of the notion of vulnerability is
shifted towards supporting children to enact their self-determination
and positioning them as active creators of their own digital futures.
Beyond ethical considerations, children's involvement in digital
technologies and digital market practices has also an important
relevance with their privacy and data protection rights. Use of predictive analytics
and tracking software systems can impact children's digital and real
life choices by exploiting massive profiling practices. In fact, due to
the ubiquitous use of these algorithmic systems at both state and
private sector level, children's privacy can easily be violated and they
can be personally identifiable in the digital sphere.
Article 12 of the UN CRC
implies a responsibility to states that children should have the right
to form and express their own views "freely, without any pressure".
In the literal analysis, pressure refers to any kind of manipulation,
oppression or exploitation. States parties should recognize that all
children regardless of age are capable of forming and expressing their
own autonomous opinions.
Also, it is stated by the Committee that children should have the right
to be heard even if they don't have a comprehensive understanding of
the subject matter affecting them.
Moreover, Article 3 of the UNCRC states that the best interest of the
child shall be embedded in private and governmental decision making
processes and shall be a primary consideration in relation to the
services and procedures which involve children.
Anchoring these responsibilities to private and public digital
practices and as it is highlighted in the General Comment No. 25 of the
Committee on the Rights of the Child, children are at great risk in the
digital domain regarding their vulnerable and evolving identity. It turns out that with the proliferation of mass surveillance and predictive analytics, new disputes are on the way for states to protect children's very innate rights. To this end, recent class actions
and regulation efforts Tech firms can be promising examples in the
context of pushing the private sector to adopt more privacy-preserving
practices on children which can provide a golden shield for their
autonomy.
In this incautiously regulated atmosphere, it has become easier to make profit with the help of behavioral advertising against children. Not having appropriate consent- inform/ parental consent practices, it is so easy to manipulate and exploit very intrinsic vulnerabilities of children and nudge them to choose specific products and applications. Regarding this, article 8 of the GDPR
provides a set of age limits on the processing of personal data of
children related to the information society services(ISS). Pursuant to
Article 8, in conditions where children are at least 16 years old, the
child can give consent to the lawful processing of personal data
restricted with the purpose of processing (Art(6)(1)(a). For children
under 16 years old, it is lawful only and to the extent of the consent
which is given by the holder of the parental responsibility to the
child. This age limit of 16 can be lower to the age of 13 by the Member
States. In addition to this, it is emphasized that data controllers
should take necessary measurements in relation to the protection of
children's data. Supporting these, Recital 38 states that children merit
specific protection on the use, collection and processing of their data
taking into consideration that children are less aware of the impacts,
consequences and safeguards with respect to processing of their personal
data. The GDPR also refers to the children in Articles 40 and 57;
Recitals 58 and 75.
Beyond the GDPR, one of the structured regulations is the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) Children Code (formally Age Appropriate Design Code) which is passed in September 2020.
The Children Code sets forth the age limit as 18 with regard to ability
to give free while implying the responsibility to the providers of
online services such as apps, games, connected devices and toys and new
services. What differs The Children Code from the EU regulations is that
it applies to all information society services which are likely to be
accessed by children. This means, even if the service is not directly
aimed at children, the parties that offer those services must comply
with The Children Code. The ICO's Children Code is also infused with the
notion of the best interest of the child that is laid out in the UNCRC.
Having a broad scope, the ICO lists a set of guiding points for
organizations to support the notion of the best interest of the child
such as recognizing that children has an evolving capacity to form their
own views and giving due weight to those views, protecting their needs
of the developing their own ideas and identity, their right to assembly
and play.
The Code also extends the protection of the personal data of children
with a set of key standards such as data minimisation, data protection
impact assessments, age appropriate design, privacy by default and
transparency.
Geopolitical and cultural power dynamics in the digital world
Digital Colonialism
The
politics of the empire are already permeating the shared histories.
Unequal social relations between colonizing and colonized peoples
materialized through exploitation, segregation, epistemic violence, and
so on. Throughout the world, these discourses of colonialism dominated
peoples' perceptions and cultures. Post-colonial critics contended how
colonized peoples could attain cultural, economical, and social agency
against the oppressive structures and representation imposed on their
lives and societies.
However, through temporality, the preface "post" implies the
historical period of colonization has ended, and the colonized subjects
are now free of its discourses. Scholars have focalized on the
continuity of colonialism even if it has historically ended. The
neo-colonial structures and discourses are already part of the different
"postcolonial" cultures.
The postcolonial era in which colonized countries have gained
independence and autonomy has been a means for the populace to regain
their own self-determination and freedom. Yet, the neo-colonial
structures that are still rampant in the postcolonial societies.
Although the nation-state might forward the idea of autonomy and
self-determination, new forms of colonialism are always emerging. This
dialectic between colonialism and self-determination encompasses a range
of fields, changing in form, focus, and scope over time. It is
reflected in the complex political and policy relationships between
"postcolonial" peoples and the state, especially since most states are
replicating the legal and political systems of their former colonizer.
History articulates that state policy in fields as diverse as
health, education, housing, public works, employment, and justice had,
and continue to have, negative effects on indigenous peoples after
independence.
This negative effect is shared throughout the former colonized peoples.
Alongside these political tensions, economic interests have manipulated
legal and governance frameworks to extract value and resources from
former colonized territories, often without adequate compensation or
consultation to impacted individuals and communities. Accordingly, Digital Colonialism emerges as a dominant discourse in the digital sphere.
Digital colonialism is a structural form of domination exercised
through the centralized ownership and control of the three core pillars
of the digital ecosystem: software, hardware, and network connectivity.
The control over the latter three gives giant corporations an immense
political, economic, and social power over not only individuals, but
even nation-states. Assimilation into the tech products, models, and ideologies of foreign powers constitutes a colonization of the internet age.
Today, a new form of corporate colonization is taking place.
Instead of the conquest of land, Big Tech corporations are colonizing
digital technology. The following functions are dominated by a handful
of multinational companies: search engines (Google); web browsers
(Google Chrome); smartphone and tablet operating systems (Google
Android, Apple iOS); desktop and laptop operating systems (Microsoft
Windows); office software (Microsoft Office, Google Docs); cloud
infrastructure and services (Amazon, Microsoft, Google, IBM); social
networking platforms (Facebook, Twitter); transportation (Uber, Lyft);
business networking (Microsoft LinkedIn); streaming video (Google
YouTube, Netflix, Hulu); and online advertising (Google, Facebook) –
among others. These include the five wealthiest corporations in the
world, with a combined market cap exceeding $3 trillion.
If any nation-state integrates these Big Tech products into their
society, these multinational corporations will obtain enormous power
over their economy and create technological dependencies that will lead
to perpetual resource extraction. This resembles the Colonial period in
which the colonies were made to be dependent on the colonizer's economy
for further exploitation.
Under digital colonialism, digital infrastructure in the Global
South are engineered for the Big tech companies' needs, enabling
economic and cultural domination while imposing privatized forms of
governance.
To accomplish this task, major corporations design digital technology
to ensure their own dominance over critical functions in the tech
ecosystem. This allows them to accumulate profits from revenues derived
from rent; to exercise control over the flow of information, social
activities, and a plethora of other political, social, economic, and
military functions which use their technologies.
Digital colonialism depends on code. In Code: And Other Laws of
Cyberspace, Lawrence Lessig famously argued that computer code shapes
the rules, norms, and behaviors of computer-mediated experiences. As a
result, "code is law" in the sense that it has the power to usurp legal,
institutional, and social norms impacting the political, economic, and
cultural domains of society. This critical insight has been applied in
fields like copyright, free speech regulation, Internet governance,
blockchain, privacy, and even torts.
This is similar to architecture in physical space during colonialism.
Building and infrastructures were built to reinforce the dominance and
reach of colonialism.
"Postcolonial" peoples, then, face multiple digital limitations
in their access and use of the networked digital infrastructures. The
latter threatens to reflect and restructure existing relations of social
inequality grounded in colonialism and continuing processes of
neo-colonialism. Indigenous peoples are acutely aware of this potential,
and so are working with various partners to decolonize the digital
sphere. They are undertaking a variety of projects that represent their
diverse and localized experiences, alongside a common desire for
self-determination. Rural and remote indigenous communities face
persistent access problems to the digital associated with the historic
and ongoing effects of colonialism. Remote indigenous communities are
becoming 'offline by design' because their going online has been
challenged.
Indigenous peoples are asserting their digital self-determination by
using these platforms to build online communities, express virtual
identities, and represent their culture virtually. Hence, they are no
longer static as offline, but becoming 'networked individualism'.
Their engagement with the digital sphere resists the imposed
representations of their identities and deterritorializes conceptions of
virtual communities. Accordingly, the former colonized peoples are
always engaged in the process of decolonizing the latent neo-/colonial
discourses which are dominating the internet.
Digital Apartheid
Digital apartheid has also been a key concept in debates around digital self-determination.
For authors such as Christian Fuchs, digital apartheid means that
"certain groups and regions of the world are systematically excluded
from cyberspace and the benefits that it can create."
Brown and Czerniewicz (2010), drawing on a research project interrogating the access of higher education students in South Africa to Information and Communications Technology (ICT), highlight that while age or generational aspects have been a characteristic of digital divides,
now the latter are rather a question of access and opportunity,
claiming that in the present day "digital apartheid is alive and well."
Borrowing from Graham (2011), and extending to the representation of conditions surrounding higher education in post-apartheid South Africa, Ashton et al. (2018)
highlight the concept of digital apartheid as a multidimensional
process with three dimensions - a material dimension (including access
to infrastructure, device, cellular coverage, electricity), a skills dimension (including education legacy regarding computer training, social capital with regard to the family/community computer skills), and a virtual dimension (including language, culture and contextual relevance). The authors argue that "The virtual dimension emerges from the intentional act of 'digital redlining' which takes on a number of forms. It may be under the guise of protecting an organisation from spam and illicit, harmful cyber-attacks, but has the secondary outcome of blocking or filtering out communities who only have access through cheaper portals." It also includes the influence of the Westernised, English internet that further influences content visibility. The skills dimension emerges from an understanding where ICT lessons were not a part of the curriculum
until recently and therefore the skill development remained
underexposed and restricted. The authors refer to the material dimension
as the most cited concern regarding introducing technology as part of the curriculum, arguing that "the lack of power infrastructure in lower socio-economic areas and exorbitant data costs, impact some students' ability to access their learning resources."
Since 2019, this concept signifying advantages to some and dispossession of some others has also been used to characterize internet shutdowns and communications blockades in Jammu and Kashmir. The region, contested and claimed by both India and Pakistan in its entirety and a site of an active armed conflict, witnessed the Indian State imposing a total communication blackout and internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir
on the intervening night of 4 and 5 August 2019 as part of its
unilateral measures to remove the semi-autonomous nature of the disputed
territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Low speed 2G internet was restored in January 2020 while high speed 4G internet was restored in February 2021. A 2019 report notes that between 2012 and 2019, there have been 180 internet shutdowns in the region. India also topped the list of 29 countries that had disrupted access to the internet for the people in the year 2020. The report by Access Now
highlighted, "India had instituted what had become a perpetual,
punitive shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir beginning in August 2019.
Residents in these states had previously experienced frequent periodic
shutdowns, and in 2020 they were deprived of reliable, secure, open, and
accessible internet on an ongoing basis."
In placing these frequent shutdowns in the context of the ongoing
conflict in Kashmir, the report Kashmir's Internet Siege (2020) by the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society
argues that with the frequent internet shutdowns, the Indian government
has been enacting in these regions a "digital apartheid," "a form of
systemic and pervasive discriminatory treatment and collective punishment."
According to the report, "frequent and prolonged internet shutdowns
enact a profound digital apartheid by systematically and structurally
depriving the people of Kashmir of the means to participate in a highly
networked and digitised world."
This systematic censorship and deprivation not only resulted in excluding the people, collectively, from participating in cyberspace, but as was evident, it crippled IT companies and startups in Kashmir. It was noted to have affected at least a thousand employees working in this sector
just in the third month of the world's longest internet shutdown that
began on the intervening night of 4 and 5 August 2019 across Jammu and
Kashmir. In a statement, UN Special Rapporteurs referred to the communication blackout as a collective punishment without any pretext of precipitating offence. "The shutdown of the internet and telecommunication
networks, without justification from the Government, are inconsistent
with the fundamental norms of necessity and proportionality," the
experts said. A news report quoting the story of an entrepreneur who had been doing well with a startup
noted that the "Internet is the oxygen for start-ups. The Centre pulled
that plug on August 5. The virtual world was our space for growth. Now
that's gone. All employees and producers have been rendered jobless [..]
I have to work by hook or by crook to meet the damage inflicted by loss
of customers, undelivered orders and accumulated goods after the
non-availability of Internet." In June 2020, it was reported for the first time how non-local companies were able to bag a majority of contracts online for mining of mineral blocks, as locals were left at a disadvantage due to the ban on high speed internet.
The effect of this digital apartheid was also witnessed during the lockdown induced by the Covid-19 pandemic leaving the healthcare infrastructure crippled as doctors complained about not being able to access information
or attend trainings on coronavirus owing to the restricted internet.
The president of the Doctors Association noted that the awareness drives
that were carried out elsewhere about the virus
were impossible to run in Kashmir. "We want to educate people through
videos, which is not possible at 2G speed. We are handicapped in the
absence of high speed internet." Health experts and the locals warned that the internet blackout was hampering the fight against coronavirus in the region.
The internet shutdown also affected education across all levels in the
region. News reports noted how Kashmiri education was left behind even
as life elsewhere was moving online in dealing with the stay-at-home
guidelines during the pandemic.
A news report after a year of the communication blackout and subsequent
restriction on high-speed internet highlighted that it had "ravaged health, education, entrepreneurship" in the region.
Regulating for digital self-determination
The legal landscape
Promoting
concepts and rights which are closely related to digital
self-determination is a common goal behind regulatory initiatives in
various legal systems. Stemming from the conceptual framework of human rights, and a well-established notion of informational self-determination,
digital self-determination gradually comes to play an increasingly
important role as a concept that encompasses values and virtues which
remain highly relevant in the context of the global network society, such as autonomy, dignity, and freedom.
The importance of embedding the fundamental values into the
legislative frameworks regulating the digital sphere has been stressed
numerous times by scholars, public authorities, and representatives of various organizations.
The EU's legal policy, while not explicitly referencing a right
to digital self-determination, pursues closely related objectives. One
of the overarching premises of the European Digital Strategy is to
encourage the development of trustworthy technology that "works for the
people".
It aims at advancing, among other things, "human-centered digital
public services and administration", as well as "ethical principles for
human-centered algorithms".
The EU has outlined these policy goals in several regulatory agendas including i.a. the EU Commission Digital Strategy, the European Data Strategy, and the EU's White Paper on Artificial Intelligence.
Subsequently, the EU has pursued the abovementioned objectives through
the adoption or proposal of several legal instruments including:
• The General Data Protection Regulation,
aimed at laying down "rules relating to the protection of natural
persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules
relating to the free movement of personal data", protecting "fundamental
rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to
the protection of personal data" and guaranteeing "the free movement of
personal data within the Union". The main provisions relating to the
concept of digital self-determination include principles of data
processing (e.g. fairness, transparency, and accountability), grounds
for legitimate data processing (notably consent and legitimate
interests), rights of data subjects (e.g. the right to be informed, right to be forgotten, right to object), right to data portability, obligations associated with privacy-by-design
and privacy-by-default, rights and obligations concerning algorithmic
data processing (notably profiling and automated decision-making), and
obligations concerning data transfers outside the European Economic Area.
• The ePrivacy Regulation, a legislative proposal aimed at regulating the issues concerning electronic communications within the EU, including confidentiality of communications, privacy controls through electronic consent and browsers, and cookies.
• The Digital Services Act,
a legislative proposal aimed at harmonizing rules regarding digital
intermediary services, most notably illegal content, transparent
advertising, disinformation on social media platforms, and content
recommending systems, while preserving freedom of expression. The DSA is one of two proposals of the Digital Services Act package.
• The Digital Markets Act, a legislative proposal aimed at regulating the performance of the large online platforms acting as "gatekeepers" in the European Single Market, thus guaranteeing fair competition and "leveling the playing field". The DMA is one of two proposals of the Digital Services Act package.
• The Regulation on Artificial Intelligence,
a legislative proposal aimed at providing developers, deployers, and
users with clear requirements and obligations regarding specific uses of
AI.
The draft regulation introduces i.a. a catalog of prohibited AI
practices that distort the behavior of the individual in a manner that
can lead to physical or mental harm.
• The Data Governance Act
and the Open Data Directive, legislative proposals aimed at creating
trustworthy data-sharing systems which will empower the EU citizens to
decide about sharing their data across sectors and the Member States,
while increasing the annual economic value of data sharing in the EU and
creating social and economic benefits.
• The Copyright Directive,
aiming to protect intellectual property and, consequently, intellectual
work. However, it contains a difficult and controversial balance with
another aspect of self-determination, which is freedom of speech
(especially Article 17).
• The Audiovisual Media Services Directive, regulating the freedom of information in the domain of Audiovisual Media Services as well as the liability of the platforms.
The U.S. has yet to introduce a comprehensive information privacy law;
legislation pertaining to data and digital rights currently exists at
both the state and federal level and is often sector-specific. In the
United States, The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is tasked with overseeing the protection of consumers' digital privacy and security, outlining fair information practice principles for the governance of online spaces.
Federal legislation includes the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) which regulates the collection of personally identifiable information from children under the age of thirteen online. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) includes federal standards for protecting the privacy and security of personal health data stored electronically. The Family Educational and Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) governs access to and the disclosure of student educational records. While state legislation varies in the strength of their protections, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) of 2018 provides California consumers with the right to access data, know and delete personal information collected
by businesses, opt-out of the sale of this information, and the right to non-discrimination for exercising these rights.
Ethical and rights-based principles for AI
Artificial intelligence and digital self-determination
The proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), as not a single technology but rather a set of technologies,
is increasingly shaping the technologically-mediated spaces for
individuals and communities to conduct their lives. From algorithmic
recommendation in e-commerce and social media platforms, smart surveillance in policing, to automated resources allocation in public services,
the extent of possible AI applications that can influence an
individual's autonomy is continuously contested, considering the
widespread datafication of people's lives across the socio-economic and political spheres today.
For example, machine learning,
a subfield of artificial intelligence, "allows us to extract
information from data and discover new patterns, and is able to turn
seemingly innocuous data into sensitive, personal data",
meaning an individual's privacy and anonymity may be prone to
vulnerabilities outside of the original data domain, such as having
their social media data harvested for computational propaganda in the election based on micro-targeting.
Another sphere where AI systems can affect the exercising of
self-determination is when the datasets on which algorithms are trained
mirror the existing structures of inequality, thereby reinforcing structural discrimination that limits certain groups' access to fair treatment and opportunities. In the United States, an AI recruiting tool used by Amazon has shown to discriminate against female job applicants, while an AI-based modelling tool used by the Department of Human Services in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
to flag potential child abuse has shown to disproportionately profile
the poor and racial minority, raising questions about how predictive
variables in algorithms could often be "abstractions" that "reflect
priorities and preoccupations".
Current landscape of AI principles relevant to digital self-determination
How states attempt to govern the AI industry can shape how AI
applications are developed, tested and operated and in what ethical
frameworks relevant to many forms of human interests, thereby affecting
the degree of digital self-determination exercised by individuals and
communities.
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of high-level principles and guidelines documents,
providing suggestions for public-sector policies and private-sector
code of conduct in a non-binding manner. Compared to the binding laws
enacted by states, the landscape of AI ethics principles paints a more
diverse picture, with governmental and nongovernmental organisations
including private companies, academic institutions and civic society
actively developing the ecosystem. A 2020 report by the United Nations
identified "over 160 organizational, national and international sets of
AI ethics and governance principles worldwide, although there is no
common platform to bring these separate initiatives together".
Common themes of AI principles have been emerging as research
efforts develop, with many closely linked to the various conditions of
digital self-determination, such as control over one's data, protection
from biased treatment, and equal access to the benefits offered by AI. A
2020 publication by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University
studied thirty-six "especially visible or influential" AI principles
documents authored by government and non-governmental actors from
multiple geographical regions, and identified eight key themes:
- Privacy
- Accountability
- Safety and Security
- Transparency and Explainability
- Fairness and Non-discrimination
- Human Control of Technology
- Professional Responsibility
- Promotion of Human Values
However, the report also notes "a wide and thorny gap between the
articulation of these high-level concepts and their actual achievement
in the real world".
Examples of intergovernmental and governmental AI principles
Currently, few AI governance principles are internationally recognised. The "OECD
Principles on AI", adopted by OECD Member States and nine other
non-OECD countries in May 2019, integrates elements relevant to digital
self-determination such as "inclusive growth", "well-being",
"human-centered values and fairness", while emphasizing an individual's
ability to appeal and "challenge the outcome of AI system" and the
adherence of AI development to "internationally recognized labour
rights".
On a national level, numerous state AI policies make reference to
AI ethics principles, though in an irregular fashion. Such references
can be standalone documents. For example, Japan's government established its "Social Principles of Human-Centric AI", which is closely linked to its "AI strategy 2019: AI for Everyone: People, Industries, Regions and Governments",
and a separate set of AI Utilization Guidelines that encourage
voluntary adherence and emphasize that AI shall be used to "expand human
abilities and creativity", shall not "infringe on a person's individual
freedom, dignity or equality", and adheres to the "principle of human
dignity and individual autonomy".
AI principles can also be incorporated into a national AI
strategy, which primarily focuses on policy instruments advancing AI,
such as investment in STEM education and public-private partnerships. For example, India's
AI strategy, "National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence" published
in June 2018, identifies key areas of high national priority for AI
development (healthcare, agriculture, education, urban-/smart-city
infrastructure, transportation and mobility), with ethical topics such
as privacy and fairness integrated as a forward-looking section.
Opportunities and challenges for AI principles to address self-determination
Non-binding AI principles suggested by actors inside or outside
the government might sometimes be further concretized into specific
policy or regulation. In 2020, the United Kingdom's
government's advisory body on the responsible use of AI, the Centre for
Data Ethics and Innovation, proposed specific measures for government,
regulators and industry to tackle algorithmic bias in the sectors of
financial services, local government, policing and recruitment,
with each area relevant to how individuals conduct their ways of life
and access socio-economic opportunities without being subjected to
unfair treatment.
Cultural and geographical representation has been highlighted as a
challenge in ensuring the burgeoning AI norms sufficiently consider
unique opportunities and risks faced by the global population, who
exercise their autonomy and freedom in vastly different political
regimes with varying degrees of rule of law. In 2020, a report published
by the Council of Europe
reviewed 116 AI principles documents and found that "these soft law
documents are being primarily developed in Europe, North America and
Asia", while "the global south is currently underrepresented in the landscape of organisations proposing AI ethics guidelines".
