Human rights principles Archives | Page 2 of 153

European Ombudsman criticises Commission over X risk report access

The European Ombudswoman has criticised the European Commission’s handling of a request for public access to a risk assessment report submitted by social media platform X under the Digital Services Act.

The case concerned a journalist’s request to access X’s 2023 risk assessment report, which large online platforms must provide under the DSA. The Commission refused to assess the report for possible disclosure, arguing that access could undermine X’s commercial interests, an ongoing DSA investigation and an independent audit.

The Ombudswoman found it unreasonable for the Commission to rely on a general presumption of non-disclosure rather than individually assessing the report. She said the circumstances in which the EU courts have allowed such presumptions differ from the rules applying to DSA risk assessment reports.

Although X has since made the report public with redactions, the Ombudswoman recommended that the Commission conduct its own assessment and aim to give the journalist the widest access possible, including potentially to parts redacted by the company. If access is refused for any sections, the Commission must explain why.

The finding of maladministration highlights the importance of transparency in the oversight of very large online platforms under the DSA, particularly where documents are relevant to public scrutiny of platform risk management and regulatory enforcement.

Why does it matter?

The case tests how far transparency obligations around very large online platforms can be limited by broad claims of commercial sensitivity or ongoing investigations. DSA risk assessment reports are central to understanding how platforms identify and manage systemic risks, so access decisions affect public oversight of the EU digital regulation as much as the rights of individual requesters.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EDPS frames safe AI as Europe’s next big idea

The European Data Protection Supervisor has framed safe and ethical AI as a defining European idea, linking AI governance to Europe’s history of collective initiatives rooted in shared values and fundamental rights.

In a Europe Day blog post, EDPS official Leonardo Cervera Navas argues that Europe’s approach to AI builds on earlier initiatives such as data protection, the creation of the EDPS and the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation. He presents the AI Act as a continuation of that tradition, aimed at ensuring that AI systems operate safely, ethically and in line with fundamental rights.

The post highlights the AI Act’s risk-based model, which prohibits AI systems posing unacceptable risks to health, safety and fundamental rights, while setting binding requirements for high-risk systems in areas such as safety, transparency, human oversight and rights protection. It also notes that most AI systems are considered minimal risk and fall outside the regulation’s scope.

Cervera Navas also points to the EDPS’s practical role under the AI Act as the AI supervisor for the EU institutions, agencies and bodies. The post refers to the EDPS network of AI Act correspondents, the mapping of AI systems used in the EU public administration, and a regulatory sandbox pilot for testing AI systems in compliance with the AI Act.

The post also emphasises international cooperation, including EDPS engagement through the AI Board, cooperation with market surveillance authorities, UNESCO’s Global Network of AI Supervising Authorities, Council of Europe work on AI risk and impact assessment, and AI discussions within the OECD.

Why does it matter?

As it seems, EDPS wants Europe’s AI governance model to be understood not only as regulation, but as part of a broader rights-based digital policy tradition. Its significance lies in linking the AI Act with practical supervision, institutional coordination and international cooperation, suggesting that the next test for Europe’s AI approach will be implementation rather than rule-making alone.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Dutch court backs Solvinity DigiD contract despite US data access fears

The District Court of The Hague has rejected an attempt by three Dutch citizens to block the government from renewing its contract with Solvinity, the company responsible for hosting and technically managing systems linked to DigiD.

The plaintiffs argued that Solvinity’s planned acquisition by US-based IT provider Kyndryl could place sensitive data from more than 16 million DigiD users under US jurisdiction, potentially exposing it to US authorities and creating risks to critical public services such as healthcare, pensions, taxes, and unemployment systems.

Despite these concerns, the court ruled in favour of the Dutch State, allowing the agreement to proceed. Judges did not accept arguments that the deal would immediately threaten data security or justify halting the contract.

The decision leaves further scrutiny to the Investment Assessment Office, which is reviewing national security risks linked to the acquisition. The case highlights ongoing tensions around digital sovereignty and data protection in the Netherlands.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

French CNIL hosts global privacy talks in Paris

The French Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés will host the G7 roundtable of data protection and privacy authorities in June 2026. The meeting aims to strengthen international cooperation amid rapid digital and AI developments.

The roundtable, created in 2021, brings together data protection authorities from G7 countries and the EU. It focuses on sharing legal and technological developments and encouraging coordinated approaches to common challenges.

Key areas of work for 2026 include emerging technologies, enforcement cooperation and the free flow of data. The discussions are expected to address growing concerns about data protection amid expanding AI use.

The CNIL stated that the French presidency will prioritise dialogue and practical cooperation, aiming to support global governance that respects fundamental rights, and that the event will take place in Paris.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Major publishers book again Meta’s Llama over AI training

Meta and Mark Zuckerberg are facing a new copyright lawsuit from five major publishers, Hachette, Macmillan, McGraw-Hill, Elsevier, and Cengage, along with author Scott Turow. The plaintiffs accuse the company of using millions of copyrighted books, journal articles, textbooks, and scholarly works to train its Llama AI models without permission. Filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan federal court), the proposed complaint seeks monetary compensation, an injunction, and the destruction of allegedly infringing copies held by Meta.

The complaint argues that Meta’s AI strategy relied on protected works from trade, education, and academic publishing, including content allegedly taken from pirate libraries such as LibGen and Anna’s Archive, as well as broad web scrapes containing subscription-only material. The publishers also claim Zuckerberg personally directed or authorised the conduct, a charge Meta is expected to contest vigorously.

At the centre of the lawsuit is a policy question now shaping AI governance worldwide: whether large-scale copying for model training can be justified as fair use or requires permission, transparency, and compensation? Meta and other AI developers argue that training enables transformative innovation, while rights holders say commercial models are being built from creative and scholarly labour without licensing. A previous Meta win in an author’s case showed that courts may accept fair-use arguments, but only where plaintiffs fail to prove clear market harm.

Either way, the publishers are trying to make that market-harm argument harder to dismiss. Their filing describes Llama as an ‘infinite substitution machine’, capable of generating long-form books, educational materials, and scholarly-style outputs that may compete with human-authored works. The case also points to the alleged erosion of licensing markets, arguing that harm occurs not only when AI outputs imitate books, but also when copyrighted works are copied into commercial training pipelines without consent.

The US Copyright Office’s 2025 report said that fair use in generative AI training requires case-by-case analysis, with market effects and the source of the training material playing central roles. In the EU, the AI Act has shifted the debate toward transparency by requiring general-purpose AI providers to publish summaries of their training data and to comply with the EU copyright rules, including rights reservations for text and data mining.

Why does it matter?

The Meta case is the manifestation of a global shift in digital governance: AI copyright disputes are no longer isolated lawsuits, but part of a broader effort to define lawful data supply chains. Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement over pirated books, the EU’s training-data transparency regulation, and continuing legal disputes in the US all point in the same direction: courts and regulators are asking whether AI innovation can remain competitive while respecting the rights, labour, and markets that make high-quality knowledge possible.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN experts warn of growing risks from digital surveillance and AI misuse

UN human rights experts have raised concerns about the global expansion of digital surveillance technologies and their impact on fundamental freedoms, warning that current practices risk undermining democratic participation and civic space.

In a joint statement, the experts said that surveillance tools are increasingly used in ways that may be incompatible with international human rights standards. They noted that such technologies are often deployed against civil society, journalists, political opposition, and minority groups, contributing to what they described as a ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression and dissent.

The experts highlighted the growing use of advanced technologies, including AI, in areas such as law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and border management. They said that, without adequate legal safeguards, these tools can enable large-scale monitoring, predictive profiling, and the amplification of bias, potentially leading to disproportionate targeting of individuals and groups.

According to the statement, digital surveillance systems are part of broader ecosystems that involve collaboration among governments, private companies, and data intermediaries. These interconnected systems can expand state surveillance capabilities and increase the complexity of assessing their impact on human rights.

The experts also pointed to the role of legal frameworks, noting that broadly defined laws on national security, extremism, and cybercrime may contribute to the misuse of surveillance technologies. Such measures, they said, can affect the work of civil society organisations and other actors operating in the public sphere.

To address these challenges, the experts called for stronger safeguards, including clearer limits on surveillance practices, risk-based regulation of AI systems, and improved oversight mechanisms. They emphasised the importance of human rights impact assessments throughout the lifecycle of digital technologies, as well as the need for accountability and access to remedies in cases of harm.

Why does it matter?

The statement also highlighted the importance of data protection, system testing, and validation to reduce risks associated with digital surveillance tools. It called on governments to align national legislation with international human rights standards and ensure independent oversight of surveillance activities.

The experts further suggested that international cooperation may be needed to address cross-border implications, including the potential development of a binding international framework governing digital surveillance technologies.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UNESCO and Oxford University launch global AI course for courts

A free online course aimed at preparing judicial systems for the growing role of AI in legal decision-making has been launched, with UNESCO in partnership with the University of Oxford positioned at the centre of the initiative.

AI is already shaping court processes, influencing evidence assessment, and affecting access to justice. Yet, many legal professionals lack structured guidance to evaluate such systems within a rule-of-law framework.

The UNESCO programme introduces a practical, human rights-based approach to AI, combining legal, ethical, and operational perspectives.

Developed with institutions including Oxford’s Saïd Business School and Blavatnik School of Government, the course equips participants with tools to assess algorithmic outputs, manage risks of bias, and maintain judicial independence in increasingly digital court environments.

Central to UNESCO’s initiative is a newly developed AI and Rule of Law Checklist, designed to help courts scrutinise AI systems and their outputs, including use as evidence.

The course also addresses broader concerns, including fairness, transparency, accountability, and the protection of vulnerable groups, reflecting rising global reliance on AI across justice systems.

Supported by the EU, the course is available globally, free of charge, with certification from the University of Oxford. As AI becomes embedded in judicial processes, capacity-building efforts aim to ensure technological adoption strengthens rather than undermines the rule of law.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN prepares first Global Dialogue on AI governance ahead of Geneva meeting

The United Nations is advancing preparations for the first Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance, set to take place in Geneva on 6–7 July 2026 alongside the AI for Good Summit.

Speaking at a UN Geneva press briefing, Egriselda López, Permanent Representative of El Salvador and co-chair of the Dialogue, said the initiative was established by UN member states as a universal forum to discuss AI governance. The process is intended to bring together governments and stakeholders with the aim of producing tangible outcomes.

López said the initial meeting will be structured around thematic clusters, including one focusing on AI opportunities and implications and another addressing the digital divide. She added that consultations with member states and stakeholders are ongoing to ensure an inclusive format for the discussions.

Rein Tammsaar, Permanent Representative of Estonia and co-chair of the Dialogue, said the forum aims to connect existing AI initiatives and best practices from around the world. He stressed the importance of interoperability and coordination, noting that the Dialogue seeks to create synergies rather than duplicate existing efforts.

According to Tammsaar, additional thematic areas will include interoperability, safety, and human rights. While human rights are expected to be a cross-cutting issue, stakeholders have also called for it to be addressed as a standalone theme.

Amandeep Gill, UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, described the initiative as part of a broader approach to ensuring that AI benefits humanity as a whole. He said the Dialogue is designed as a ‘dialogue of dialogues’, enabling governments, experts and other stakeholders to exchange knowledge in a rapidly evolving technological environment.

Gill also highlighted the role of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, which is expected to present its findings at the Geneva meeting. He noted that global capacity to both use and govern AI remains uneven, underlining the need to address disparities between countries.

Officials emphasised that the Dialogue is intended to complement existing initiatives rather than centralise governance efforts. It will focus on issues such as safety and human rights, while discussions on military uses of AI fall outside its mandate.

A second Global Dialogue on AI Governance meeting is planned for May 2027 in New York, as part of ongoing efforts to develop a more coordinated and inclusive global approach to AI governance.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI for Peace Summit highlights push for African-led innovation

A growing push for African-led AI development is shaping discussions on peace, governance, and security across the continent. At the AI for Peace Summit hosted at the Humanitarian Peace Support School in Nairobi, stakeholders called for AI systems better tailored to African governance, security, and resilience challenges.

Brigadier General John Nkoimo, General Officer Commanding Central Command of the Kenya Defence Forces, speaking on behalf of the Chief of the Defence Forces, highlighted AI’s potential to improve situational awareness and strengthen inter-agency coordination in complex security environments.

Participants also called for stronger investment in local innovation ecosystems to ensure AI tools reflect regional realities, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected settings. Discussions also focused on governance gaps, with participants warning that regulatory frameworks need to evolve quickly enough to keep pace with rapid technological deployment.

Security applications such as early warning systems, election monitoring, and other operational uses featured prominently, alongside concerns over human rights protection and institutional accountability. The summit’s broader message was that Africa’s AI future should be shaped locally through stronger governance and sustained investment in homegrown solutions.

Why does it matter?

AI is moving away from a one-size-fits-all model towards systems better adapted to African governance and security realities. Context-specific tools are more likely to be effective in fragile and conflict-affected environments because they can better reflect local risks, institutions, and operational conditions.

It also supports longer-term resilience by prioritising local innovation, reducing dependence on imported technology frameworks, and helping ensure that AI deployment aligns with regional policy goals, ethical standards, and institutional needs.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

ILO sets first global framework for AI use in manufacturing sector

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has adopted its first-ever tripartite conclusions on AI in manufacturing, marking a significant policy step in addressing the sector’s digital transformation.

Agreed following a five-day technical meeting in Geneva, the framework brings together governments, employers and workers to shape how AI is integrated into one of the world’s largest employment sectors.

These ILO conclusions respond to the growing impact of AI on manufacturing, which employs nearly 500 million people globally.

Rather than focusing solely on productivity gains, the framework emphasises the need to align technological adoption with labour standards, ensuring that innovation supports decent work, strengthens enterprises and contributes to inclusive economic growth.

Key provisions address skills development, lifelong learning and occupational safety, alongside the protection of fundamental rights at work.

The framework also highlights the importance of social dialogue, recognising that collaboration between stakeholders is essential to managing AI-driven change and mitigating potential disruptions to employment and working conditions.

An agreement that reflects a broader effort to balance efficiency with worker protection, rejecting the notion that productivity and labour rights are competing priorities.

Instead, it positions AI as a tool that, if properly governed, can enhance both economic performance and job quality within the manufacturing sector.

The conclusions will be submitted to the ILO Governing Body in November 2026 for formal approval, with the intention of guiding national policies and international approaches to AI deployment in industry.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!