Consumer data rights from Japan to the world | PART 2 | IGF 2023

Report

The analysis of the speakers’ arguments and supporting facts reveals several key points about the role of the internet and smartphones in society. On one hand, they are considered essential tools, with the internet being used every day like utility services.

For example, LINE, a popular social networking service in Japan, has 95 million users, highlighting the widespread use of these technologies. This positive sentiment towards the internet and smartphones is further supported by the fact that they are crucial to achieving SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

However, concerns are also raised about the negative impact of these technologies.

One major issue is the invasion of privacy on the internet. Data and photos from users of LINE were discovered to be available for viewing in two other countries without consumers’ knowledge. This alarming revelation questions the security and privacy measures in place and raises doubts about the adequacy of existing legislation.

This argument aligns with the goal of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, which focuses on privacy and data protection.

Another problem highlighted is unfair online marketing and advertising. Stealth marketing, where marketers intentionally disguise their promotional activities, is now regulated in Japan.

However, only 10% of companies have implemented retroactive measures to combat this deceptive practice. This negative sentiment towards online marketing suggests a need for increased transparency and fairness in advertising, in line with SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

Furthermore, instances of online subscription fraud are prevalent.

Dark patterns, deceptive user interfaces, are used to trick consumers into subscription contracts. Unfortunately, canceling these contracts is often impossible, leaving consumers trapped and vulnerable. This demonstrates the urgent need for robust consumer protection measures to prevent online subscription fraud and safeguard consumers.

Moreover, the analysis reveals the inadequacy of current online consumer protection laws, particularly in cross-border transactions.

Private data is at risk without effective rules to protect consumers’ interests. This underscores the significance of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, which emphasizes the need for effective cross-border consumer protection. There is a clear argument for stricter legal regulations against consumer deception and a call for consumers to have the opportunity to express their opinions.

From the analysis, it is evident that while the internet and smartphones bring numerous benefits, there are significant concerns regarding privacy, marketing practices, fraud, and cross-border consumer protection.

Consumer rights and protection are supported, with an emphasis on rejecting services that violate privacy and security. Furthermore, there is a call for stricter regulations to address consumer deception. These findings highlight the importance of considering these factors to ensure a fair and secure online environment for all.

Report

During the discussion, the speakers expressed their concerns regarding the low level of public discussion and participation in data governance. They highlighted the fact that the UK government’s announcement of its global Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) application was made through a US government website, which added to their apprehension.

The speakers emphasized the need for collaboration to effectively intervene in global CBPR issues.

Furthermore, the speakers voiced their worries about certain international trade agreements potentially eroding human rights. They noted the lack of prior knowledge about the concept of Digital Free Flow of Trade (DFFT) and its implications.

The speakers highlighted the importance of understanding the potential repercussions that can arise when trust agreements are not respected within the context of these trade agreements.

In conclusion, the speakers underscored the significance of involving the public in discussions relating to data governance.

They emphasized the need for increased collaboration among governments and stakeholders to address the challenges associated with global CBPR. Additionally, they urged a greater awareness and understanding of the potential human rights implications arising from international trade agreements.

Report

Taiwan is currently facing challenges in the areas of data protection and freedom of speech, as indicated by the negative sentiment and public backlash towards the proposed Digital Service Intermediary Act. This act has been met with criticism due to concerns over potential censorship and violation of privacy.

It is worth noting that the general public in Taiwan highly values freedom of speech and the autonomy of the private sector.

In addition, there is a noticeable lack of public awareness and understanding when it comes to tech companies’ responsibilities in safeguarding digital rights and privacy in Taiwan.

A survey revealed that more respondents are worried about data leaks than potential misuse of data by companies. This suggests a low level of understanding and awareness regarding privacy policies and laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

There is a clear need for increased education and awareness campaigns to bridge this gap.

However, there is a positive development in the form of the Open Cultural Foundation (OCF), a non-profit organisation that aims to promote open technology and digital rights in Taiwan.

OCF is also a member of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), further highlighting its dedication to advocating for digital rights. Through its efforts, OCF seeks to foster an environment that encourages the use of open technology and respects digital rights in the country.

Furthermore, there is advocacy for international regulations and compliance standards to ensure better practices and protection of digital rights by tech companies.

International corporations, which tend to adhere to international laws and compliance, receive higher scores in digital rights. In partnership with the Taiwanese Association for Human Rights (TAR), OCF has conducted a Ranking Digital Rights report to raise awareness of the digital rights situation.

This highlights the importance of establishing international standards and regulations to safeguard digital rights and ensure the accountability of tech companies.

In conclusion, Taiwan is facing challenges in the areas of data protection and freedom of speech. The negative sentiment and public backlash towards the proposed Digital Service Intermediary Act underscore the concerns regarding potential censorship and violations of privacy.

Furthermore, there is a lack of public awareness and understanding regarding tech companies’ responsibilities in safeguarding digital rights and privacy. However, the Open Cultural Foundation is actively advocating for open technology and digital rights in Taiwan, while there is also support for international regulations and compliance standards.

These efforts aim to address the challenges, enhance awareness and understanding, and promote better protection of digital rights in Taiwan.

Report

Javier, an advocate for digital governance, highlights the concerning lack of public participation in discussions surrounding this topic in the UK. He argues that this gap needs to be addressed to ensure that the public has a say in shaping digital governance decisions.

One example he provides is the Minister for Data Protection’s failure to discuss major reform plans during a day-long Parliament session. This lack of public attention and discussion is also seen in the minimal coverage of the global Cross-border Privacy Rules (CBPR), which Javier considers to have a high impact.

Despite the challenges, Javier recognizes the significance of civil society collaboration in intervening and shaping digital governance decisions.

He advocates for civil societies to have a voice in global digital meetings, such as those of the CBPR. He also suggests focusing on smaller countries where easier access and influence can be attained. By involving civil society organizations, Javier believes it will be possible to shape digital governance policies effectively and improve the low level of public participation.

In the context of the United States, Javier identifies a problem due to the lack of comprehensive privacy laws.

This absence hampers privacy protections for individuals and creates concerns regarding data privacy. However, Javier proposes a positive solution by working with US organizations towards domestic reforms. He highlights that US civil society and consumer groups are advocating for stronger privacy protections, which can be leveraged to bring about reforms.

Furthermore, the US is criticized for allegedly using data protection policies to divide and disregard the Asia-Pacific region.

Javier asserts that it is vital to showcase to the US that consumer rights are not limited to a specific region but are a global concern. His argument is based on the belief that consumer rights are significant worldwide and should not be undermined or divided based on geographical boundaries.

In conclusion, this analysis delves into the importance of public participation, civil society collaboration, and comprehensive privacy laws in the realm of digital governance.

Javier’s argument emphasizes the need for greater public discussion and involvement, as well as the vital role of civil society in shaping policies. The US is seen as a problematic case due to the lack of privacy laws, but engaging with US organizations and demonstrating the global concern for consumer rights are proposed as solutions.

Report

The Personal Information Protection Act in Korea has faced criticism for potentially infringing on freedom of expression and the right to know. Critics argue that the act’s emphasis on individuals’ right to control their personal information could hinder reporting on social injustices and public interest issues, deterring individuals from sharing crucial information that exposes wrongdoing and raises public awareness.

One major concern is the act’s rigid application, which may discourage consumer reporting campaigns.

Treating any collection of information as a personal information file could criminalise individuals who share vital safety information. This not only inhibits important disclosures but also creates a chilling effect on public interest whistleblowing.

Critics also point out that the act lacks sufficient exemptions for public interest whistleblowing.

Whistleblowers play a crucial role in uncovering misconduct and promoting transparency, but the current legislation hampers their ability to act in the best interest of society. Amendments to the act are necessary to protect and support those who expose wrongdoing in the public interest.

In contrast, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is seen as an alternative that addresses these concerns.

The GDPR allows for the collection and provision of information to third parties for public and legitimate interests without explicit consent. It also includes exemptions for journalistic purposes, ensuring that reporters can investigate and report on matters of public concern without unnecessary hindrance.

It is important to note that there have been instances of police and government entities abusing data protection laws to suppress whistleblowing.

This abuse underscores the need for amendments to protect individuals’ rights to protest and report on matters of public interest.

In summary, the Personal Information Protection Act in Korea has faced criticism for potentially infringing on freedom of expression and the right to know.

Critics highlight concerns about the act’s impact on reporting social injustices and consumer campaigns. Amendments are needed to provide exemptions for public interest whistleblowing. The GDPR offers a potential model that supports transparency and accountability. Instances of abuse further emphasize the need to protect individuals’ rights to protest and report on matters of public interest.

Report

The analysis presents two main arguments concerning digital literacy and consumer policy in Japan. Firstly, it highlights concerns regarding digital literacy among elderly consumers, particularly in an ageing society like Japan. With 28.6 percent of the population aged 65 and over, the lack of digital literacy among older individuals has become a significant social issue.

Addressing this issue requires increasing the digital literacy of older people and equipping them with the necessary skills to navigate the digital world.

Furthermore, the analysis criticises the reactive nature of Japanese consumer policy, especially in the digital field.

The Consumer Affairs Agency in Japan, which has only been established for 14 years, tends to implement policies reactively, reflecting the approaches of other countries. This reactiveness leads to delays in applying domestic laws, especially in the digital realm. The analysis suggests the need for a more proactive consumer policy that responds effectively to emerging challenges in the digital space.

The analysis also provides supporting evidence for these arguments.

It emphasises the existence of consumer harms among elderly consumers, which is a consequence of their lack of digital literacy. This evidence reinforces the need for efforts to enhance the digital knowledge and skills of older individuals. Additionally, the analysis highlights the challenges faced by consumer organisations in resolving issues in the digital field.

These challenges further emphasise the need for a proactive consumer policy that effectively addresses the evolving digital landscape.

In conclusion, the analysis calls for improvements in digital literacy among elderly consumers and the establishment of a proactive consumer policy in the digital realm in Japan.

These measures are deemed necessary to address the challenges posed by an ageing society and the rapid advancement of technology. Efforts should be made to empower older individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to navigate the digital world while also ensuring that consumer policy is responsive and proactive in addressing emerging issues.

Report

The challenges in internet activism in Japan are multifaceted and require careful consideration. One of the main hurdles faced by activists is the general indifference and lack of concern for privacy among the general population. This apathy towards privacy issues hampers the efforts of internet activists who are trying to raise awareness about the importance of protecting personal information online.

Another significant challenge is the avoidance of activism due to a conformity culture prevalent in Japanese society.

In a society that places a strong emphasis on conformity and harmony, standing out and challenging the status quo can be perceived as disruptive and not in line with societal norms. This cultural inclination towards conformity makes it difficult for activists to gather support and mobilise individuals for collective action.

Furthermore, a lack of mobilisation skills within Japanese internet activism organisations poses additional obstacles.

Activists must possess the necessary skills to effectively organise and mobilise individuals for a cause. However, many organisations in Japan struggle in this area, hindering their ability to lead successful campaigns and activities.

Additionally, a critical linchpin to the success of internet activism in Japan is the establishment of a horizontal coalition among different organisations.

Without a collaborative and unified approach, activists struggle to bring about meaningful change. The absence of a cohesive platform for organisations to join forces limits their collective impact and makes it challenging to achieve their goals.

On a broader note, it is argued that there is a need for more skilled activists, particularly those with technical knowledge.

The analysis suggests that many Japanese internet activists lack the necessary technical expertise required to navigate the complexities of online activism. As a result, there is a significant gap in understanding the intersection of technology and politics, impeding the progress of internet activism in Japan.

The role of “public interest technologists” who possess a deep understanding of both technology and politics is seen as vital in addressing this gap.

Another noteworthy observation is the presence of political bias within the activism sector. Japanese activism has a strong anti-government sentiment, which can sometimes overshadow the broader goals and objectives of internet activism.

This bias, coupled with a lack of effective lobbying skills, contributes to a limited influence on policymaking processes and decision-making bodies.

In conclusion, the challenges facing internet activism in Japan are multifaceted and require careful consideration. The general indifference towards privacy, avoidance of activism due to a conformity culture, lack of mobilisation skills, and absence of a horizontal coalition among organisations all hinder the progress of internet activism.

To address these challenges, there is a need for more skilled activists who possess both technical knowledge and political acumen. Additionally, overcoming political bias and enhancing lobbying skills are crucial for internet activists to effectively advocate for change. By addressing these obstacles, the potential for enhanced internet activism in Japan can be realised.

Report

Google and Meta, two prominent technology companies, have been ordered by Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission to pay penalty surcharges for violating the Personal Information Protection Act. The violations occurred because the companies failed to obtain valid user consent for collecting behavioral information using software development kits (SDKs) and pixels, which were then used for targeted advertising.

It was discovered that both Google and Meta collected user data without proper consent.

Google concealed its data collection practices under the More Options menu, making it difficult for users to find and opt out of such collection. Similarly, Meta’s notification regarding their data collection was challenging to access and did not meet the legal requirements for informing users about the matter.

Both companies argued that they had notified users about their data collection practices.

However, Google failed to explicitly inform users about the collection of third-party behavioral information, leading to the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act. Additionally, Meta’s notification was deemed insufficient due to its inaccessibility.

This case underscores the need for technology companies to respect personal data laws.

The Privacy Protection Act aims to safeguard individuals’ personal information and ensure that companies handle such data with proper consent and transparency. However, the violation by Google and Meta highlights the challenges that arise when these laws are not universally respected or adhered to.

Though this incident occurred in Korea, it serves as a reminder to technology companies worldwide to prioritize the protection of user privacy and comply with relevant data protection regulations.

As online platforms continue to play a significant role in people’s lives, safeguarding personal information becomes crucial in maintaining trust and ethical practices.

In conclusion, Google and Meta’s violation of the Personal Information Protection Act in Korea demonstrates the consequences of disregarding user consent and transparency in data collection.

The penalty surcharges imposed on the companies highlight the importance of respecting and adhering to personal data laws to protect user privacy. This case should prompt a broader discussion on the significance of personal data protection and the responsibilities of big tech companies in handling user information.

Report

The analysis reveals several key findings regarding digital legislation and data protection in Europe. Firstly, it is noted that Europe is experiencing a rapid increase in digital legislation, with approximately 40 laws introduced each year concerning digital issues. However, there are concerns that the true intentions of certain legislation are being obscured and that the harm caused by these laws only becomes evident when they are combined with others.

On a positive note, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was adopted with the primary objective of safeguarding human rights.

The revelations made by Edward Snowden in 2013 about the indiscriminate mass surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) significantly heightened awareness about the importance of data protection and privacy. As a result, the GDPR was implemented to provide stronger safeguards and regulations.

However, there are concerns that Europe is deviating from the strong standards established by the GDPR. The creation of the European health data space and the financial data space are cited as examples where Europe is eroding its own GDPR standards.

This raises questions about the extent to which Europe is prioritising and upholding data protection and privacy.

One of the key arguments presented in the analysis is that privacy should be the cornerstone of digital public infrastructures. It is suggested that governments need to re-evaluate their privacy standards when implementing public digital infrastructures.

This implies that privacy should be given greater importance and integrated into the design and implementation of such infrastructures.

Additionally, the European Court of Justice made a significant decision by annulling EU-US data transfers from a human rights perspective.

The court’s ruling was based on the extensive and indiscriminate mass surveillance conducted by the NSA, which infringes upon the rights of non-US citizens. This decision highlights the importance of prioritising human rights in data protection, rather than solely focusing on trade implications.

The analysis also raises concerns about Europe’s trade-offs in the realm of data protection.

It is argued that the essence of data protection should be focused on human rights, rather than being influenced by government or business interests. An example is given where Europe traded away the privacy of its citizens for cheaper energy in an agreement with the US, suggesting that human rights should be prioritised over economic gains.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the rapid increase in digital legislation in Europe, alongside concerns about hidden intentions and the potential harm caused by these laws. While the GDPR was adopted with the goal of securing human rights, there are concerns that Europe is moving away from its strong safeguards.

Privacy is emphasised as a fundamental aspect of digital public infrastructures, while the European Court of Justice’s decision on EU-US data transfers underscores the importance of human rights in data protection. The analysis also points out the need to prioritise human rights over economic or political interests in the realm of data protection.

Report

Korean consumer organizations are actively seeking to broaden their scope by venturing into the realms of digital rights and digital finance protection. This move comes in response to a lack of expertise in these areas within consumer organizations. Although organizations such as Consumers Korea and Consumers Union have begun delving into these domains, there is still significant room for growth and development.

However, the Korean government takes a different approach and leans towards advocating for self-regulation in the digital economy.

This stance is reflected in their abandonment of previous efforts to regulate big tech companies. Instead, they believe that self-regulation can maximize benefits for users and consumers.

The Bill of Rights initiative in Korea, spearheaded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, has raised suspicions among consumer organizations.

These organizations question the focus of the initiative, which seems to prioritize advancements in digital innovation rather than protecting human rights. This misalignment of priorities has led to apprehension and a lack of confidence in the Bill of Rights among consumer organizations.

Furthermore, current discussions surrounding AI law in Korea have also drawn criticism from consumer organizations.

The proposed AI law appears to be more pro-innovation and pro-business rather than prioritizing the protection of consumers’ rights. This has prompted consumer organizations, along with data rights organizations, to voice their concerns by writing an open letter opposing the bill.

Upon closer examination of the evidence provided, it becomes evident that there is a clash of interests and priorities between the Korean government and consumer organizations.

While consumer organizations are pushing for stronger protection of digital rights and consumers’ rights in general, the government seems to be more focused on promoting innovation and self-regulation in the digital economy.

In conclusion, Korean consumer organizations are making efforts to expand their operations into digital rights and digital finance protection.

However, their initiatives are met with differing views from the government, which favors self-regulation and places emphasis on digital innovation. The Bill of Rights initiative and the current AI law discussions are both regarded with suspicion by consumer organizations, as they appear to prioritize other aspects over protecting consumers’ rights.