Consumer data rights from Japan to the world | PART 2 | IGF 2023
8 Oct 2023 06:45h - 07:45h UTC
Table of contents
Disclaimer: It should be noted that the reporting, analysis and chatbot answers are generated automatically by DiploGPT from the official UN transcripts and, in case of just-in-time reporting, the audiovisual recordings on UN Web TV. The accuracy and completeness of the resources and results can therefore not be guaranteed.
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Amy Kato
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.
Audience
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.
Cindy
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.
Javier Ruiz Diaz
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.
Kugi Mia
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.
Jiwon Son
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.
Yukung He
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.
Thomas Lohniger
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.
Song Gi-Yoon
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.
Masayuki Hatta
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.
Session transcript
Javier Ruiz Diaz:
Now can you hear me? Yes. So in the next part of the session, we are going to have a series of short, stress, short presentations, many presentations, but short and dynamic, trying to give an overview of what’s going on basically in some of the countries. So we’re going to have some speakers first from Japan and South Korea, and then we are going to have also a couple more interventions around the Philippines, and Europe, and then also some colleagues are going to give an overview from Taiwan via Zoom after a second, but we’ll give you instructions. So without further ado, I will let our colleagues.
Kugi Mia:
Thank you, Javier. Hello, everyone. My name is Kugimiya from Consumers Japan. We’ve heard some presentations about different models of Internet governance, and now we’d like to give you some information about the issues that consumers organizations in Japan are currently focusing on. Not only digital issues, but other issues as well. Today, under the title, Consumer Protection in Digital Society, I would like to talk about the current situation of consumer administration in Japan and the concerns that we as consumers organizations have regarding the digital society. I will be in charge of the first half of this presentation and Ms. Kato will be in charge of the second half, so I will let you know in advance. There are many consumer organizations in Japan, and among them, Consumers Japan, CJ, is a federated organization that promotes collaboration and cooperation among consumer organizations. CJ deals with a wide range of topics including digital rights, food safety, product safety, environment, clean energy, etc. CJ supports the promotion over consumer policy through workshops and advocacy activities. We also attended the consumer dialogue held for the first time at the WTO in 2019 and made recommendations regarding consumer protection in the digital society. Particularly, the importance of consumer redress and the need for new measures. The global committee within CJ promotes cooperation with CI and collaboration with overseas consumer organizations. Japan is entering a super aging society. The population aged 65 and over is 28.6 percent, the highest in the world. As a result, many consumer harms occur among elderly consumers, which has become a social issue. Especially in the digital field, it is necessary to increase digital literacy of older people. Additionally, the Consumer Affairs Agency has only been in place for 14 years, so it does not have a long history like the EU or the US. For this reason, Japan’s consumer policy is characterized by its implementation in a reactive manner, reflecting the situation in other countries. Especially in the digital field, there are delays in the application of domestic laws. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, the wave of a super aging society is affecting consumer groups as well. The members of consumer organizations are aging, and at the same time, many of the younger generations live in households where both parents work, making it difficult to develop consumer movements as before. Consumers lack of knowledge in terms of technology and information in the digital field. Deciding how to resolve issues in the digital field is a major challenge for consumer organizations as well.
Amy Kato:
Thank you, Etsuko. I’ll continue the presentation. For us, the Internet and smartphones have now become essential tools in our lives. We use the Internet every day, just like we use electricity and water. In other words, we can no longer escape from Internet searches. However, it has become too late for us to realize that this phenomenon is an invasion of our privacy. In Japan, the number of users of the social networking service called LINE exceeds 95 million, and the daily active user rate is 86%. In 2021, a big problem was found out. Our communication data and photos in this application were available for viewing in two other countries. The consumers were not informed of this. We also see a lot of unfair marketing. A law regulating stealth marketing came into effect on October 1st of this year. Stricter advertising will be required, and criminal penalties will be imposed if the advertisements are malicious. However, a private survey shows only 10% of companies have completed retroactive measures, including all past posts. In order to strengthen monitoring, the Consumer Affairs Agency has set up a reporting desk and is calling for information. Also, legal measures against techniques called dark patterns are also insufficient. We see many fraudulent methods, including cases where subscription contracts are concluded without the consumer’s consent, and cases where cancellation is not possible even after all efforts are made. In addition to this, there are many other problems. Virtual space laws are just beginning to be discussed. Frozen to people with disabilities within dating apps is serious. There are no borders in digital society. This makes it easy for unfair services and defective products to be supplied across borders. And of course, our private data could be compromised if there’s no effective rule. In light of this situation, we must carefully consider effective cross-border consumer protection. First, we need to say that we do not accept any services that violate our privacy and security. In the unlikely event that we suffer damage, we must be able to request simple and easy remedies and disclosure. In addition, I believe some kind of legal regulation In addition, I believe some kind of legal regulation is necessary regarding terms of use that deceive consumers. We believe that consumers should actively participate in this series of deliberations and should have the opportunity to express their opinions. What we must pay close attention to is the fact that there is currently no international redress system for cross-border consumer issues. I’m always thinking about whether it would be possible to establish new international consumer protection rule that multinational companies should follow or to create a new redress system within ISPIN, International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network. I also think it would be a good idea to try to establish an organization within the United Nations that handles consumer protection independently. I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss consumer protection in the digital field with you today. I hope this presentation will contribute the discussion. Thank you very much.
Javier Ruiz Diaz:
We are going to listen to the perspective of like the internet users and digital rights and the perspective of the internet users.
Masayuki Hatta:
Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming. My name is Masayuki Hatta. Let me introduce our organization. It’s called Miao. And today I’d like to talk about the challenges or lesson learned in the internet activism in Japan. So this is a website of our organization. The address is miao.jp. So our organization is established in 2007, time of rise. And this organization modeled after Electronic Frontier Foundation or ORG in the UK. So our main focus on the internet freedom and mainly freedom of speech expression or especially copyright issues, copyright regulation issues. So we are not really a consumer organization, but our focus is overlapped with a consumer organization. And sometimes we worked with Japanese really consumer organizations like Shufuren, something like that. And so what we are doing is basically submitting public comments to the government or sending our members to government committees, something like that. So what we face were the difficulties. One is general indifference. So in Japan and maybe in the other countries, for example, privacy issues, there is a strong sentiment of nothing to hide. So we are doing great and we don’t have nothing to hide. So if some people want to hide something, they must be a criminal or something. And also I think there is a, how can I say, systemic bias or maybe underestimation bias I call because one person’s data isn’t worth much. So many people not really care about their privacy, but if there are many people’s data, many people’s data increases in value exponentially. I think this is a basic mechanics of general indifference in privacy issues. And also in Japan, there are strong sentiments that avoidance of activism in general or politics or maybe we have really conformist culture. Also, the second challenge is a lack of mobilization skills. For example, our organization is perpetually understaffed or underfunded. We depend on the contributions, but still we don’t have no paid full-time staff because I have my day job. I’m not really full-time staff. And also, generally speaking in Japan, the activism, internet activism in general in Japan, not well organized. So pretty much individual efforts. And also I think we don’t have good horizontal connection. I mean the communication between the organizations is something quite scarce. But there was notable exception. There was a strong anti-DNS blocking movement in 2018. We could organize a coalition among government officials, coalition among government officials, activists, academics, or ISP, I mean private sectors. So sometimes we can organize some horizontal coalition, but not usually. Also, I think Japanese activism have some kind of political bias. I say there are too much left-wing leanings, which means the strong sentiment of anti-government or maybe lack of effective lobbying skills in Japanese activism sectors. And also sometimes we suffer the lack of technical knowledge. This is quite troublesome because privacy or data governance issue is essentially technical issues or technological issues. For example, privacy issues is heavily involved with encryption or platform architecture or something like that. But if we want to understand the issue, we have to understand technical issues. And the skill set of internet activists in Japan is not really enough. Sometimes it’s not enough for understanding technical details in detail. And also I think it’s, I understand this is kind of controversial stuff, but sometimes people say justice without force is powerless. So I think we sometimes need to demonstrate if we have no choice. So maybe we need more activists or more so-called public interest technologies, which means the people who has background, both technological and political or economics backgrounds and who really understand technology and politics. So we, currently we don’t have this kind of people. And so this is our, how can I say, program. Thank you very much.
Javier Ruiz Diaz:
Thank you. That was a really good, I think quite a fairly broad overview of the situation in Japan from below, from consumer organizations that are working on a very broad range of issues, but as we say, quite on a general level, to people who are the more technical or digital rights and even they’re expressing that there is a need for even more knowledge, for even more connections, more people to get involved, to be able to provide that vital connection between understanding the technology and being able to be effective advocates, as we said before. So now we are going to continue our tour of the region by moving to across a little hop in the sea and we are going to let our colleagues from Korea give us an overview. Also a consumer organization, digital rights organization to give us a broad overview.
Yukung He:
Hello, my name is Yukyung He. I am a director from Consumers Korea. So first I’d like to thank the organizers, APC and Consumers International for organizing this very important event. And I also, in order to give this presentation, I spoke with colleagues at Korean Progressive Network, JimboNet, and also colleagues from Consumers Korea in order to get like a fairly general overview of what’s happening in Korea. So first, so Consumers Korea is just like our colleagues in Japan said, we come from a traditional consumer organization. So in back, we were formed 40 years ago. So back then it was mainly women, ladies, who are now grandmothers, who formed the consumer movement. It started from like food safety. So we work on a variety of issues, including product safety and environmental issues. But digital rights and, for example, financial consumer protection, digital finance, these are the areas that we want to move into, but it’s very difficult to move into due to the lack of expertise in these areas. So who participates particularly in digital rights in Korea? I would like group them in three groups. One is civil rights or civil freedom organizations, which is Chamyeondae, or in English, it’s the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy. And then we have the digital rights or data privacy-focused issues. For example, OpenNet colleagues here, and also JimboNet colleagues. And then we have the consumer organizations who dabble in this area, which includes Consumers Korea and Consumers Union. So we often form, we work in each areas, but we form coalitions. sometimes co-sign open letters and have campaigns together, work against the legislators, work on a specific bill, or hold seminars together to form opinions. So specifically, how does a civil society participate? We participate through various ways. Government committees, it could be a standing committee or ad hoc committee task forces. What we do is we try to leverage more consumer-friendly government agencies to work on these text right issues. So we closely work with the Korean FTC, the Korean Consumer Protection and Competition Authority, and we also work with the Data Protection Authority too. So Consumers Korea has a seat. We’ve had a seat at the Consumer Protection, the Data Protection Commission of Korea. So we’re trying to put the consumer perspective that is built into the legislative and administrative process. And then we also do consumer research, research projects based on government grants. We work on, for example, grants from internet-related public institutions. We worked on a project, for example, comparing the terms and conditions of national and international big tech companies. So we read the English-Korean versions of Google, Meta, and also the Korean Naver, Kakao, the platforms. We read the terms and conditions and see how the different countries, different companies regulate their things. So the main areas that consumer organizations currently work on, it’s a wide variety of issues. One, we work on the digital economy or the platform economy in general. So for example, as I mentioned, dealing with the national, international big tech companies is one. And another area is the data protection, privacy-related initiatives. And the third is, it’s a budding area. It’s very controversial, the developing artificial intelligence, AI laws in Korea. So we’re also working a little bit in that area. So the digital economy in general, so the Korean government’s view on the digital economy is basically self-regulation is the best option. That’s what the current Korean administration is going for. So the previous administration was more interested in putting pieces of legislation for regulating the big tech platform economy, but that was abandoned after the change of administration. So right now, it’s to maximize the benefits of users, consumers, through the development of technology. And self-regulation of those technologies. So very recently, the Korean government announced a new digital order. So it announced the Digital Bill of Rights. It was announced around the timing of the UN General Assembly. The president, Yun, did that announcement in New York. And we’re also having, Korea also has a partnership with NYU regarding these digital developments. So one concern that we have as consumer organizations, rights organizations, is that these digital rights, it’s called Digital Bill of Rights, but it is spearheaded by the Korean Ministry of Science and ICT, the MSIT. So basically, it’s the lead agency for technology development and industry development in the tech sector. So it’s not the Human Rights Commission. It’s not the data protection. So what we’re concerned is consumer organizations are kind of suspicious of what is this Bill of Rights. It actually has a lot of other, not protecting human rights is not the focus of this so-called Bill of Rights, but actually, it has a lot of other components. For example, advancements in digital innovation is actually one of the biggest focus of this Bill of Rights. And so consumer organizations also work on how to regulate the platform economy, the platform big tech companies. So we have participated in industry consumer joint council meetings in this area since this May. And also, regarding the data protection privacy initiatives, so I’ll leave that to our colleagues from OpenNet. I’ll just share a quick piece of developing AI legislation that consumer organizations were invited to the legislative discussions. So the current AI law that’s been being discussed in Korea is pro-innovation, pro-business. And it actually writes in the current text, it’s innovation is the prime consideration objective of this law. So the consumer organizations with the data rights organizations wrote an open letter against this bill. And we also had legislative discussions with the legislator. And so we stopped the bill. Of course, there’s other things happening in the Korean legislature right now. So the Congress is not really working very well. But these are the ways that consumer organizations are participating in this digital sector. So I do think that consumer organizations bring a unique perspective, but I think I’ve passed my time. So I’ll just give it to the colleagues and I’ll discuss later in the discussions. Thank you.
Song Gi-Yoon:
Hello, my name is Song Gi-yoon. I am a researcher at OpenNet Korea. I’ll briefly introduce a case that a regulatory system was put to use on big tech platforms. So Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission ordered corrective measures and imposed penalty surcharges to Google and Meta in last year, September. The surcharges were 69.2 billion won to Google, which is about $70 million. And 30.8 billion won, which is like $30 million for violating Personal Information Protection Act, Article 39-3, Paragraph 1, which is now Article 15, Paragraph 2, that prescribes that any information and communication service providers who intends to collect and use personal information of users shall notify the purpose of the collection and use of personal information or particulars of personal information to be collected or the period for retaining and using personal information. Google and Meta did not obtain valid user consent for collecting behavioral information using SDK and pixels and utilized collected information for targeted advertising. Third-party behavioral information is collected when users are browsing websites other than Google or Meta. Thus, ordinary users cannot expect or predict which behavioral information is collected on which websites. Especially when a platform is verifying a user and collecting third-party behavioral information, sensitive information can be created and categorized and it enables the platforms to track all connected devices. Two companies argue that they did notify the users, but Google did not explicitly notify users about the third-party behavioral information collection when users joined their service. Google hid it under the More Options menu in an opt-out basis. Meta’s notification was very difficult to access. It was only vaguely prescribed in the preface of its data policy and it did not notify the matters legally required and the commission found it a severe violation of the act. Again, February this year, the commission imposed another penalty for violating Personal Information Protection Act, Article 38-3, Paragraph 3, to Meta, which prescribes that no service provider shall reject the provision of service for not providing the information that is not minimally required. Meta basically made it impossible to join the service unless the users check the opt-in for the service for collection option. And Meta was again fined and imposed a penalty for not carrying out the previous corrective measure. That is it, thank you.
Jiwon Son:
Thank you. Hello, I’m Jiwon Son from Korea and the organization which is fighting for the internet freedom in South Korea. And as a digital rights organization, we have been thinking about how to coordinate the Personal Information Protection Act with human rights. So I would like to point out that emphasizing the right to self-determination of personal information and strengthening personal information protection regulation without detailed consideration of freedom of expression can undermine freedom of expression, the right to know, and democracy in the context of Korea’s situation. We can say all expressions are processing of information. If an expression is about a person, it inevitably involves the processing of a personal information. If all expressions, in principle, requires the permission of the data subject, this will severely curtail freedom of expression and information. The purpose of the right to self-determination of personal information and the Personal Information Protection Act is to protect individuals whose power is unbalanced with the government or a large corporation from data surveillance by those powerful. However, the mechanistic application of the Personal Information Protection Act may discourage the powerless individuals from reporting on the social injustice or public interest issue. And consumer reporting campaigns may also fall into this category. In relation to this, I will briefly explain the issue with Korea’s Personal Information Protect Act, PIPA. Firstly, a person subject to Korea’s PIPA is a personal information controller, which is defined as a person who operates the personal information files as part of its business. This should be interpreted strictly considering the original purpose of the PIPA, but right to self-determination of personal information has been overemphasized and is being interpreted very comprehensively and broadly. The Korea Personal Information Protection Commission states that any collection of information can be a personal information file if its systemic arrangement can be read and business is interpreted comprehensively. Therefore, even individuals other than companies can be considered personal information controller. For example, it is believed that even if you have video recordings of the criminal activity captured by a black box or CCTV, you may be considered a personal information controller and have difficulty in sharing information vital to others’ safety. And a personal information controller needs to be interpreted narrowly as a person who uses an easily searchable collection of information from numerous data subjects for business purposes, considering the original purpose of the law. Secondly, the Korean PIPA separates collection, use, and provision to third party of personal information. Only in the case of collection, in the consent of the data subject can be exempted if there is a justifiable interest of a personal information controller. In other words, this exemption from consent provision does not apply to provision to a third party. So in the case of whistleblowing for public interest, exemption may not apply. Contrast to GDPR, which does not separate collection, use, and provision to third parties, but uses a single concept of processing and exemption of public interest can be widely applied to public interest whistleblowing. As far as I know, Japan’s personal information protection law has a similar structure to Korea’s. Thirdly, Korea’s PIPA provides exemption for media activities. However, in context, this provision is interpreted to apply only when media organization or media companies report, and does not apply when an individual reports to a media company. The GDPR has an article, member states shall by law reconcile the right to protection of personal data pursuant to this regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purpose and the purpose of academic, artistic, or rhetorical expression. So reporting to the media can be also be interpreted as journalistic purposes, and is therefore more favorable to the reporting in the public interest. Against this poor legal background, the police once tried to criminally indict a whistleblower with police-oppressive investigation tactics. The Korean presidential office also threatened to file a criminal complaint against the media organization diverging critical information about the office’s hiring practices. And Korean Justice Ministry also threatened to file a criminal complaint against the sources of the media articles covering the Justice Minister’s confirmation hearings, all under Korea’s data protection law. In this way, it should be noted that the GDPR allows the collection of information and provision of information to a third party without the consent of a data subject for public and legitimate interests, and allows exemptions for information processing for journalistic purposes. Personal information protection regulation should be improved to ensure that the right of police individuals to protest and report public interest through freedom of expression or right to know are not diminished. Thank you.
Javier Ruiz Diaz:
Thank you, so we have a good overview now of some of the issues that are being debated, and including the potential clashes between the misapplication of data protection to restrict free expression in some context. Now, we were going to take a remote intervention now from colleagues from Taiwan. Can we get the Zoom, are they? Yes, and then afterwards we’ll come back to the room. Yeah, can you hear us? Yes, please, can you hear me? Yes, yes, we can hear you well.
Cindy:
Okay, hi, everyone. I’m Cindy from Open Cultural Foundations. Open Cultural Foundation is a local non-profit organization that is funded by open technology communities. Based on this unique background, we aim to promote open technology, such as open source, open data, and open government, and the digital rights and the internet freedom in Taiwan. With this community-based background, OCF is also a hub in Taiwan that connects different fields and countries to make cross-fields and transnational cooperation happen. Because we know that if we want to build up a trustworthy digital environment and defeat digital terrorism, we need to build up a trustworthy digital environment. So, we want to build up a trustworthy digital environment threats, no one should be left behind. And OCF is also the APC member. And really, thanks for the international consumer to having me in this event. Because it’s pity that Taiwanese can’t register in IGF since we are not the UN member. But to me, it’s a great opportunity that I can still online and share the situations in Taiwan. And today, I want to share lessons learned from the Taiwan RDR research projects. It’s an evidence-based digital rights advocates to the tech sector. And I will talk later what is RDR research project. Before I talk about what is RDR research projects, I would like to address some local challenges and opportunities to you. As Taiwan post-authoritarian context, the opportunity is that the general public highly values freedom of speech, private sector autonomy, and limiting governmental control over the internet. I’ll give you an example. In 2022, our National Communication Commission want to have a draft digital service intermediary act. But unfortunately, it’s already withdrawn because that no one is like this act. In this act, it aims to authorize government agency to request informational registration warrants and to flag misinformation online. As people know that Taiwan is in the frontier of the disinformation and the misinformation. So government, so it’s like the European DSA digital service act. The government wants to have the digital service intermediate act. But yeah, strong public backlash due to the concern about imposing censorship. And also that obsession from the tech companies. They think that the notice and the tech liability could result in chilling effect. Another thing is that if we regulate a message apps, it also could violate privacy and the freedom of correspondence. So in this case, we totally withdrawn our digital service intermediate act. And the challenge is same as in the Japan situation that the previous speakers also talk about. Insufficient public awareness and understanding regarding tech companies responsibility in safeguarding digital rights, as well as the public awareness of the privacy issues. I can give you two examples. The first one is that the service from the Taiwan Internet reports conducted by the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, TAR, from 2019 and 2022. 71.8% of people are worried about the data leaks, while only 48% of people worry about company misuse of personal data. And also that 43% of respondents both believe that a website privacy policy guarantees zero data sharing. So it’s a situation in Taiwan that people misunderstanding regarding tech companies responsibilities. And another case is also you can say the biggest communication apps in Taiwan line. In 2018, they want to update their privacy policy to conform with the international standards GDPR. But I’m forcing the public people resistance to their updated. And that’s because not too much people understanding about the GDPR. So that’s the background that I want to give you to about the Taiwanese situation. And then I want to talk about a report we conduct in Taiwan. It’s called the Digital Rights in Taiwan. And it’s a ranking digital rights report that are conducted by the New American Foundation. It’s an American think tank. And in the previous, they conduct the goal for the international version, such as on the Meta, Google, and even in the telecom industry, like Vodafone and Orange Telecom. And in last year, they want to conduct the ranking digital rights in Asia. So they cooperate with the partner in Taiwan, in South Korea, with the open net, also focusing in the forum, and also in the Malaysia. So we are their partner to conduct the ranking digital rights in Taiwan. And we cooperate this opportunity also with the TAR, Taiwan Association for Human Rights, together to conduct this report. In our report, we measure 20 high market share local and the regional digital service in Taiwan, despite that international telecom market like Google or Meta that’s already conducted by the ranking digital rights team. And we measure in the four industries is social medias, and job banks, e-commerce, and the telecom. We conduct in the three domains, governance, freedom of expression, and the privacy, but the indicator. In the original ranking digital rights, there are 85 indicators in the original ranking digital rights, but we only choose 29 indicators as I show above in my slides, because it’s more for the local content. And it’s also for the background from the Taiwan that we are legal privacy concerns. So we put more effort, more views on the privacy, and we want to know about our situations. And it’s a view about national level trends. It’s compared from the Taiwanese digital service and the US market digital service. As you can see that Taiwan got a lower score than the US digital service. And it’s because that we are lack of the digital rights regulations such as like data governance and the personal data protection. So that leads to the low company compliance standards among the business. In our report, we observed that the company usually just want to do a compliance to the standard or to the local law. So we observed that if it’s an international corporation, such as like Sharpie or Sharpie from Singapore or Le Tien from Japan, they will got higher score than the local company in Taiwan. Yeah, so this international company, they will follow the international laws and international compliance. So they will get, they will treat good to our personal data and the digital rights. Also, in theory, we conduct our research, we also have some good strategy and outcomes. In total, we got the seven companies respond to our report. One from social media platform, five from e-economy platform. And also that in the e-economy platform, two had a meeting with us. So we can have, with this evidence-based report, we can have the opportunity to engage them and with this evidence-based report, and we can persuade them, we can negotiate them to improve their policy. And also that in the telecom company, one company also have the meeting with us and provide the feedback to us because they also want to have a good reputation in the report. So they also provide us the feedback and try to get a good score in our report. And another good thing is that, and a good outcome is that, one company, they modify their privacy policy to specific that they collect online behavior data from the users. In the previous, all the local company, they just follow our, as I said, that they just follow our local personal data law. So they didn’t show up too much what kind of data they collect, but it did, it did, it changes. If we use this report, we can engage with the company and then they also change their policy. So I want to have a lesson learned in our, when we’re conducting this kind of report. The first of is that the international standards and the initiative can attract attention with this report. And we talked to them that this is an international ranking of digital rights, not only the local one, and they will pay attention on it. And another thing is that attention from the leadership level yields the best outcomes. As you know, the leadership level has more power to change everything. So yes, it’s also a lesson for us. And another thing is that creating peer pressure is a successful strategy. In our ranking digital rights, we do our best efforts to follow 20 companies, to do the research for the 20 companies and in the four fields. And with this result, we found that with the peer pressure, if they found that another company do a good job in that school, they will think about changing their policy and they get the better score. The last part of this is that policy change requires horizontal cooperation across company departments. In the beginning, you just think that the policy is probably made by the local department. But after we engaged with them, we found that maybe the CSR department will help us to push other departments to change their policy. So it needs the horizontal cooperation and it needs you to find the key person, key members in the company and to engage with them. And maybe you can do your digital rights advocacy. Yeah, I stop in here and thanks for having me.
Javier Ruiz Diaz:
Thank you. So now we have very little time, so we are going to give an opportunity to Thomas, who comes all the way from Europe, to give us… I mean, we’ve been hearing what’s going on in the region. Now we are going to put the developments in a wider context. And I think a lot of the references have been made to what’s happening in GDPR, the gold standard, what’s happening in Europe. So I think we’re going to let Thomas explain a little bit what’s happening in Europe and how things may be seen from that side. Then… I’m going to come here. Okay, good. Thank you so much.
Thomas Lohniger:
Thank you so much. I’ll try to make it brief, given that we are a little bit behind schedule. My name is Thomas Lohninger and I’m very glad that I can be here. It’s my first time in Japan. It’s not my first IGF, but it was really a very interesting exercise to listen and learn in all of the previous conversations. And I actually would like to… Before I talk about GDPR and the data transfers, also focus a little bit on the many similarities that I’ve heard, particularly in the cooperation between digital rights and consumer protection organizations. I’m executive director of an Austin digital rights organization and I’m also in the board of the European umbrella of almost all data protection and privacy organizations called European Digital Rights, so in short, EDRI. And very often we have exactly the same level of collaboration, where for us it is essential to align, to collaborate on any issue that is digital with consumer protection organizations, because very often we look at the same problem from different angles. We also have different channels to exercise influence, to make our case. And whenever we are in broad or rough alignment, there’s a very high chance that we can at least get the essentials of the key policy through. Another thing that I also wanted to reference a little bit, as an activist myself, that it always takes those moments when the issue that is formerly known as niche suddenly becomes very mainstream. In Europe, I think there were certainly software patterns or the crypto wars in the 90s and early 2000s. In my career, it was ACTA, it was data retention, it was net neutrality. And that’s when you really come to the forefront. And the digital issues in general, I remember when I started my career, we had about one law in a legislative term that was truly digital. These days, in 2023, we have around 40 laws every year. And so the frequency with the digital legislation that comes out, particularly from Europe, is really overwhelming. And it’s another thing that we share with our colleagues from the consumer protection world, because us, small or medium-sized NGOs, and today’s big consumer organizations, both are overwhelmed with the speed. Particularly if you then look closer and see that governments are quite clever in hiding real intentions of certain legislation. And you need to look at laws combined, like this piece looks not really critical, but if you then combine it with a second and a third law, suddenly you see the ecosystem and you see the harm. You see the human rights impact that otherwise would be hidden. And not to go, maybe to talk about the GDPR, which is always the thing that Europeans are portrayed for. And I think it’s important to stress the historical context in which the GDPR was adopted. In 2013, Edward Snowden released everything that we know today about the indiscriminate mass surveillance from the NSA. And that had a huge impact in Europe. The European Parliament itself, and also high-ranking commission officials, were the target of this surveillance. And without that heightened awareness, we would probably never had a consensus for such strong safeguards. And in 2013, 14, 15, when the GDPR was adopted, human rights was really the primary objective. And the perspective that we had on this law, that’s in a way no longer the case. When people now talk about these issues, we often use terms like data governance and data spheres, which is in a way to kind of erode those protections from the GDPR. the European health data space would be one example, the financial data space, where Europe is actually taking steps away from the gold standard that it once established. And we even see it in another issue that’s a focus point of our work, digital public infrastructures. All the things that our governments did in the middle of the pandemic in order to cope with this emergency, and even more medium, long-term digital identity, digital currencies like the digital euro, and all of these systems also need to adhere to privacy. And it’s simply not done with, now we have the GDPR and that establishes a standard. Now we have to always re-evaluate these standards and make them livable things in practice. What does it mean, privacy by design, when I have one wallet that I use for public transport, for going to the doctor and doing my taxes? But let’s not just look at the GDPR itself, I also wanted to give a little bit of a look back on the debate about data transfers. And here I am gonna be quite Euro-centristic and only focus on the U.S. data transfers. And you all probably know Schrems I, Schrems II, the infamous judgments from the European Court of Justice that annulled the treaties with which Europe transfers data to the U.S. And it did so not from a trade perspective, but from a human rights perspective. It did not even base that decision on the lack of a real federal privacy law in the U.S. It was the indiscriminate mass surveillance of the NSA where no non-U.S. citizen has any human rights to speak of, any procedural rights to fight back against this illegal form of surveillance. That was the essence that was violated and that’s why the highest court in Europe already two times annulled these treaties between the EU and the U.S. And to coming back why trade policy still is a welcome frame to have these discussions, we are now on the pathway for Privacy Shield 2.0, so a new treaty between the U.S. and Europe. And that treaty was announced in a trip of American President Joe Biden to Brussels to meet with Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission. And that meeting basically had two points. One is, oh, we’re gonna do Privacy Shield 2.0. And the other one was, oh, there’s this great deal for American LNG, liquid nitrogen gas that the U.S. is producing that is now shipped to Europe in a time where the situation because of the illegal war of aggression from Russia and Ukraine was actually having a huge impact on the energy situation. And so you could really say that the human rights of Europeans were traded away to have cheaper energy. And that is, in a way, I would say, not living up to the standards that I, as a European citizen, would want our governments to be accountable to, and certainly not the ones that I, as a member of civil society, will hold them accountable to. But it shows in a way that we really have to focus on the human rights essence of data protection, of anything digital, because it needs to come from the human, it needs to be human-centric and not centered on business interests, on government interests, on what’s technologically possible, feasible, or interesting. We need to focus on the human impact. That’s how we can guide good governance and good policy.
Javier Ruiz Diaz:
Thank you. So my name is Javier Ruiz. I’m a Senior Advisor on Digital Rights for Consumers International. It’s a global coalition of consumer organizations. We have 15 minutes left of the, so obviously, questions, comments, from the floor. Otherwise, the one thing that we definitely would like to talk about is how can we start to coordinate this. So I mean, we do have some ideas of trying to organize and continue. We saw from our colleagues from engaged media that we’re going to the Asia-Pacific region as a civil society delegation, even if they were not able to access the room. You know, they were still talking to the policymakers globally. We have other spaces. I mean, we did a little online poll, which I’m not going to try to connect it back to the projector. It would look nicer, you know, but just to avoid. But basically, the majority of people who responded said that their priority for civil society engagement is to have a digital governance. And that was the barcode, the QR code we put before. And most people are saying that the cross-border privacy rules, CBPR, are a priority, and also the D20, you know, digital track, which is something that Consumers International is actually working on. We’re still next year, we have another. And then also the WTO, digital trade, which we didn’t discuss. One hour of presentations and discussion on the various data governance initiatives and policies that are taking place in the Asia-Pacific region, in the cross-border privacy rules, the IPF, the digital governance partnership. Similar, then, we will have a second block of globally, possibly in an hour or two, we may start getting shorter, but for a long time. The minister for data protection was announcing massive reforms to the UK data protection framework to move away from GDPR, and they didn’t mention in Parliament, it was a day when they had full day Q&A on data protection reform. The minister did not mention that, though at the same time there was a global meeting of the CBPR, and that the UK was applying to be part of this other regime, which would have been, obviously, a massive discussion in Parliament. So given that, I mean, that is the level of public discussion and participation that we have in the UK at the moment, about the global CBPR, which is like basically nothing. We found out, I had to go into the website of the US trade department and find that they had an announcement that the UK, and that there was a meeting that the UK was applying. Obviously, they jumped the gun on the UK PR, and we found out through the US government. So I think that in this context of very low participation, high impact, one of the things that would be quite interesting for us to discuss is how can we collaborate with civil society organizations to try to intervene, try to talk to the governments leading, at the moment, the US is quite strong, but there are many other countries now involved, so I think that it may be even more useful to find advocates in the smaller countries where you can have easier access, and in theory, they have a vote there as well. We can get access to the next round of negotiations. They do have a calendar, and just to say that the global CBPR is gearing up. It has gone from a first year, where it was an idea, where now there is a charter, and they are actually setting up a permanent secretariat, so I think that particularly, if we focus on CBPR, that would be quite interesting. So I mean, we are going to be talking about it. We only have 10 minutes here, so if we, we are going to put you on the spot to now say whether you want to speak. So they are broadly speaking digital rights groups.
Audience:
My name is Raul Plummer from Electronic Frontier Finland, and I only heard about the DFFT the first time today, and after this session, I’m starting to get really concerned that all these international trade agreements are going to erode our human rights, and I was wondering, is there any kind of mechanism to, let’s say, punish the US if they let us down with the trust again? They have already done it, and if we’re thinking of 2.0 mil, what’s the sort of repercussions for not respecting that trust agreement again? You know, how trustworthy can it really be if there is no mechanism to sort of flush it down now?
Javier Ruiz Diaz:
Yeah, that’s a good, I think that is a really great point, which is, I mean, I think that the question is, yeah, how do we get mechanisms that actually have enforcement and that, you know, I think that at the point, the US is a particular problem because they refuse to create comprehensive privacy laws, you know, it’s dragging everyone else, and it’s dragging pretty much the whole Pacific region, you know, and even as we discussed, you know, like Europe, so I think that this is, the sense that we get from colleagues in the US is that there is a very strong movement of civil society and consumer groups advocating for stronger privacy protections inside the US, so I think that my view on this, I think that would be the discussion, is that the best thing we can do is to really work with organizations in the US to try to get domestic reforms while showing from all around the world that actually they are the ones that are going to be in the minority, and at the moment, the US is trying to divide, to use really the Asia-Pacific region to divide and say, look, Europeans are the people that care about privacy, this is a region about business and the future, you know, and robots taking care of all people, and, you know, things, and we don’t need data protection from Europe, and I think that at the moment, what would be more interesting is to say, you know, everyone around the world cares about consumer rights, you know, and if you don’t jump in, you are going to be the ones that are standing out, you know, so I think it’s about moving the lines of consensus and putting them in the minority, which is precisely what I’m trying to do here.
Speakers
Amy Kato
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
584 words
Speech time
256 secs
Arguments
Internet and smartphones are essential tools
Supporting facts:
- Internet is used every day like utility services
- A social networking service in Japan, LINE, has 95 million users
Topics: Digital Society, Technology Use
Invasion of privacy on the Internet
Supporting facts:
- Data and photos from users of LINE were available for viewing in two other countries without consumers’ knowledge
Topics: Privacy, Data Protection
Unfair online marketing and advertising
Supporting facts:
- Stealth marketing is now regulated in Japan
- Only 10% of companies have completed retroactive measures for stealth marketing
Topics: Digital Marketing, Consumer Rights
Instances of online subscription fraud
Supporting facts:
- Dark patterns are used to trick consumers into subscription contracts
- Cancellation of these contracts is often impossible
Topics: E-commerce, Fraud
Need for effective cross-border consumer protection
Supporting facts:
- Current online consumer protection laws are insufficient
- Private data is at risk without effective rules
Topics: Consumer Protection, Cross-border Regulations
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.
Audience
Speech speed
165 words per minute
Speech length
125 words
Speech time
45 secs
Arguments
Need for collaboration to intervene in global CBPR
Supporting facts:
- Low level of public discussion and participation in data governance
- UK’s application for global CBPR was announced via US government website
Topics: Digital Rights, Data Governance, Cross Border Privacy Rules
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.
Cindy
Speech speed
107 words per minute
Speech length
1700 words
Speech time
956 secs
Arguments
Taiwan is facing challenges in data protection and freedom of speech
Supporting facts:
- The proposed Digital Service Intermediary Act faced backlash due to potential censorship and violation of privacy.
- The general public in Taiwan values freedom of speech and private sector autonomy.
Topics: Data protection, Free speech, Government control
There’s notable low public awareness and understanding regarding tech companies’ responsibilities in safeguarding digital rights and privacy in Taiwan.
Supporting facts:
- A survey showed that more respondents are worried about data leaks than potential misuse of data by companies.
- The public misunderstanding privacy policies and misunderstanding laws such as GDPR also suggests low understanding.
Topics: Tech companies, Digital rights, Privacy
OCF aims to promote open technology and digital rights in Taiwan.
Supporting facts:
- Open Cultural Foundation is a non-profit organization that promotes open technology and digital rights in Taiwan.
- OCF is also the APC member.
Topics: Open technology, Digital rights
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.
Javier Ruiz Diaz
Speech speed
186 words per minute
Speech length
1644 words
Speech time
529 secs
Arguments
Javier views that there is a need to increase public discussion and participation in discussions regarding digital governance.
Supporting facts:
- Javier highlights the gap in public participation in the UK, mentioning how the Minister for Data Protection didn’t discuss major reform plans in a day-long Parliament session.
- The global CBPR, which Javier considers to be of high impact, receives very little public attention and discussion in the UK.
Topics: Digital Governance, Civil Society
Javier sees the importance of civil society collaboration in intervening and shaping digital governance decisions.
Supporting facts:
- Javier wishes for civil societies to have a voice in global digital meetings, like those of the CBPR.
- Javier suggests focusing on smaller countries where easier access and influence is possible.
Topics: Public Participation, Civil Society, Digital Governance
US is a problem due to lack of comprehensive privacy laws
Supporting facts:
- US refusal to create comprehensive privacy laws
Topics: Privacy laws, US, International trade agreements
US is trying to divide the Asia-Pacific region using data protection
Supporting facts:
- US is using the Asia-Pacific region to divide and disregard data protection
Topics: Data Protection, Asia-Pacific region
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.
Jiwon Son
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
908 words
Speech time
413 secs
Arguments
Korea’s Personal Information Protection Act, sometimes infringes on freedom of expression and the right to know
Supporting facts:
- The focus on right to self-determination of personal information might hamper individuals reporting social injustices or public interest issues
- The act’s rigid application might deter consumer reporting campaigns
- Any collection of information is being interpreted as a personal information file, potentially criminalizing individuals sharing vital safety information
- The act fails to provide sufficient exemptions for public interest whistleblowing
Topics: Personal Information Protection Act, Freedom of Expression, Right to know, Information Processing
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.
Kugi Mia
Speech speed
123 words per minute
Speech length
490 words
Speech time
240 secs
Arguments
Concerns over digital literacy among elderly consumers in Japan
Supporting facts:
- Japan is entering a super aging society with the population aged 65 and over being 28.6 percent
- Many consumer harms occur among elderly consumers, which has become a social issue.
- In the digital field, it is necessary to increase digital literacy of older people.
Topics: Digital Literacy, Aging Society
Japanese Consumer policy is reactive, often delayed and not proactive
Supporting facts:
- The Consumer Affairs Agency in Japan has only been around for 14 years
- Japan’s consumer policy is characterized by its implementation in a reactive manner, reflecting the situation in other countries.
- Especially in the digital field, there are delays in the application of domestic laws.
Topics: Consumer Policy, Digital Society
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.
Masayuki Hatta
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
740 words
Speech time
358 secs
Arguments
Challenges in Internet Activism in Japan
Supporting facts:
- General indifference and lack of concern for privacy
- Avoidance of activism due to conformity culture
- Lack of mobilization skills in Japanese internet activism organisations
- Lack of horizontal coalition among different organizations
Topics: Internet Activism, Internet Freedom, Copyright Regulation
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.
Song Gi-Yoon
Speech speed
115 words per minute
Speech length
449 words
Speech time
234 secs
Arguments
Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission ordered Google and Meta to pay penalty surcharges for violating Personal Information Protection Act
Supporting facts:
- Google and Meta did not obtain valid user consent for collecting behavioral information using SDK and pixels
- Both companies used collected information for targeted advertising
- Google hid its data collection under the More Options menu in an opt-out basis
- Meta’s notification was difficult to access and did not notify the matters legally required
Topics: Google, Meta, Data Protection, Privacy Laws
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.
Thomas Lohniger
Speech speed
184 words per minute
Speech length
1333 words
Speech time
435 secs
Arguments
Digital legislation in Europe is coming out at an overwhelming speed
Supporting facts:
- In 2023, Europe has around 40 laws every year concerning digital issues
- Governments hide real intentions of certain legislation and the harm becomes evident when combined with other laws
Topics: Digital Legislation, Digital Rights, Consumer Protection
The GDPR was adopted with the primary objective of human rights
Supporting facts:
- Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 about the NSA’s indiscriminate mass surveillance significantly heightened the awareness leading to the adoption of GDPR
Topics: GDPR, Data Protection, Human Rights
Europe is taking steps away from the strong safeguards established by GDPR
Supporting facts:
- The creation of the European health data space and the financial data space are examples where Europe is eroding it’s GDPR standards
Topics: Data Governance, GDPR, Data Protection
The European Court of Justice annulled EU-US data transfers from a human rights perspective, not a trade one
Supporting facts:
- The court based its decision on the indiscriminate mass surveillance by the NSA, which infringes upon the rights of non-US citizens
Topics: Data Transfers, Human Rights, EU-US Relations
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.
Yukung He
Speech speed
153 words per minute
Speech length
1173 words
Speech time
460 secs
Arguments
Korean consumer organizations are trying to move into digital rights and digital finance protection
Supporting facts:
- There is a lack of expertise in these areas in consumer organizations
- Consumers Korea and Consumers Union are some organizations dabbling in this area
Topics: Consumer Protection, Digital Rights, Digital Finance
Bill of Rights initiative is viewed with suspicion by consumer organizations
Supporting facts:
- It is spearheaded by the Korean Ministry of Science and ICT, not the Human Rights Commission
- The Bill of Rights focuses more on advancements in digital innovation than on protecting human rights
Topics: Digital Rights, Government Policies, Bill of Rights
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.