|

All Comments

Comments on the Pages

  • PL 1: Global digital governance – Can technical solutions respond to policy questions? (10 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      “A different approach could consist in making users more responsible for their actions, and thus in charge of their online privacy and security.”

      (1) Edit – of making users, not in making users.

      (2) Comment – I find this sentence incredibly problematic, as it would imply that ensuring trust is solely the responsibility of the user and not the private sector. I suggest rewording to something like:

      A more inclusive approach could be addressing issues of trust through a multi-stakeholder lens that would include more standardised, efficient, and streamlined certification processes for the private sector, investing in skill building and privacy/security literacy for users, and holding vendors accountable for events that break public trust, such as data breaches.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      We already know this. The real million-euro question is how?

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit: tackled within the next 10 years in line with existing agreements and policy frameworks, such as the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, and the 2018 IPCC report.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Not break, but violate*

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      [certifications ]

      standaridsation setting processes and lengthy and expensive certifications

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      [, ]

      being informed by standards, labels, and self-certification that is enforced by third parties

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      1 – insert: In this time of rapid evolution of technologies and market uptake, regulation cannot keep up with the pace of change.

       

      Make this the second paragraph – this is the key message.

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      THis should be the third paragraph

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      Open door.

       

      And if you want to keep thi sparagraph, maybe limit it to “Policymakers need to develop long-term strategies to address existing challenges, such as but not limited to, inequalities, the digital divide, and the impact of digitalisation on jobs.”

      And at “upcoming/future” challenges. If policymakers only focus on what exists today they will also be running behind!

       

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      We also mentioned the role of self-certification, and the “establishment of global good practice” to which suppliers should live up to.

  • PL 1: Bridging the urban-rural digital gap – a commercial or community effort? (7 comments)

    • Comment by Melle Tiel Groenestege on 15th June 2018

      co-responsibility of governments, not core responsibility.

      It is not only governments that will drive demand for internet use, it includes the private sector and other actors.

      Comment by Melle Tiel Groenestege on 15th June 2018

      Regulatory and legal frameworks should be catalysers, not obstacles for the development of internet infrastructure and community networks and their funding by investors.

      A lot can be achieved to increase internet access by addressing the ‘basics’ such as spectrum policies, competition policies, network sharing regulations etc. This is not only relevant for community networks but for internet access overall.

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Indeed. The sentence should be “It is the co-responsibility of governments to promote the demand for Internet access with other stakeholders in remote areas with a lower population.”

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      +1 to Melle’s comments

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Community networks and commercial networks can be  complementary to each other, but it all depends on the underserved rural area and development project in question.

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Also the first sentence:

      The community’s experience and its direct involvement are important when investing in infrastructural projects.

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Multistakeholder participation has proved its viability and sustainability for implementing infrastructural projects in remote areas to provide Internet access.

  • WS 12: Play the villain – Learn to fight disinformation with news literacy (6 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      [Media literacy and news literacy hand-in-hand are the solution to]

      Edit: Media literacy and news literacy go hand-in-hand, and are the solution to the

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit:

      While building news literacy, it is difficult to balance between critical thinking and destructive thinking namely, to balance between awareness raising and a critical mindset towards misinformation on the one hand, and the danger of spreading mistrust or cynicism towards news per se on the other.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Really good job!

      Comment by EpE on 27th June 2019

      The correct name of the game is “Bad News Game”, not “fake news”. Also people who weren’t at the WS cannot know we played it. I suggest to change the para to make it clearer as follows: “- for example playing, as the audience did, the Bad News Game”.

      Comment by EpE on 27th June 2019

      I second Michael formulation, but would more modestly say that there are “a solid solution” (not the only one)

      Comment by EpE on 27th June 2019

      Changing the habit of referring to fake news was one of the strongest messages I felt emerging from the workshop: I feel it should be more relevant than an example in parenthesis. Here below a suggestion for a third para, instead of the parenthesis.

      ” An important first step is to discontinue the use of the misleading expression “fake news”, and adopt “disinformation instead”.

  • WS 4: Children in the digital age – How to balance their right to freedom and their right to be protected? (6 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit: children and youth

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Good job. I’d encourage the final to include mention of not just children but also youth since both terms are more inclusive.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      This is a message from the YouthDIG brought into the session, the message was adopted slightly different as follows:

      We want an algorithm built in a multistakeholder environment: SAPA (Smart Active Participation Algorithm). The purpose of this algorithm is to replace some of the ads we are exposed to while browsing on the Internet with information about youth participation initiatives. SAPA will suggest differentiated opportunities based on the age of the users, in order to empower the engagement of people of all ages towards participation initiatives through the Internet.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      To Michael Oghia: We use the term children in the sense of the UN Convention on the Rights of the child meaning young persons up to the age of 18.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      The 3rd message agreed upon is the session needs to be added a follows:

      Digital literacy is important in all age groups – children themselves, teachers, parents. It is necessary to understand the children’s needs in order to conceptualise in line with their needs and in line with complexity and interests of the digital world. A balanced approach is needed in order to make children more resilient, but the industry and data controllers must be held accountable as well.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      Link to be included: “Guidelines to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment: https://www.childrens-rights.digital/hintergrund/index.cfm/topic.280/key.1568

  • WS 6: DNS over HTTPS (DoH) – What is it, and why should you care? (5 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Great job

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      This was the subject of some last second comments in the session; I think that the substance is ok but the logical flow now does not work well, as you start with a negative (DoH could affect user choice) then you have a positive (provide more privacy) but you connect them with “as well as”. I would just break the first sentence in two and change the connection, e.g.: “DoH protocol… resolved for them. It could provide more privacy by encrypting DNS queries; however…”.

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      Perhaps I would also mention the word “jurisdiction” in an additional open question – i.e. “Which jurisdiction should apply to DNS resolution?”.

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      I remember a couple of interventions mentioning the importance of developing agreed ways to keep users in charge, through proper information and easy, open configuration options – this is an issue that often comes up. Not a vital omission though 🙂

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      I agree, this is a complex issue with lots of technicalities and yet the summary is really good. I have a few minor observations and am making them throughout the text, but in the overall it’s a good summary.

  • WS 5: Transforming skills to meet innovation challenges (3 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit: Using The Netherlands as a case study, Dutch public authorities have recognised two challenges

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Bitcoin in particular? I’d understand mobile finance and banking, but I don’t know how many refugees and migrants can afford to buy Bitcoin, for instance.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Good!

  • WS 3: Regulation and the Internet economy – How to create the right building blocks for 5G networks (3 comments)

  • WS 7: Cybersecurity challenges ahead! How would you shape regulation to address changing technology? (3 comments)

  • PL 6: The European copyright reform: What just happened, what’s next, and what does it mean for the Internet? (2 comments)

  • 3.1 Human rights and human agency (2 comments)

    • Comment by A.Karanasiou on 30th September 2019

      I would suggest the following addition: “The advent of AI in our daily lives creates further limitations for due process, posed by opaque and inscrutable algorithmic processes that have wide applications in the private sector and the public affairs alike ( *1). Automated decision making challenges fundamental human rights in an unprecedented manner and diffuses accountability due to the various levels of interactions between human operators and artificial agents (*2). Human agency and autonomy, both underpinning rationals for seminal human rights, such as privacy and free speech, are massively being redefined in the era of automation.  Enhancing algorithmic accountability should therefore be a key priority for policy-making aiming to create a regulative framework that guarantees fairness and transparency. ”

       

      Footnotes

      (*1) Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.

      (*2) Karanasiou, A. P., & Pinotsis, D. A. (2017). A study into the layers of automated decision-making: emergent normative and legal aspects of deep learning. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology31(2), 170-187.

      Comment by A.Karanasiou on 30th September 2019

      I would add here a footnote with Balkin’s seminal work on information fiduciaries (Balkin, J. M. (2015). Information fiduciaries and the first amendment. UCDL Rev.49, 1183.)

  • PL 4: Making norms work – Pursuing effective cybersecurity (2 comments)

  • WS 9: Smart cities and governance (2 comments)

  • PL 7: Tackling online harms – A regulation minefield? Present and future (1 comment)

  • WS 6: Universal acceptance – Is the Internet reaching the people it needs to? (1 comment)

    • Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      We are going around…

  • 2.1 Creating an inclusive digital economy (1 comment)

    • Comment by Galia Kondova on 26th June 2019

      I suggest that the following addition to the paragraph is made, namely:

      Countries should also make sure that the broad public is informed and educated about the use of a digital ID system. Countries should also make sure that digital ID systems are user-friendly while meeting high security, privacy and technological standards.

  • WS 11: Criminal justice in cyberspace – More of everything? (1 comment)

    • Comment by Tjabbe Bos on 25th June 2019

      Based on my participation in the session, it appears this message does not appropriately cover the scope of the discussion. In particular, several of the speakers and participants agreed on the need for instruments that go beyond traditional government-to-government cooperation to also include direct cooperation measures, provided that appropriate safeguards to ensure the protection of fundamental right are provided for. Therefore, I propose to reformulate this message as follows:

       

      Criminal justice instruments should provide for safeguards to ensure that fundamental principles are respected, including principles of proportionality, necessity and legality.

       

      In its current form I would strongly oppose the message.

  • 3. Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies (1 comment)

    • Comment by A.Karanasiou on 30th September 2019

      I would suggest the following amendment: “There are also many examples of digital technologies being used or developed in a manner that restricts fundamental human rights and liberties, such as the right to privacy, the right to access to information, and the right to free speech, posing thereby significant threats to societal cohesion, democracy and self-determination.

  • WS 10: Blockchain & privacy (1 comment)

    • Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      I could not attend this session, but by reading the messages I am a bit puzzled by the lack of any reference to the big issue regarding blockchain & privacy, i.e. how can you give each user full control on their personal information, including the possibility to update and delete it, on a technical infrastructure where everything is by design public, copied everywhere in a huge number of copies and impossible to change or delete once it is written.

  • WS 8: Fending off trolls – Journalists in defence of democracy (1 comment)

  • PL 2: Intersection of standards and policy (1 comment)

  • PL 5: Ethics by design – Moving from ethical principles to practical solutions (1 comment)

  • PL 3: Emerging technologies and human rights (1 comment)

  • WS 2: GDPR implementation – Blind spots, opportunities, and the way forward (1 comment)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      It would be great to see a sentence or two, perhaps in the last paragraph, recognising that a potential pitfall/blind spot of GDPR is harming smaller companies that cannot afford to pay large fines relative to their annual revenue in contrast to larger companies that can absorb the cost of non-compliance and has the resources to (potentially) provide a remedy.

  • WS 1: Internet consolidation – Opportunities and challenges (1 comment)

Source: https://comment.eurodig.org/all-comments/