1. Introduction: Interdependence in the Digital Age
1. Introduction: Interdependence in the Digital Age
Digital technologies are rapidly transforming societies and economies, simultaneously advancing the human condition and creating profound and unprecedented challenges. How well are we managing the complex impacts on our individual and collective lives? How can we use digital technologies to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals? What are current best practices and gaps in digital cooperation? What new ways of working together are needed, and who should be involved? These are among the questions the UN Secretary-General asked us to consider.1 We approached our task with both humility and urgency. The challenges are multi-faceted and rapidly evolving. The potential that could be unlocked by improved digital cooperation is enormous – and so are the perils if humanity fails to create more effective and inclusive ways for citizens, civil society, governments, academia and the private sector to work together.
As digital technologies have come to touch almost every aspect of modern life, a patchwork of cooperation and governance mechanisms has gradually emerged to generate norms, standards, policies and protocols in this arena. In 2014, the United Nations identified 680 distinct mechanisms related to digital cooperation,2 and the number has since risen to over a thousand.3 In many technical areas, these mechanisms work well. But they struggle to keep up with the unprecedented pace and increasingly wide range of change.
While digital technologies have been developing for many years, in the last decade their cumulative impacts have become so deep, wide-ranging and fast-changing as to herald the dawn of a new age. The cost of massive computing power has fallen.4 Billions of people and devices have come online.5 Digital content now crosses borders in vast volumes, with constant shifts in what is produced and how and where it is used.
The spread of digital technologies has already improved the world in myriad ways. It has, for example, revolutionised the ability to communicate with others and to share and access knowledge. Individuals from long-neglected populations have used mobile money and other financial services for the first time, and started businesses that reach both domestic and global markets.6 If we are to achieve the flagship ambition of the Sustainable Development Goals, to end extreme poverty by 2030, improved digital cooperation will need to play a vital role.
But digital technologies have also brought new and very serious concerns. Around the world, many people are increasingly – and rightly – worried that our growing reliance on digital technologies has created new ways for individuals, companies and governments to intentionally cause harm or to act irresponsibly. Virtually every day brings new stories about hatred being spread on social media, invasion of privacy by businesses and governments, cyber-attacks using weaponised digital technologies or states violating the rights of political opponents.7 And many people have been left out of the benefits of digital technology. Digital dividends co-exist with digital divides. Well more than half the world’s population still either lacks affordable access to the internet or is using only a fraction of its potential despite being connected.8 People who lack safe and affordable access to digital technologies are overwhelmingly from groups who are already marginalised: women, elderly people and those with disabilities; indigenous groups; and those who live in poor, remote or rural areas.9 Many existing inequalities – in wealth, opportunity, education, and health – are being widened further.
The speed and scale of change is increasing – and the agility, responsiveness and scope of cooperation and governance mechanisms needs rapidly to improve. We cannot afford to wait any longer to develop better ways to cooperate, collaborate and reach consensus. We urgently need new forms of digital cooperation to ensure that digital technologies are built on a foundation of respect for human rights and provide meaningful opportunity for all people and nations.
OUR DIGITAL INTERDEPENDENCE
If we want to use digital technologies to improve life for everyone, we will have to go about it consciously and deliberately – with civil society, companies and governments recognising their interdependence and working together. The unique benefits and profound risks arising from the dramatic increase in computing power and interconnectivity in the digital age reinforce our underlying interdependence. Globally and locally, we are increasingly linked in an ever-expanding digital web, just as we are increasingly linked, and mutually dependent, in the spheres of economics, public well-being and the environment.
The critical need to improve digital cooperation comes at a time when many of the mechanisms of multilateral cooperation developed since World War II are under unprecedented duress. Although far from perfect, these avenues for cooperation between national governments underpinned one of the most peaceful and productive periods in human history. Their erosion is dangerous: it will make it harder to capitalise on the benefits of digital technologies and mitigate the hazards.
Reinvigorating multilateralism alone will not be sufficient. Effective digital cooperation requires that multilateralism be complemented by multi-stakeholderism – cooperation that involves governments and a diverse spectrum of other stakeholders such as civil society, technologists, academics, and the private sector (ranging from small enterprises to large technology companies).
While only governments can make laws, all these stakeholders are needed to contribute to effective governance by cooperating to assess the complex and dynamic impacts of digital technologies and developing shared norms, standards and practices. We need to bring far more diverse voices to the table, particularly from developing countries and traditionally marginalised populations. Important digital issues have often been decided behind closed doors, without the involvement of those who are most affected by the decisions.
Managing digital technologies to maximise benefits to society and minimise harms requires a far-sighted and wide-ranging view of the complex ways in which they interact with societal, environmental, ethical, legal and economic systems. The Panel is enormously grateful to the many individuals, institutions and others who provided us with their insights and expertise as we sought to better understand how to navigate this new landscape. We endeavoured to consult as broadly as possible in the time available.
Drawing on many thoughtful reflections,10 we identified the following nine values that we believe should shape the development of digital cooperation:
- Inclusiveness – Leaving no one behind, so that we can maximise equality of opportunity, access and outcomes to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals;
- Respect – Embodying respect for human rights and human dignity, diversity, the safety and security of personal data and devices, and national and international law;
- Human-centredness – Maximising benefits to humans, and ensuring that humans remain responsible for decisions;
- Human flourishing – Promoting sustainable economic growth, the social good and opportunities for self-realisation;
- Transparency – Promoting open access to information and operations;
- Collaboration – Upholding open standards and interoperability to facilitate collaboration;
- Accessibility – Developing affordable, simple and reliable devices and services for as diverse a range of users as possible;
- Sustainability – Furthering the aim of a zero-carbon, zero-waste economy that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and,
- Harmony – The use by governments and businesses of digital technologies in ways that earn the trust of peers, partners and people, and that avoid exploiting or exacerbating divides and conflicts.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
As a panel, we strove for consensus, but we did not always agree. We have noted areas where our views differed and tried to give a balanced summary of our debates and perspectives. While there was not unanimity of opinion among the Panel members regarding all of the recommendations, the Panel does endorse the full report in the spirit of promoting digital cooperation.
The next three chapters highlight issues that emerged from the Panel’s deliberations, setting out the backdrop for the recommendations in the final chapter. Our report does not aim to be comprehensive – some important topics are touched briefly or not at all – but to focus on areas where we felt digital cooperation could make the greatest difference. These chapters deal broadly with the areas of economics, society and governance, while noting that many issues – such as capacity, infrastructure and data – are relevant to all.
Chapter 2, Leaving No One Behind, assesses the contribution of digital technologies to the Sustainable Development Goals. It addresses issues including financial inclusion, affordable and meaningful access to the internet, the future of education and jobs and the need for regional and global economic policy cooperation.
Chapter 3, Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies, discusses the application of human rights to the digital age, the need to keep human rights and human agency at the centre of technological development, and the imperative to improve cooperation on digital security and trust.
Chapter 4, Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation, identifies gaps in current mechanisms of global digital cooperation, the functions of digital cooperation and principles digital cooperation should aim to follow, provides three options for potential new global digital cooperation architectures, and discusses the role of the United Nations in promoting digital cooperation.
Drawing on the analysis in the preceding chapters, Chapter 5 shares and explains our Recommendations for shaping our common digital future.
As members of the Panel, we brought a wide range of experience of working in government, business, academic institutions, philanthropy and civil society organisations – but we engaged in our task as equal citizens of a digitalising world, appreciating the vital role of all stakeholders and the need for humility and cooperation.
In this spirit, we invite all stakeholders to commit to a Declaration of Digital Interdependence:
Recent Comments on this Site
3rd July 2024 at 2:48 pm
The ideas discussed in this session were much broader. I propose to ionclude the following:
Citizens’ expectations from governments are increasing, and effective use of digital technologies can help meet these demands. Beyond technology development, it’s essential to cultivate digital skills and a forward-thinking mindset in the public sector. The main challenge is changing work habits and focusing on problem-solving before technology implementation. Digital services must be citizen-centric, secure, and user-friendly.
Open policy-making and innovative thinking are crucial, along with safe experimentation spaces like GovTech Labs. These labs test new policies and technologies, fostering innovation through skill development and co-creation. Design thinking and user experience should prioritize simplicity and functionality.
Success in digital services depends on organizational maturity and a clear vision supported by citizens and legislation. Challenges include digital skill gaps, data analysis capabilities, and regulatory barriers, requiring a shift towards enabling innovation.
Future challenges include digital identification, AI regulations, and ensuring technology accessibility for all, including senior citizens. Practical strategies and public co-creation are necessary for meaningful change.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 12:27 pm
Like David, I don’t think cybersecurity and ‘crypto-technologists’ should be considered non-technical.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 12:26 pm
I think Torsten’s suggestion for the last sentence of para.3 is a good one. Ross Anderson’s “chat control” paper made a convincing case that domestic violence and sexual abuse are closely linked, and that preventive measures which ignore one in favour of the other are less likely to be effective.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 12:14 pm
Thanks Torsten – I think the changes made result in a more balanced statement without sacrificing relevant detail. I remain concerned at the use of the word “exponential” without reference to substantiating evidence, for the reasons I set out in my previous comment.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 11:04 am
[Watermarking and certification of origin should be a more reliable means to authenticate content and should be supported by regulation.]
I would add here: Watermarking and certification of origin should be a more reliable means to authenticate content and should be supported by regulation, keeping in mind that also these methods can be circumvented.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 11:01 am
The session organizers and participants modified this message to better reflect the discussion at the workshop as follows:
The interplay of privacy and safety: The participants of Workshop 1a of EuroDIG believe privacy and child safety are intertwined and inseparable, advocating that legal solutions to combat child sexual abuse online must strive to optimise both. These measures should be centred on children’s rights and their best interests, as a way forward to achieve this balance.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 11:00 am
The session organizers and participants modified this message to better reflect the discussion at the workshop as follows: CSA is currently increasing exponentially and has serious consequences for the rights and development of children. For this reason, recognising such depictions and preventing child sexual abuse should go hand in hand. Participants are concerned about the safety of users, including with regard to the potential use of CSAM detection technology. Breaches of confidential communication or anonymity are seen critically. At the same time, advantages are recognised in the regulations, e.g. with regard to problem awareness or safety by design approaches. Age verification procedures are perceived as both a risk and an advantage, with a caution on risks to anonymity and participation.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 10:58 am
After a meeting among the workshop organizers, this message was changed as follows: Advancements in legal and regulatory measures on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA): Workshop 1a discussed three recent measures on the protection of children from online Child Sexual Abuse (CSA): the proposed EU CSA Regulation (CSAR), the new UK Online Safety Act, and the positive results from the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors against detrimental effects of public information. An agreement was found on the need for better regulation in this field, emphasising the accountability of online service providers for monitoring illegal and harmful material and safeguarding minors.
See in context
2nd July 2024 at 1:02 pm
From my perspective, the comments on technology take up too much space in this message. This topic was explored in more depth in another workshop. It also leaves too little room for other aspects that played a role in the exchange. Therefore, here is a suggestion to change the message:
CSA is currently increasing exponentially and has serious consequences for the rights and development of children. For this reason, recognising such depictions and preventing sexual violence should go hand in hand. Participants are concerned about the safety of users, including with regard to the potential use of technology. Breaches of confidential communication or anonymity are seen critically. At the same time, advantages are recognised in the regulations, e.g. with regard to problem awareness or safety by design approaches. Age verification procedures are perceived as both a risk and an advantage. It can improve the protection of children on the internet, limit the spread of CSA material and empower children. However, this should not be at the expense of anonymity and participation.
See in context
1st July 2024 at 5:53 pm
New technology-open proposal for the first sentence of the paragraph, as there was no explicit request in the workshop to exclude CCS:
To detect CSAM online, only techniques that can protect privacy by not learning anything about the content of a message other than whether an image matches known illegal content should be used.
See in context