Comments from the Council of Europe Information Society Department
Comments by the Council of Europe’s Information Society Department on the Report of the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation
The Council of Europe Information Society Department welcomes the well-timed report from the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, its commitment to a broad multi-stakeholder approach, and the fact that it recognises the importance of human rights and human agency in the digital age as issues that require close attention from governments and other stakeholders.
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading human rights organisation. It comprises 47 member states, 28 of which are members of the European Union. All Council of Europe member States are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which effectively secures the human rights and fundamental freedoms of 830 million people in Europe. Therefore, the Council of Europe has been providing continued guidance to governments on how best to discharge their human rights obligations, including vis-a-vis the digital transformation of multiple spheres of life.
In addition, several Council of Europe’s instruments and frameworks address specific challenges stemming from the growing use of digital technologies. These instruments include the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108),1 the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention)2, the Lanzarote Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse3, and the Oviedo Convention on Bio-Ethics4. The Council of Europe’s legal instruments on data protection and cybercrime are recognised and applicable far beyond Europe, as they count a growing number of non-European states parties.5
The Council of Europe has also developed a vast body of standards of non-binding nature, such as the Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2014)6 of the human rights guide for internet users, Recommendation (2016)5 on internet freedom, Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)7 on Guidelines to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment, the Declaration on the manipulative capabilities of algorithmic processes of February 2019, and many more. Currently a draft recommendation on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems is in preparation.
Technological advancement enhances human development and contributes to creating optimal conditions for the exercise of human rights. Digital technologies also hold significant potential for economic growth and innovation, which are goals that are essentially rooted in the shared values of democratic societies. Therefore, economic and other, including human rights- related, benefits deriving from technological progress cannot be realised without duly respecting these shared values. The broader implications of the use of digital technologies, as well as their possible misuse, for the core values of democratic societies must thus be taken very seriously.
Given the speed and scale at which digital advancement occurs, it is particularly important now to develop efficient responses to the newly arising challenges. Digital technologies affect all aspects of human life globally and transversally. All states and all stakeholder groups are therefore required to coordinate efforts and, inter alia, share information and good practices to ensure continued innovation in full adherence to the key values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
***
The Council of Europe has substantial experience in assessing the possible human rights risks that may stem from digital technologies and developing legal and non-legal mechanisms and standards for effectively amplifying positive effects of digital technologies for individuals, communities and societies while minimising adverse effects on human rights, the functioning of democratic societies and the viability of institutional frameworks. While doing so, the Council of Europe has sought to develop standards that can be used at global level, as fragmentation of rules hinders effectiveness and progress.
The Council of Europe applies a variety of working methods, being engaged at horizontal level (through the newly established Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) which will be examining the feasibility and potential elements of a framework related to the development of artificial intelligence in line with Council of Europe standards) and in sector-specific work for concrete guidance on integration of digital technologies in specific fields, such as judicial systems, data protection and privacy, freedom of expression, or child protection.
Aware of the outstanding role that the UN plays globally in setting and maintaining human rights standards in a range of spheres, we value the fact that our Organisations’ efforts aim in the same direction and would welcome extended cooperation. In particular, the Council of Europe stands ready to offer its vast experience to be used in the context of the Human Rights Council’s deliberations to support the aims of the Report.
____
1 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, ETS 108, as amended by the Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, CETS 223…
2 Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe, CETS 185.
3 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, CETS 201.
4 Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, CETS164
5 As of September 2019, the Convention 108 counts 55 states parties, the Budapest Convention counts 64 states parties.
For reference please see also the comments by the Data Protection Unit of the Council of Europe
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