Skip to Content
|
Skip to Table of Contents
Comments by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and the Finnish NRI on the Report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation
- We appreciate the panel’s devotion to strengthen multistakeholder involvement through different areas in the panel report concerning both current work and future developments in order to reflect current and future needs in the fast moving digital development. This would also mean complementing multilateral processes involved to take into consideration the necessary public policy needs to address different concerns through smart regulations.
- Our comprehensive view is to rely on the existing mechanisms, not to create unnecessary new institutions or mechanism and duplicate the work and institutions working already in this area. Instead, we should both strengthen and update them in the areas that are now lacking concrete and productive results. This would require a comprehensive analysis and description of the ongoing work. As one of the experts of internet governance described this: “Multistakeholderism is the language of the future but it still lacks a grammar”.
- We strongly recommend the idea to strengthen the already very productive work of the IGF. While doing so, one should recognize the very important and concrete achievements that the IGF has made this far in the digital cooperation – especially through important bottom up processes involving all the stakeholders and raising the digital awareness among the least developed countries and providing them opportunities to be involved. This is possible through extensive capacity building. For Finland, as a major funder and supporter of the IGF we are very satisfied for the progress achieved especially in the LDC countries progress for digital capacity building and support for their citizens’ awareness and building their digital inclusiveness.
- However, there is a growing need to do more in this area and we should make sure that the IGF has more and stable resources to focus on capacity building as well as other important topics. We support the idea to place the IGF Trust Fund directly under the Secretary-General’s office. We should come up with an arrangement that could provide stable funding and enable long-term planning of the IGF.
- We understand and support the need to develop IGF’s work, as described in the report, to produce even more concrete and well explained recommendations to follow up with actual decision making. All the different stakeholders, including governments and private sector should be able to turn recommendations into actual decisions implemented. That is why we support the appointment of the Technology Envoy as a special adviser to the Secretary-General, who would also hold responsibility on advising the IGF.
- We want to note that the panel report includes very important recommendations on interdependency of peace, sustainable development and human rights. We share the view that digital cooperation and harnessing the potential of new technologies are essential to reach the sustainable development goals. In particular, we agree that digital connectivity, while necessary, is not sufficient to attain the SDGs. It must be combined with a platform for sharing digital public goods, created through a multi-stakeholder alliance involving the UN. Such platform must be designed in an inclusive and human-centric manner, ensuring that the data created and used is managed in an ethical fashion.
- Finally, on child rights we want to note that in the digital societies they include safety, inclusiveness, privacy, learning, playing, free time and welfare, which must be secured both in developing and implementing digital solutions. We also highlight gender-sensitive approach in digital development.
- As a sign of its support to the report of the Panel, Finland will provide a substantial financial contribution to the “follow-up secretariat”, which will be established to consult with key stakeholders and to advise the Secretary-General on the most effective actions to follow.
Source: https://comment.eurodig.org/digital-cooperation-report/comments-by-email/hlpdc-report-comments-by-finland/
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