Q&A: The challenge of technology and human rights

MELBOURNE, Australia — Technology is an important tool to reach those in need and deliver solutions at scale to support global development challenges. But this technology comes with unintended consequences, such as human rights abuses, exclusion of people with disabilities, and privacy breaches. Edward Santow, Australian human rights commissioner, told Devex that he did not want to be a negative voice on technology’s potential — but had seen many examples where human rights were abused in delivering new products and services. Human rights needed to be fundamental as part of technology design principles, he said. “When we have seen things go wrong, it is often because outsourcing in the procurement process that has seen things go off the rails.” --— Edward Santow, Australian human rights commissioner At the 2019 Global Compact Network Australian conference in Melbourne on May 31, Santow discussed the Australian Human Rights Commission’s approach to technology and its challenges. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. To understand the challenges technology poses to human rights, what questions are you asking and what resources do you need to keep ahead of technology in this space? There is a phenomenon called regulatory lag — the idea that laws exist and are applied but are not being applied consistently. We’ve all been a bit slow to work out how to apply laws effectively in the new technology world. The first step for me is not to find new ways of addressing these emerging problems, it’s about applying the existing rules to the new context. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is now a bit over 70 years old and has proven to be remarkably adaptable to a diverse range of problems and challenges. Technology is another new challenge. What we need to do is rise to that challenge. So we need to apply the rules that have proven to be important and effective in making sure we protect people against harm and with basic dignity. What is the thinking happening at the moment within the Australian Human Rights Commission with technology and human rights? We’re involved in public consultation — asking people what they see as the challenges and opportunities new technology raises for them and their human rights. And we’ve been looking at this from three angles. First is how artificial intelligence is being used in decision-making and how this affects people’s basic rights. The second issue is disability and inclusion. New technology can make the work more inclusive but for every good example, there are examples of how technology can be designed in ways to shut people out. We want to make sure companies and researchers develop products in ways that are inclusive to people with disabilities. The third area is the overall regulatory structure — including whether we need to develop a whole bunch of laws or rules. But this is more about applying the existing principles and developing good leadership on these technology issues. As technology crosses borders, is it important that these discussions are happening on a global scale to ensure no one — wherever they are in the world — are left behind? Absolutely. We are being told there is an arms race in artificial intelligence — and you’ve got some countries, like China, who are not as constrained as other countries by human rights concerns — and so the narrative goes on to say countries like Australia should not better their companies and researchers on human rights because they will be fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. But our consultation has shown that is absolutely wrong. In fact, the community really expects companies to live out their values and show that they have their customer’s interests at heart, including their human rights. What that means is that countries that support these rights in the development of AI within their borders will be competitively smart. The other aspect is making sure the way we develop rules internationally sets those basic benchmarks. I don’t think we need to develop new benchmarks, just apply the existing ones to this new area. “I don’t think we need to develop new benchmarks, just apply the existing ones to this new area.” --— A lot of the new technology ideas come from startups, which can be bought by larger technology companies. What do these companies need to be asking about human rights challenges rather than simply get excited about its potential? This is something we have been wrestling with. We have seen huge enthusiasm for things such as AI — and its potential applications are limitless in banking, insurance, logistics and more. That’s good in one sense that there is potential to improve how industries operate, but this also means there has to be a real understanding of unintended consequences. When we have seen things go wrong, it is often because outsourcing in the procurement process that has seen things go off the rails. Do you have any concern that we are moving to a point that people are accepting of breaches to human rights — particularly privacy — to get access to technology and services? There are two separate situations — there is the situation where people make the decision to accept a small incursion on their privacy in order to access a service they want. This is a choice people can make with their eyes open. The other scenario is where there is not that real choice — you absolutely need an online service regardless of whether you are OK with the limitation on your privacy. With Google, for example, there is some autonomy on privacy but it is not full autonomy and at some point, you have to accept the company’s conditions. What we want to make sure in that scenario, is that people’s basic human rights are still protected. Are there other organizations that need to be stepping up and supporting the Australian Human Rights Commission in the discussion on technology and rights? We can offer something unique as the authoritative voice of rights in Australia. But the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and others are looking at the connected questions — this is good and important and we are pleased to work in a collaborative way with these bodies. We’ve had a really strong engagement by other government bodies as well as industry and civil society and research. Increasingly AI is being used by government departments, and we are encouraging them to wrestle with the human rights implications of this change — because it is a fundamental and big change. It would be good to increase the engagement from those big government departments, like the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In engaging with various audiences, have you seen the conversation shifting and is there momentum that can be leveraged to push for a greater focus on rights in technology? It is changing significantly. We don’t have all of the answers ourselves and we need to speak to and listen to the industry — including the members of the Global Compact Network Australia. But the big shift has been in the general population understanding these issues. The public discussion was previously just focused on privacy, but now other human rights are being engaged as well — and this heightens the urgency that enables us to focus on this as an issue. Devex is a media partner for the 2019 Global Compact Network Australia conference. Follow Lisa Cornish and Devex for more insights.