Projecting Digital economy rules on Global South’s AI regulations: what is needed to safeguard human rights? ( Data Privacy Brasil Research Association)
6 Dec 2023 18:00h - 19:00h UTC
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Kristina Irion
The analysis examines different arguments and stances surrounding the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and trade laws. One viewpoint contends that the digital trade rule, which prohibits governments from requesting access to source code, inhibits the effective regulation of AI and reduces regulatory space for countries. This argument asserts that without access to source code, governments cannot hold AI systems accountable properly. The supporting facts highlight that the source code provision is already protected as a trade secret or copyrighted material, so creating another protective regime is unnecessary.
Conversely, an opposing stance argues that AI systems with a transnational footprint need global regulation and public scrutiny. It emphasises that due to their widespread impact, AI systems should be governed globally. The supporting facts suggest involving engineers, academics, journalists, NGOs, and consumer protection organizations in holding AI systems accountable through public scrutiny.
Another contention arises concerning the source code provision in digital trade law. It is argued that the provision is too broad and restrains regulation of source code indirectly, creating regulatory hurdles. The supporting facts highlight that this provision could limit the options to effectively govern AI.
Moreover, the analysis reveals a call for more proactive AI regulation that requires serious testing of technology, not just documentation. The argument contends that most regulatory systems for AI rely on documentation, which may be ineffective. There is a need for serious engagement with the technology itself, rather than just documenting it.
The importance of algorithmic governance is also discussed. The analysis suggests that experimenting with different regulatory solutions in various countries could be beneficial for this new field. This experimental approach could help discover effective methods of governing algorithms.
Regarding the scrutiny of algorithms, one viewpoint supports the idea of allowing consumer protection authorities to scrutinize algorithms or require independent third-party audits. This could enrich our knowledge about AI systems and test their fairness and accountability.
An interesting observation from the analysis is the opposition to using trade law to cement source code secrecy. It is argued that source code secrecy inhibits accountability. Transparency and accountability should be prioritized in AI regulation.
In conclusion, the analysis presents various perspectives on AI regulation and trade laws. The arguments touch on the balance between source code protection and effective regulation, the need for global governance and public scrutiny, the potential limitations imposed by trade law provisions, the need for proactive testing of technology, and the importance of algorithmic governance. Notably, there is a call for collaboration and experimentation to develop effective regulatory solutions.
Vitor Ido
The analysis explores various arguments regarding intellectual property rights and data governance in trade agreements. One argument examines the recent US-China trade war, which predominantly centred on allegations of American intellectual property (IP) theft. As a result, countries like the United States, Japan, and China have strengthened trade secret protection measures.
Another argument raises concerns about the expansion of intellectual property rights, warning that it could lead to excessive protection. These concerns stem from lax patentability criteria, resulting in patents being granted without proper disclosure. Furthermore, there is a misinterpretation of Article 39 of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), which requires a single form of protection for undisclosed information. These issues may impede innovation and competition.
Opposition also exists towards source code secrecy provisions in trade agreements. Critics believe that these provisions restrict access to knowledge, placing small and medium-sized enterprises at a disadvantage. The exclusivity regimes on which source code secrecy is based also limit important rights, such as the right to repair and the right to research. This argument highlights the potential negative consequences and the need for more inclusive policies.
The analysis also underscores the challenges faced by developing countries in terms of data governance. It reveals that developing countries have not reaped significant benefits from the data that is extracted, indicating underutilization of their potential. This argument emphasises the position of developing countries at the bottom end of the regulatory spectrum, raising concerns about inequality in data governance.
On a positive note, there is a suggestion that developing countries should establish their own data governance frameworks. This approach acknowledges that the European Union’s model is often replicated and explores the potential to balance collective data governance with legitimate industrial policy goals. By crafting their own regulations, developing countries can create frameworks that align with their specific needs and aspirations.
Additionally, the analysis notes a neutral argument that there is a regulatory “race to the bottom.” This perspective highlights the downward pressure on regulations related to intellectual property rights and data governance, potentially leading to weaker protections and adverse outcomes.
Lastly, the analysis underscores the importance of global solidarity and the pursuit of a fairer level playing field in trade agreements. It acknowledges recent changes made by the United States, emphasizing the need for more equitable trade practices. This argument emphasizes the importance of addressing the unequal playing field to foster global collaboration and reduce inequalities.
In conclusion, the analysis presents a comprehensive view of the arguments surrounding intellectual property rights and data governance in trade agreements. It examines concerns such as IP theft, overprotection, source code secrecy, regulatory challenges for developing countries, and the pursuit of fair trade practices. These insights are valuable for policymakers, businesses, and stakeholders involved in international trade.
Ana Cipriano
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) plays a crucial role in supporting member states in the areas of competition and consumer protection. It acts as the focal point for these topics and provides various forms of assistance to its members. This includes organising forums for discussions, offering technical assistance and capacity-building programs, and helping countries develop and enhance their legislation and policies related to competition and consumer protection. UNCTAD’s goal is to promote fair and efficient markets and ensure consumer well-being and satisfaction.
In addition to supporting member states, UNCTAD also aims to bridge gaps in international cooperation. Many challenges faced by national authorities in competition and consumer protection transcend borders, highlighting the need for networking and collaboration. UNCTAD recognizes the importance of bringing together different parties, including national authorities, regional organizations, and other stakeholders. By networking these networks, UNCTAD aims to facilitate effective cooperation, strengthen peace, justice, and institutions as outlined in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, and address shared challenges.
Developing countries such as Brazil, the Philippines, Colombia, Peru, and Thailand are making significant advancements in leveraging technology to enhance consumer protection. These countries have embraced emerging technologies to better inform consumers and resolve disputes. By utilizing these advancements, they are catering to the needs and concerns of their growing consumer base more efficiently. This aligns with SDG 9 on Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, as well as SDG 12 on Responsible Consumption and Production.
Furthermore, there is a dedicated research partnership platform that serves as a forum for academic and intergovernmental discussions. This platform enables the exchange of insights, research findings, and best practices among experts and policymakers. Ana Cipriano, an influential figure in this field, emphasizes the potential of this platform and encourages continued dialogue on it. An invitation link to the platform has been shared, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and knowledge exchange in the pursuit of effective competition and consumer protection policies and practices.
In conclusion, UNCTAD fulfills its mandate by supporting member states in the areas of competition and consumer protection. Through forums, technical assistance, and capacity-building programs, UNCTAD assists countries in developing robust legislation and policies. The organization also recognizes the importance of international cooperation and networking in addressing challenges faced by national authorities. Moreover, developing countries are utilizing technology to enhance consumer protection, and a research partnership platform facilitates academic and intergovernmental discussions. The recommendations of experts like Ana Cipriano highlight the significance of continuous dialogue and knowledge sharing in this field. By promoting fair competition and protecting consumers, UNCTAD contributes to the overarching goal of sustainable development.
Rafael Zanatta
The analysis of the arguments presented highlights several concerns regarding digital trade agreements and AI regulation. Firstly, it is noted that digital trade agreements lack transparency, particularly in the global south, which limits the capacity of civil society to intervene and express concerns. Rafael points out that norms at the local level, at least in Brazil, are more participatory and inclusive compared to trade agreements which are opaque and exclusive. This indicates a democratic deficit in the production of digital trade agreements. The Biden administration, however, is proposing a shift in norms production to increase democratic effort and transparency.
Secondly, it is suggested that AI and digital trade norms should prioritize contestability and the right to meaningful explanation. In the digital age, software has the power to change social behavior and impact people’s lives in significant ways. Rafael argues that contestability and the right to meaningful explanation are fundamental rights in the relationship between citizens and software producers. The adoption of these principles would ensure that AI systems are subject to scrutiny and can be challenged when necessary.
Furthermore, the restrictions placed on source code by digital trade norms hinder the ability of the global south to regulate and implement measures that safeguard human rights. Rafael suggests that such norms prevent developing countries from implementing transparency measures that would ensure AI applications do not violate human rights. The speaker believes there is a conflict between digital trade norms that prevent disclosure of source code and national interests in ensuring AI applications are not discriminatory or violate human rights. This highlights the need to find a balance between protecting intellectual property and safeguarding human rights.
To avoid fragmentation in AI regulations, networked governance is necessary. Promoting connections between national countries through international organizations like UNCTAD can help advance the conversation about intellectual property protection and trade protection. It is important to distinguish between concerns about abusive government intervention and concerns about fundamental rights in the context of AI regulation. Balancing these concerns is crucial to ensure coherent and effective AI regulation that considers various stakeholders’ interests.
Finally, it is argued that free trade agreements on source code are not the best approach. However, no specific supporting facts or evidence are provided for this argument.
In conclusion, the analysis highlights the lack of transparency in digital trade agreements, the need for contestability and the right to meaningful explanation in AI regulation, the restrictions placed on source code by digital trade norms, the importance of networked governance to avoid fragmentation in AI regulations, and the inefficacy of free trade agreements on source code. These concerns call for a more inclusive, transparent, and balanced approach to digital trade agreements and AI regulation to ensure the protection of human rights and the promotion of global cooperation.
Rishab Bailey
The analysis examines the potential impact of digital trade provisions on the regulation of emerging technologies. One major concern is the rapid deployment of new AI and generative AI technologies, which can pose risks to consumers, workers, communities, and democratic systems. These technologies are evolving at an unprecedented rate, and without proper regulation, they may lead to unintended harm.
Digital trade negotiations taking place in bilateral, regional, and plurilateral contexts could further complicate the regulation of emerging technologies. These negotiations often involve discussions on trade rules and regulations that could restrict governments’ ability to fully understand and address the implications of AI and generative AI technologies. As a result, governments may be limited in their power to enact necessary safeguards to protect individuals and society.
Another concern lies in provisions that prohibit the disclosure of source code, commonly found in free trade agreements. Governments are restricted from requiring the disclosure of source code, except in specific investigations. While this may protect companies’ intellectual property, it has the potential to undermine efforts to pre-screen or audit algorithms. Without access to the source code, it becomes challenging to ensure that algorithms are not discriminatory or in violation of human rights. As a result, human rights protections could be compromised.
Furthermore, digital trade agreements could hinder the implementation of right to repair policies. Right to repair policies aim to grant consumers and independent repair shops access to the tools and information necessary for conducting repairs. However, provisions in digital trade agreements may limit or restrict such requirements, leading to increased dependence on manufacturers for repairs and limiting consumer choice and sustainability.
However, it is worth noting the positive development of the recent withdrawal of the US government from a controversial provision in the World Trade Organization’s joint statement initiative on e-commerce. The United States government, which had been actively pushing for such provisions, withdrew its support to preserve policy space for regulating emerging technologies. This move allows for policy flexibility in addressing the potential challenges and risks associated with emerging technologies.
In conclusion, the analysis underscores various concerns surrounding digital trade provisions and their impact on the regulation of emerging technologies. The rapid advancement of AI and generative AI technologies, provisions prohibiting source code disclosure, and potential hindrances to right to repair policies all raise significant concerns. However, the recent withdrawal of the US government from a controversial provision is seen as a positive step towards preserving policy space for regulating emerging technologies. It is crucial for governments and stakeholders to find a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring the safe and responsible development and use of emerging technologies.
Speakers
AC
Ana Cipriano
Speech speed
109 words per minute
Speech length
1170 words
Speech time
643 secs
KI
Kristina Irion
Speech speed
140 words per minute
Speech length
1708 words
Speech time
732 secs
RZ
Rafael Zanatta
Speech speed
158 words per minute
Speech length
1902 words
Speech time
723 secs
RB
Rishab Bailey
Speech speed
185 words per minute
Speech length
1662 words
Speech time
540 secs
VI
Vitor Ido
Speech speed
191 words per minute
Speech length
2415 words
Speech time
761 secs
Related event
