Reviving and Protecting a Forgotten Human Right

Emerging technologies that interact with our minds in increasingly sophisticated and invasive ways make protecting the human right to freedom of thought ever more urgent.

In this special report, Susie Alegre and Aaron Shull outline four contemporary use cases — ranging from the least invasive (data-driven persuasive technologies) to the most invasive (brain-computer interfaces) — that raise many questions: Where does the line fall between our inner thoughts and our expression of those thoughts? What does “consent” mean with respect to technologies that interface with the mind? How can inferences about our inner lives be used against us? And, critically, where is the boundary between legitimate influence and unlawful manipulation of our thoughts?

Alegre and Shull write that an authoritative statement made at the international level on the scope of the right to freedom of thought and its relationship to technology would assist domestic and regional courts, regulators and policy makers grappling with these deeply complex policy areas.

In the name of democratizing access to artificial intelligence (AI), companies have been releasing powerful, open-source AI systems. But with these unsecured models, there are no second chances if a security vulnerability is found.

In this digital essay, a version of which was first published by Tech Policy Press, David Evan Harris describes the massive series of threats unsecured AI models pose to society and democracy. Harris argues that these systems deserve no exemptions and should be regulated just like other high-risk AI systems, and their developers and deployers held liable for the harms that they create, whether through their intended uses or foreseeable misuses.

This week, diplomats along with military, industry, civil society and academic experts are gathering in Geneva for the 2024 Outer Space Security Conference (OS24), hosted by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). Driving the agenda: how to build cooperation across the international community as it works for the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS).

Jessica West says the timing of the meeting is critical: while “diplomatic efforts on PAROS have been on a rocket to nowhere for the past four decades, buffeted by competing aims,” threats are rising. But West sees a glimmer of hope: even as the community of nations on Earth fractures further into rival blocs, an effort to build greater cohesion in space is gathering momentum.

In February 2023, the Netherlands hosted the first global summit on the Responsible Use of AI in the Military Domain, which culminated in the “Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy” endorsed by 32 states (and now by 54). Developed by the United States, the declaration is nonbinding and aims to foster consensus on norms for the military deployment of AI.

This paper supports Canada’s leadership of the Accountability Working Group, one of three international working groups formed to elaborate on compliance with the declaration’s principles. Author Leah West delves into the complex legal discourse surrounding accountability for AI actions in armed conflict, particularly focusing on lethal autonomous weapons systems and decision support systems used in targeting.

The growing use of AI in military applications has changed the way countries engage in war and in times of peace. With so many potential effects of military AI applications, both positive and negative, there is growing demand for international norms to govern their responsible use based on ethical and legal principles.

While some argue that current international and human rights laws are sufficient, Tim Sweijs and Sofia Romansky of The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies make the case for expanding norms to encompass the rapid growth of military AI use while looking at the challenges facing international norms development, current initiatives, and strengths and weaknesses in the normative landscape.

The “accountability surface” is a new term of art to characterize the degree to which humans involved in the use of force can be held accountable for undue harm in warfare.

There are many people, decisions and technologies involved in the process leading to the use of force in military operations. As a metaphor, the accountability surface insists upon a crucial question regarding the use of military autonomous and automating technologies, examined by Arthur Holland Michel in this new policy brief: Will the use of this technology expand or contract the degree to which anyone in the organization will be held accountable for any harms resulting from any process in which it plays a role?

Data collected from satellite imagery and space-based instruments is essential to informing climate modelling but a tension exists between the public and private entities, who fund and maintain most of the data collection assets in orbit, and the civilian researchers, who seek to use that data to further understanding of a changing climate.

In this paper, Kathryn Urban puts forward a multi-stakeholder framework for climate data access, drawing out existing synergies across the public, private and scientific sectors to build on current climate data initiatives. This framework portends a leading role for defence actors owing to data requirements that mirror gaps in current researcher climate data access. Urban highlights potential flashpoints in implementing the framework and makes recommendations for alleviating the concerns of key stakeholders.

“Whereas the horrors of the previous Darfur war in 2003 were mostly — but marginally — communicated through news outlets and aired on news channels, social media platforms today have created platforms that can reach millions. However, these sites are essentially a double-edged sword. They can inform the international community of the extent of the human rights violations that have taken place in Sudan. Yet they also give antagonists a tool to manipulate the optics of their self-serving agendas.”

Maram Mahdi and Kyle Hiebert look at the role of digital platforms in waging information warfare — notably, the Rapid Support Forces’ use of X, in the context of its “hollowed-out content moderation policies” — during a conflict that began in April 2023 as a violent power struggle between two rival strongmen and has since devastated the entire nation.

Interoperable messaging apps such as WhatsApp have become essential, writes Burcu Kilic. However, since the implementation of a little-noticed privacy update in 2016, Facebook has been collecting metadata from WhatsApp users, and in 2021, WhatsApp broadened its data-sharing practices with the social media platform. “If user convenience is the most crucial factor across digital platforms, WhatsApp has great potential not only as a convenient alternative for its 2.5 billion users, but also as a cash cow for Meta.”

Which raises questions: Will WhatsApp “evolve into a super app that transforms our digital lives while remaining unregulated and entirely in Meta’s hands? Should we, as a society, accept a future in which tech companies such as Meta exercise extraordinarily invasive power, while claiming it is all for our convenience?”

“American presidential elections can be tough on Canada. Take 2024, for instance. Not only is there the real risk that a mercantilist bully and convicted felon will get himself re-elected president, but there’s a temptation, spanning the US political spectrum, to indulge in sabre-rattling in a trade relationship often deemed too big to fail.”

Canada remains uniquely vulnerable to US trade action, as the superpower next door still accounts for three-quarters of its exports. Discussing the Biden administration’s serving notice that it intends to “formally take a swipe at Canada’s New Digital Services Tax,” Michael Den Tandt writes that while it may be “good politics for American politicians to take economic jabs at its geographically vast, sparsely populated northern cousin,” it’s also understandable that Canadians, “using the limited means available to us, are sometimes inclined to say, ‘No. Enough.’”