Safeguarding Privacy Online and Preserving Freedom of Thought

Aaron Shull writes that if privacy is meant to be treated as a truly fundamental right in the digital age, that needs to be reflected in domestic law — but in Canada, neither PIPEDA (the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) nor its proposed successor, Bill C-27, goes far enough.

The process of making the required changes, Shull says, “cries out for a careful reading of existing international human rights law and a firm understanding of how those rights play out in Canadian domestic law” and “requires engaging in the dynamic interplay between different rights, especially privacy and the freedom of thought. In this new era, data-driven technologies will penetrate almost every aspect of life in Canada — it is time for a rights framework that matches the moment.”

Privacy, a space free from external interference, is essential to freedom of thought. But online, corporate entities and state actors subtly shape our beliefs, challenging the protections offered by current human rights and privacy laws.

In this video, Aaron Shull delves into the critical link between privacy and the freedom of thought, emphasizing the need for reforms in privacy, artificial intelligence and online safety laws to ensure a future where digital technology enhances, rather than undermines, fundamental human rights.

“The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act)...is a pioneering effort to fill a legal regulatory void with ethical, safety and rights-based standards for the adoption of AI.” But, according to Courtney C. Radsch, as much as this effort is welcomed, the AI Act’s extended timeline for implementation and enforcement “could prove fatal to achieving the act’s goals, especially when it comes to protecting democracy.”

In this op-ed first published by Tech Policy Press, Radsch argues that “the existential risk that AI poses to the viability of journalism, given its role in democracy, should be front and centre in the implementation of this first-of-its-kind AI legislation.”

David Durand says that Canadians’ “can-do” optimism has faded. Once confident about their ability to compete and generate revenue from new products and services they introduce to global markets, Canadian innovators are up against imposed market conditions and the theft of their intellectual property and know-how: threats in plain sight, “made in the name (or guise) of collaboration, innovation and investment (or foreign direct investment) by both friends and foes.”

If we’re to address these issues, Durand writes, we need modernized legislation, public engagement about our innovation and security culture, and “the creation of supporting documentation…that will assist us in detecting, managing and responding to threats.”

Apr. 25 – 3:00 p.m. EDT (UTC–04:00): Join us online for a discussion on ⿻數位 Plurality with E. Glen Weyl and CIGI President Paul Samson.

While digital technology threatens to tear our free and open societies apart through polarization, inequality, loneliness and fear, on a delicate, diverse and politically divided East Asian island things are different. In the decade since the occupation of Taiwan’s parliament, this island of resilience achieved inclusive, technology-fuelled growth, and entrusted the people to tackle shared challenges such as environmental protection, while capitalizing on a culture of innovation to “hack the government.”

Tickets are free; find out more and register here.