Here is some expanded AI research. The “algorithmic accountability act” stuff and the “AI bill of rights” stuff near the bottom are particularly interesting, and I can already foresee that I will have a lot of issues with the “right to be forgotten”.
(AI)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “A Bill of Rights for Internet Users” outlines core principles to protect freedom, privacy, and innovation online. Key rights include:
- Access: Universal, affordable access to the internet without discrimination.
- Privacy: Protection from unwarranted surveillance and data collection.
- Free Expression: Freedom to speak, share, and create without censorship.
- Control Over Data: The right to control one’s personal information and digital identity.
- Fair Use & Innovation: The ability to use technology freely, tinker, and innovate without restrictive laws.
- Transparency: Clear understanding of how services and governments handle user data and enforce rules.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Tim Berners-Lee’s “Contract for the Web” is a global plan of action launched in 2019 to make the internet safe, empowering, and accessible for everyone. It outlines a set of core principles and responsibilities for three key groups:
1. For Governments:
- Ensure everyone can connect to the internet.
- Keep all of the internet available, all of the time.
- Respect and protect people’s fundamental online privacy and data rights.
2. For Companies:
- Make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone.
- Respect consumer privacy and personal data.
- Develop technologies that support the best in humanity and challenge the worst.
3. For Citizens:
- Be creators and collaborators on the web.
- Build strong online communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity.
- Fight for the web to remain open and a global public resource for all.
Core Goal:
The Contract is not a legal document but a moral and political framework. Its aim is to reverse trends of misuse—like the spread of misinformation, privacy violations, and digital exclusion—and to ensure the web remains a force for good, fostering opportunity, creativity, and collaboration.
It calls for a collaborative effort from all sectors of society to build a better web that serves humanity.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The Italian “Internet Bill of Rights” (formally the Declaration of Internet Rights) was a non-binding charter adopted in 2015. It aimed to establish a framework of fundamental rights and principles for the digital age.
Key Points:
- Purpose: To translate existing constitutional rights (like privacy, free expression, and non-discrimination) into the context of the internet and digital technologies.
- Core Principles: It emphasized net neutrality, personal data protection, the right to be forgotten, digital identity, and the principle of the open internet.
- Focus: The declaration stressed that human rights must be protected both online and offline, and that access to the internet is essential for citizen participation.
- Status: It was a political declaration, not a legally binding law. Its main goal was to guide future legislation and public debate.
Significance:
While not enforceable in court, it was an influential early document that helped shape the global conversation on digital rights. It preceded and aligned with the principles later enshrined in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In short, the Italian Internet Bill of Rights was a forward-looking manifesto advocating for an internet based on fundamental rights, openness, and user protection.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The European Union’s “Digital Rights and Principles” are outlined in the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles, adopted in 2022. They serve as a guiding framework to ensure that digital transformation in the EU is human-centric, fair, and inclusive, putting people and their fundamental rights at the center.
Here is a summary of its core pillars:
1. People at the Centre of Digital Transformation
- Technology should serve and empower all citizens.
- It upholds fundamental rights, democracy, and the rule of law in both the physical and digital worlds.
- Everyone should have access to digital education and skills.
2. Solidarity and Inclusion
- A commitment to bridging digital divides (geographic, socioeconomic, etc.).
- Accessible and affordable high-speed connectivity for everyone.
- Public services should be available and easy to use online.
- An inclusive digital environment for people with disabilities.
3. Freedom of Choice & Fair Digital Environment
- A safe, secure, and fair online space with vibrant platform competition.
- Users should have real control over their data (building on GDPR).
- Clear information on algorithms and artificial intelligence.
4. Safety, Security, and Empowerment
- A high level of cybersecurity, privacy, and protection for personal data.
- Protection from illegal and harmful content and disinformation online.
- Empowerment of users, including the right to disconnect from work.
5. Sustainability
- Digital technologies and services should support the green transition (European Green Deal).
- They should minimize their environmental and energy footprint.
6. Governance for a Digital Future
- Promotion of innovation while ensuring responsible development.
- Democratic oversight of digital technologies.
In essence, this declaration translates core EU values into the digital age. It is not a new law itself but a political commitment that guides existing and future EU legislation (like the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, AI Act, and GDPR) to ensure technology works for people, not the other way around.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Common Themes Across All Proposals:
Universal Access: The internet as a basic utility.
Net Neutrality: All data should be treated equally.
Privacy & Data Control: You own your data and communications.
Freedom of Expression: Protection from censorship.
Transparency & Accountability: For both governments and corporations regarding algorithms, data use, and content moderation.
Digital Literacy: The right to education about the digital world.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The “10 Internet Rights” by the Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (IRPC) is a foundational document that translates universal human rights into the digital context. Established in 2009, the IRPC is a multi-stakeholder network that developed these principles to guide internet governance and policy.
In summary, the 10 rights are:
- Accessibility: Everyone has the right to access and use a secure and open internet.
- Non-Discrimination: The right to use the internet without discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, disability, or other status.
- Liberty Online: Human rights, including freedom of expression and association, must be respected and protected online.
- Privacy: The right to privacy online, including control over personal data and protection from unlawful surveillance.
- Knowledge & Education: Everyone has the right to education and to share in the benefits of scientific advancement online.
- Cultural & Linguistic Diversity: The right to use one’s own language and participate in cultural life on the internet.
- Network Equality: Internet traffic should be treated equally, without unfair discrimination or interference (related to Net Neutrality).
- Open Standards: The internet’s architecture should be based on open standards to ensure interoperability and inclusion.
- Safety & Security: Everyone has the right to be free from harassment, intimidation, and other online threats.
- Governance: Human rights and social justice must form the basis for all internet regulation and governance, which should be democratic and transparent.
Core Idea: The framework asserts that human rights offline must also be protected online. It serves as a blueprint for building an internet that is open, inclusive, and empowers all users.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The Marco Civil da Internet (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet), enacted in 2014, is Brazil’s landmark internet governance law. Often hailed as the “Internet Constitution” of Brazil, it establishes principles, guarantees, rights, and duties for internet use in the country.
Its three core pillars are:
- Network Neutrality: Internet service providers must treat all data equally, prohibiting the blocking, throttling, or prioritization of content for commercial or political reasons.
- Privacy Protection: It establishes strong user privacy rights, requiring clear consent for data collection and limiting how companies can use personal information. It also mandates data retention logs be stored by providers for a limited period.
- Intermediary Liability: Online platforms (like social media and forums) are generally not held liable for user-generated content, unless they fail to comply with a specific judicial order to remove it. This fosters freedom of expression while providing a legal mechanism for addressing illegal content.
Significance: The Marco Civil was pioneering legislation, developed through a collaborative public consultation process. It aimed to balance user rights, innovation, and state responsibilities, and has served as a model for internet regulation discussions worldwide. It explicitly frames internet access as essential for exercising citizenship.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) are two landmark regulations enacted in 2022 to create a safer and more competitive digital environment.
They work together but have distinct focuses:
Digital Services Act (DSA)
- Core Goal: Online Safety & Accountability. It regulates how online platforms and services should handle user content and mitigate societal risks.
- Key Rules:
- Transparency: Clear terms of service, disclosure of content moderation decisions, and transparency on advertising and algorithms.
- User Protection: Easy flagging of illegal content, safeguards for minors, and bans on certain targeted ads (e.g., based on sensitive data or targeting children).
- Systemic Risk Management: Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Search Engines (VLOSEs) must assess and mitigate risks like disinformation, electoral manipulation, and threats to mental health.
- Audits & Enforcement: Independent audits and significant fines (up to 6% of global turnover) for non-compliance.
- Who it targets: All digital intermediaries, with tiered obligations based on size and risk (e.g., hosting services, online marketplaces, social networks).
Digital Markets Act (DMA)
- Core Goal: Fair Competition. It aims to ensure contestable and fair markets by regulating the behavior of the largest digital “gatekeepers.”
- Key Rules: It imposes a list of “dos and don’ts” on Gatekeepers:
- Don’ts (Prohibitions): Self-preferencing their own services, locking users in (e.g., preventing uninstallation of pre-installed apps), unfairly using business users’ data.
- Dos (Obligations): Interoperability for messaging apps, allow third-party app stores and payment systems, provide advertisers with performance data.
- Who it targets: So-called “Gatekeepers”—large, entrenched digital platforms (meeting specific size/user thresholds) that control core platform services like app stores, search engines, and messaging.
In Summary:
- The DSA is about how platforms operate—making them more transparent and responsible for the content they host.
- The DMA is about how dominant platforms compete—preventing them from abusing their power and opening markets for competitors.
Together, they form the EU’s comprehensive framework to reshape the digital single market, placing new obligations on tech giants and enhancing rights for users and businesses.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The CCPA (2018) was the first major comprehensive state-level consumer privacy law in the U.S. The CPRA (2020), passed by ballot initiative, significantly amended and expanded the CCPA, creating a more robust privacy regime often referred to as “CCPA 2.0.” Together, they grant California residents strong rights over their personal information.
Key Consumer Rights (Under CCPA/CPRA)
California consumers have the right to:
- Know what personal information a business collects, uses, shares, or sells.
- Delete personal information collected from them (with certain exceptions).
- Opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information.
- Opt-in for consumers under 16 (with parental consent required for those under 13).
- Correct inaccurate personal information (added by CPRA).
- Limit the use and disclosure of Sensitive Personal Information (e.g., race, health data, precise geolocation, contents of messages) to certain necessary purposes (added by CPRA).
- Non-Discrimination for exercising their rights.
Major Enhancements from CPRA (CCPA 2.0)
The CPRA amended the CCPA in several critical ways:
- Created a New Data Category: “Sensitive Personal Information” with special opt-out rights.
- Established a Dedicated Enforcement Agency: The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), the first of its kind in the U.S.
- Extended “Do Not Sell” to “Do Not Sell or Share” and added an opt-out for cross-context behavioral advertising.
- Strengthened Consent Requirements: For uses of sensitive data and for minors’ data.
- Tripled the Scope of the “Employee” and “B2B” Exemptions: These temporary exemptions for employee and business contact data expired on January 1, 2023.
- Increased Penalties: Especially for violations involving minors’ data.
Business Applicability
The laws apply to for-profit businesses that do business in California and meet any one of the following thresholds:
- Annual gross revenues over $25 million.
- Annually buys, sells, or shares the personal information of 100,000+ consumers or households (CPRA lowered this from 50,000).
- Derives 50% or more of annual revenue from selling or sharing consumer personal information.
Timeline
- CCPA was passed in 2018 and went into effect on January 1, 2020.
- CPRA was passed in November 2020 and most of its provisions went into effect on January 1, 2023, with a look-back period for data collected from July 1, 2022.
In essence: The CCPA established a foundational framework for data privacy rights in California, and the CPRA substantially strengthened it by adding new rights, creating a dedicated watchdog, and closing perceived loopholes, setting a high bar for state privacy laws in the U.S.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Chile made history in 2018 by becoming the first country in the world to constitutionally guarantee both net neutrality and the protection of personal data.
This landmark amendment to Article 19 of Chile’s Constitution established these digital rights as fundamental, meaning they carry the highest legal protection. The key provisions are:
- Net Neutrality: Internet service providers are constitutionally prohibited from blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, or restricting a user’s right to use, send, receive, or offer any legal content, application, or service online. This ensures all data is treated equally, preventing “fast lanes” for paying companies and protecting free expression.
- Data Protection: The amendment establishes a constitutional right to the protection of personal data. It grants individuals control over their information, mandating that its processing and storage must respect and guarantee the individual’s rights and honor.
In summary, Chile’s 2018 constitutional amendment enshrined equal access to the internet (net neutrality) and individual control over personal information as fundamental constitutional rights, setting a pioneering global precedent for digital rights.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
All the different proposals for an internet “Right to be Forgotten”
1. The EU Model: Data Protection & Dignity-Based Right
The most influential and legally enforceable version, established by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Article 17.
- Core Idea: A data subject has the right to have personal data erased (“the right to erasure”) when it is no longer necessary, the subject withdraws consent, or objects to its processing.
- Key Triggers for Deletion: Data is inaccurate, outdated, irrelevant, or excessive for the purposes for which it was collected. It strongly balances the data subject’s privacy and dignity against the public interest in the information.
- Key Limitation: The right is not absolute. It can be overridden by other rights, notably the public’s right to information (freedom of expression). For example, information about a public figure’s past misconduct relevant to their current role may not be removed.
- Mechanism: Individuals submit requests directly to the data controller (e.g., Google, a news website). The controller must assess each request individually. If denied, the individual can appeal to national data protection authorities.
2. The “Right to Delist” (Search Engine Specific)
A subset and practical consequence of the EU model, established by the landmark 2014 Google Spain ECJ ruling.
- Core Idea: Individuals can request search engines (like Google, Bing) to remove links from search results generated by their name. The underlying information on the source website may remain intact.
- Justification: Search engines are data controllers and can cause disproportionate privacy harm by aggregating and making personal data easily accessible.
- Global vs. Local Delisting: A major point of contention. The EU initially pushed for global delisting, while courts (e.g., Canada’s) have often ruled for geographically limited delisting (e.g., only on EU versions of the search engine).
3. The “Right to Expunge” or Criminal Rehabilitation Model
- Core Idea: Focused primarily on allowing individuals with old, spent, or minor criminal convictions to have records of those offenses hidden from public view to facilitate reintegration into society.
- Examples: Laws in some U.S. states (expungement statutes), the UK’s “Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.” These laws often involve sealing court records after a certain period of good behavior.
- Difference from EU RTBF: This is narrower, focusing on a specific type of damaging data (criminal records) rather than all personal data.
4. The U.S. Free Speech & First Amendment Approach
The U.S. has no broad federal “Right to be Forgotten” law. Proposals are limited due to strong First Amendment protections.
- Core Idea: Any right to remove information must yield to freedom of speech and the press. The state cannot compel private entities (like newspapers or platforms) to delete truthful, lawfully obtained information of public concern.
- Existing Narrow Proposals/Laws:
- “Right to Delete” for Minors: Laws like California’s “Eraser Law” (part of the California Privacy Rights Act - CPRA) allow minors to request removal of content they posted.
- Intrusion Upon Seclusion & Doxxing Laws: Targeted laws against the malicious posting of private addresses or information for harassment.
- Copyright Takedowns (DMCA): Used by some as a tool for removal, though not its intended purpose.
5. The “Right to De-index” or “Right to be Delinked”
A proposal that sits between full erasure and the EU’s delisting model.
- Core Idea: Individuals could request that specific links or references be broken, making the information much harder to find via search, while the primary source document remains as a historical record. This is seen as a technical compromise.
6. Alternative & Complementary Proposals
- “Right to Obscurity”: The idea that individuals have a right to live without their past being the first result of a casual Google search. It accepts that information exists online but argues it shouldn’t be easily aggregated and spotlighted.
- “Right to Updating” or Contextualization: Instead of deletion, this proposes a duty for publishers to update old articles with new context (e.g., noting that an acquitted person was found not guilty) or to add administrative notes to search results.
- Technological Solutions: Proposals for automated expiration dates (“digital rust”) on online data, or the use of differential privacy techniques to make re-identification harder over time.
- Stronger Data Minimization Principles: Preventing the problem at the source by legally requiring companies to collect only necessary data and delete it automatically when its purpose is fulfilled.
Key Philosophical & Legal Tensions Across All Proposals:
- Privacy/Dignity vs. Freedom of Expression/Public Interest: This is the central conflict.
- Individual vs. Societal Memory: Does society have a right to remember, or does an individual have a right to move on?
- Private Enforcement (vs. Data Controller) vs. Public Enforcement: Should individuals fight each company, or should a government authority oversee compliance?
- Global vs. Territorial Jurisdiction: Can a law in one country legitimately demand removal of content worldwide?
In summary, the “Right to be Forgotten” ranges from the strong, legally enforceable EU data protection model to much narrower, sector-specific proposals in the U.S., with various technical and philosophical compromises in between. The debate continues to evolve with technology and shifting societal values.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The “AI Bill of Rights” is a non-binding White House Blueprint published in October 2022. It outlines five core principles to guide the design, use, and deployment of automated systems to protect the American public in the age of artificial intelligence.
The Five Principles:
- Safe and Effective Systems: You should be protected from unsafe or ineffective AI systems.
- Algorithmic Discrimination Protections: You should not face discrimination by algorithms, and systems should be used and designed in an equitable way.
- Data Privacy: You should be protected from abusive data practices via built-in protections and have agency over how your data is used.
- Notice and Explanation: You should know that an automated system is being used and understand how and why it contributes to outcomes that affect you.
- Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback: You should be able to opt out, where appropriate, and have access to a human who can quickly consider and remedy problems you encounter.
Key Context:
- It is a framework and blueprint, not a law or executive order.
- It applies to all automated systems that have the potential to impact people’s rights, opportunities, or access to critical needs.
- It is directed at federal agencies, technologists, companies, and civil society as a guide for policy, design, and purchasing.
- Its purpose is to foster responsible innovation and build public trust by putting rights and equity at the center of AI development.
In essence, it’s a U.S. policy vision stating that in the age of AI, everyone should have: protection from abuse, non-discrimination, privacy, transparency, and the option for human judgment.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Based on the proposed legislation in the US and the EU, Algorithmic Accountability Acts are frameworks designed to regulate automated decision-making systems (like those used in hiring, lending, and housing) to ensure they are fair, transparent, and accountable.
Their core objectives are to:
- Increase Transparency: Require companies to assess and disclose the impact of their automated systems, particularly when they make critical decisions about people.
- Mitigate Harm: Mandate regular risk assessments for systems that could lead to significant privacy, discrimination, or safety risks.
- Provide Human Oversight: Ensure there are options for human review and appeal when individuals are subject to consequential automated decisions.
Key Proposed Requirements Typically Include:
- Impact Assessments: Companies would need to conduct and document detailed evaluations of their high-risk AI systems for potential biases, inaccuracies, and privacy risks.
- Bias Auditing: Independent testing of algorithms for discriminatory outcomes based on race, gender, age, etc.
- Public Reporting: Mandating that summary results of these assessments be made publicly available or submitted to a regulatory body.
- Notification & Explanation: Informing individuals when an automated system is used to make a significant decision about them and providing a meaningful explanation.
- Corrective Action: Requiring companies to address and fix any identified harmful biases or risks.
Jurisdictional Differences:
- United States: Proposed federal bills (like the reintroduced Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023) would empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create and enforce rules. Some states (like Colorado and California) have begun enacting their own, more focused laws.
- European Union: The EU’s AI Act is a comprehensive, risk-based regulatory framework that is much broader and further along in the legislative process. It categorizes AI systems by risk level (unacceptable, high, limited, minimal) and imposes strict requirements and bans accordingly. Algorithmic accountability is a central pillar of this act.
In essence, these proposed acts aim to proactively govern the digital “black box” by shifting the burden of proof onto companies to demonstrate their automated systems are safe and non-discriminatory, rather than on individuals to prove harm after the fact.