The digital technology and electronics sector can contribute to realising several human rights and help achieve the vision laid out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as highlighted in a selection of projects from Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) member companies. The sector has been noted for positive human rights impacts by offering hardware and software solutions that, for example, enable remote access to learning, mobile banking and real-time information which can be crucial in emergency situations, including identifying the early onset of drought, enabling the mobilisation of response efforts before a situation reaches a crisis point. Social media platforms can contribute to transparency, participation, freedom of expression as well as the development and coordination of democratic movements worldwide.
However, the digital technology and electronics sector also pose risks to human rights. For the electronics sector, the production of short lifespan electronic goods with supply chains that are plagued by occupational safety and health concerns and other adverse labour-related impacts, including low wages, long working hours, poor working conditions, and use of hazardous materials and ineffective and unsustainable recycling practices. Moreover, certain applications of digital technologies have been shown to pose serious risks to human rights. For example, the activities of companies such as social media platforms, search engines and internet services providers have been linked to adverse impacts on the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of association, non-discrimination and even the right to life. The features of the large-scale use of digital technologies raise unique challenges for the protection and respect of human rights given the far-reaching scope of impacts and the relative lack of transparency in the development of certain technologies such as automated decision-making and artificial intelligence.
The UNGPs provide a strong normative basis to assess human rights impacts in these sectors and develop concrete policy actions and measures to close protection gaps, as demonstrated in the Tech Sector and National Action Plans of Business and Human Rights developed by the Danish Institute for Human Rights and Global Partners Digital focusing on digital technologies.
Read more
The rapid evolution of the electronics sector, supported by strong marketing and promotion campaigns linked to business strategies that aim to launch new high-end product every year, results in still fully functional products becoming prematurely obsolete, rapidly disposed of by consumers, and often subjected to informal recycling. New products demand more natural resources, many of which are “conflict minerals” sourced from conflict-affected areas, with revenues often fuelling armed conflict, as highlighted in Frank Poulsen’s documentary “Blood in your mobile”.
The high-tech electronics sector is characterised by a complex, non-transparent global value chain, which often begins in developing countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where raw materials are sourced. These are later processed in other developing countries, such as Malaysia [M. van der Velden, 2017]. The final products are then manufactured in countries like China and Vietnam, and subsequently sold across the globe. Recycling of products is also done in developing countries, such as Ghana or Nigeria (according to ILO, The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge, 2012), 80% of e-waste ends up, often illegally, in developing countries), where unsustainable disposal and recycling of e-waste results in serious environmental, health and social impacts. [M. van der Velden, 2017].
According to the UN Guiding Principles, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights by conducting human rights due diligence to ensure they do not cause, contribute or are linked to potential or actual adverse human rights impacts. The OHCHR Business and Technology Project provides authoritative guidance and resources for implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights (UNGPs) in the technology space.
Other adverse human rights impacts associated to the digital technology sector include threats against the right to privacy [e.g. Microsoft case] and freedom of expression, with some states imposing unjustified restrictions on the Internet or social media accounts. In certain extremes, states have been known to enforce network shutdowns during public protests, or track protesters based on their phones geolocations [see e.g. #KeepItOn: fighting internet shutdowns around the world – Access Now].
Direct or indirect discrimination by algorithms using big data is increasingly considered as one of the most pressing challenges of the use of new technologies. In addition to the problematic use of data in reinforcing bias against groups, low quality data is leading to poor predictions and discrimination. [Privacy International]. Research shows Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms allegedly recreate racial & gender bias, and systems that are used for targeted online advertising often discriminate based on race and gender. [Business and Human Rights Resource Centre].
Coupled with automated decision-making, profiling is being used to make or inform on decisions involving credit scoring, hiring, policing and national security. In 2016, IBM launched a tool that would help governments separate “real asylum seekers” from potential terrorists by assigning each refugee a score that would assess their likelihood to be an imposter. Through profiling, highly sensitive details can be inferred or predicted from seemingly uninteresting data, leading to detailed and comprehensive profiles that may or may not be accurate or fair. [Data is Power: Profiling and Automated Decision-Making in GDPR, pp.3-4].
Governments have also been accused of using malware to spy on journalists and human rights defenders. In 2017, the New York Times reported that some of Mexico’s most prominent human rights defenders, journalists and anti-corruption activists were targeted by spyware created by the Israeli cyber arms dealer, NSO Group. The Pegasus software sold to the Mexican government is capable of infiltrating smartphones to monitor calls, texts, email, contacts and calendars. The use of this spyware has also been reportedly used to advance business interests in Mexico, where vocal proponents of Mexico’s 2014 soda tax were also targeted.
A more recent phenomenon is the use of psychometrics to analyse big data collected through various media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, to influence the behaviour of voters and the outcome of elections. For example, the mission of the Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) company is to influence elections by providing marketing based on psychological modelling. In 2013, SCL created a new company, Cambridge Analytica, to influence the Brexit vote and US elections. The misuse of big data to shape the outcome of elections not only has adverse impacts on civil and political rights, but also on a broad range of economic, social and cultural rights, which may be affected by the decisions of elected officials.
Governments are also undertaking efforts that aim to improve sustainability and transparency of the ICT and electronics value chains and prevent human rights abuses. One of the best known regulatory efforts including the 2010 US Dodd-Frank Act, Section 1502, “which aims to disrupt the trade in conflict minerals from Congo with a law that requires companies publicly listed in US to determine whether their purchases of 3TGs were inadvertently funding armed groups in the DRC” [Ethical Consumer, Conflict Minerals, October 2016], and the EU Conflict Minerals regulation from 2017 which is aimed at addressing human rights abuses linked to the sourcing of “3TG” minerals, (Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten, and Gold). Further, the EU has undertaken a number of specific steps towards addressing fundamental rights risks in the digital ecosystem. These actions come after a series of policy frameworks, research, and reports that have reviewed the different aspects of the current and future digital ecosystem in Europe. The regulations have been focused on specific activities (e.g., data processing), specific technologies (e.g., AI systems), and specific actors (e.g., intermediary services providers). The four main developments in this area are the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, as well as the proposed Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive. All four regulations include a range of obligations placed on tech companies and activities in the digital sphere that aim to address significant, systematic, or severe risks to fundamental rights and freedoms.
Finally, the Freedom Online Coalition is a partnership of 30 governments working to advance Internet freedom including through coordination of diplomatic efforts and engaging with civil society and the private sector to support Internet freedom – free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide.
Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet issued by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information.
i. Fundamental Pillar 2: The duty of business to respect human rights
Strand 1[Eje nº 1]: Provide companies with the tools to fulfil their responsibility to respect human rights
(…)
The Ministry of Telecommunications [Mintic] will elaborate the “Guide on Human Rights and Business: A document on the application of human rights and business principles” for the specific context of the Information and Telecommunications Technologies (ICT) sector.
iii. Fundamental Pillar 3: Access to remedy mechanisms
(…)
Strand 2 [Eje nº 2]: Access to non-judicial remedy mechanisms
(…)
The SIC [Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio] will identify in telecommunications companies in Colombia which mechanisms are in place to guarantee due process in relation to the rights of petition presented by customers or citizens, within the operational framework.
The SIC [Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio] will identify the actions or strategies of telecommunications companies in Colombia to address or remedy the actual and potential negative consequences of their operation.
“Sensitively and coherently used technology could play a major role in freeing the hands of the courts. Just like any other area of human activity, the judiciary could benefit from the advantages delivered by advanced technology. Numerous countries around the world are conducting studies and drawing up strategies on how to use such technology efficiently in the work of the judiciary. [For example, in 2017 the UK Ministry of Justice organised a competition for innovators and programmers to develop tools that would support the online judiciary.] These are tools that could be put to good use in the process of adjudication on the one hand (facilitating the taking of evidence, enabling hearings to be held without the physical presence of all persons) and in the paperwork and state administration of the courts on the other (file computerisation and automation). The technology must be used in such a way that it does not place an extra burden on the courts, and must be accompanied by the thorough induction training of court staff. Likewise, it must not reduce in any way the availability of or access to the courts and judicial protection.”
2.2 The State and the protection of privacy [page 23]
“As a follow-up measure, the working group proposes that
a roundtable discussion be organised on how to ensure the protection of privacy in Finland with the authorities, ICT companies and the civil society.
Principal responsible party: Ministry of Transport and Communications, autumn 2014.”
Examples of Responsible Practices Abroad [page 36]
Switzerland
The Swiss Federal Council has introduced a major amendment to its export licensing legislation in order to ensure surveillance technologies that might be used for human rights abuses are not exported from Switzerland. Following this amendment, Swiss authorities must reject companies’ requests to export surveillance technologies if there “are reasonable grounds to believe” that the items could be used for repression in the country of destination: https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/589
II- Businesses’ Responsibility to Respect Human Rights
3. Risk Analysis and Impact Assessment
Practical Tools Addressing Specific Issues
At the European Level [page 42]
The European Commission’s guides for three economic activities: … information and communications technologies.
There is no mention of information and communications technology (ICT) and the electronics sector in the Business and Human Rights Chapter of the Georgian Human Rights NAP.
The Irish NAP makes no direct reference to the ICT sector.
Section 2: Current legislative and Regulatory Framework
Data Protection [page 14]
“Owing to the significant number of multinational tech companies based in Ireland, Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner has responsibility for oversight of a large amount of data and has been involved in some high profile cases. The Government is committed to supporting the Data Commissioner in their role and, over recent years, has provided a fourfold increase in the funding for the work of the Commission.”
“(…) the second Italian NAP-BHR intends to strengthen the application of the UNGPs through a series of complementary measures, referring in particular to the following guidelines:
(…)
– the need to study in depth innovative issues related to technological development and artificial intelligence – also in relation to the Declaration of Rights in the Internet adopted by the Italian Parliament on 31 July 2015, in order to highlight their possible impact on the enjoyment of human rights, as well as an adequate action of corporate Due Diligence, and further innovative issues related to activities promoted by cultural companies with an important impact on the promotion of human rights” (p. 7)
II. Premises
c) National Priorities
“4. A collective awareness of the impact that new technologies, especially artificial intelligence, could have on the enjoyment of human rights, while paying attention to the promotion of corporate due diligence processes on human rights within the activities of those companies involved in research and development of new technologies” (p. 11)
IV. Italian ongoing activities and future commitments
Gender dimension
“Regarding gender leadership issues, the Task Force “Women for a New Renaissance”, established by the Ministry of Equal Opportunities and Family in 2020 to address the impact of Covid-19 on gender issues has produced a Final Report, based on quantitative data and qualitative scientific information on the impact of the pandemic in different sectors. Among the Task Force’s multiple proposals there are those ones targeted to:
(…)
– overcoming barriers to advancement in career paths, particularly in the fastest growing fields (STEM, computer science, cloud computing, data and artificial intelligence)” (p. 29)
ANNEX 1 – Accountability Grid and Assessment Tools for the Implementation of the NAP
“23. Monitor the application of artificial intelligence in the workplace (e.g. recruitment mechanisms) for the purpose of assessing impact on human rights in terms of inclusion and non-discrimination.” (p. 65)
“48. Disseminate principles adopted in relation to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence for human rights compliance with a Due Diligence approach.” (p. 68)
C. Human Rights Associated with the Development of New Technologies
(Existing framework/Measures taken ）
In terms of the development of artificial intelligence (AI), a Council for Social Principles of Human-centric AI was established for the purpose of considering the basic principles for implementing and sharing AI in society in a better way under the AI Strategy Expert Meeting for Strength and Promotion of Innovation. As a result of the review by the Council, the Social Principles of Human-centric AI, which comprise three basic values and seven principles were established in March 2019.
(Future measures planned）
(a）Address online defamation and privacy infringement, including hate speech
Continue efforts such as requesting providers to delete abusive information in case human rights violations, including defamation and privacy infringement on the Internet, are observed. [Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Ministry of Justice]
(b） Promote discussion on the use of AI from the perspective of protection of human rights
Continue efforts to promote establishment of the Social Principles of Human-centric AI, including the perspective of respecting human rights, to ensure acceptance and appropriate use of AI in society. [All Ministries]
(c）Promote discussion on the use of AI from the perspective of protection of privacy
Continue efforts to promote discussion regarding the use of AI and privacy protection at international conferences and other occasions. [Personal Information Protection Commission; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry]
Objective 2: promoting corporate responsibility and respect in the field of business and human rights
A. Implemented and on-going measures for the development of CSR in Lithuania [page 6]
3. “The application of CRS principles to the state-owned enterprises … To this end, since 2010, actions were taken to restructure SOEs with a particular focus on corporate transparency and social responsibility. SOEs provide important public services as regards energy, water supply, public transport, electronic communications, health, education, social services and others.”
Part II: Specific objectives of the National Action Plan 2020-2022
1. The state duty to protect human rights
(…)
1.15. Protection of human rights in business in the context of new information and communication technologies (ICT), including artificial intelligence (AI)
Context
One of the risk sectors recognised in the NAP2 is the new information and communication technologies, including artificial intelligence. This sector is developing very rapidly worldwide in the context of increasing digitalisation.
In his report to the UN General Assembly in 2018, Mr David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, analysed the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) in more detail. Within this framework, each State is obliged to uphold human rights, including the right to freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and access to information, the right to privacy, the obligation of non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy.
In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been the main legal instrument regulating the collection and use of data since its introduction in 2018. In Luxembourg, the supervisory authority is the Data Protection National Commission (CNPD) [Commission nationale pour la protection des données].
Objectively verifiable indicators
× GDPR
Verification sources
× European legislation and institutions
× CNPD [Commission nationale pour la protection des données] – UEL [Union des Entreprises Luxembourgeoises] / INDR [Institut National pour le Développement durat et la Responsabilité sociale des entreprises]
Expected results
× Regular consultations with the CNPD [Commission nationale pour la protection des données]
× Increased understanding and awareness of the link between human rights and ICT, including AI
Implementation timeline
Duration of NAP 2
Means of implementation
× CNPD [Commission nationale pour la protection des données]
× UEL [Union des Entreprises Luxembourgeoises] / INDR [Institut National pour le Développement durat et la Responsabilité sociale des entreprises]
× Civil Society, including ALNU [Association Luxembourgeoise Pour les Nations Unies]
The 2020-22 NAP states the second edition of the National Action Plan complements the first NAP. Additional information about the first NAP can be found here.
Improving the provision of information to businesses
“… Internationally the government will participate in the benchmarking efforts of the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) on access to remedy by large enterprises in the agricultural, textile, mineral and ICT producing industries.” … p. 65.
The Nigeria NAP provides a list of existing constitutional obligations, domestic legislation, internation obligations, and police and administrative steps. This breakdown only looks at the list of challenges and the implementation of the 3 pillars of the UNGPs.
8.6 CHALLENGES “a. Casualisation of employment, especially in the oil and gas sector as well as the telecommunications, banking and financial services sectors.” (p.154)
Social Policy for Elderly People 2030. SAFETY – PARTICIPATION – SOLIDARITY
[page 16]
“Preventing economic (increasing social security), digital and technological exclusion of older persons will be implemented through strengthening the position of those persons in the labour market in order to ensure decent income from the work performed and subsequent pension benefits, in particular through:”
(…)
“increasing the awareness of older persons as regards the possibilities of increasing their professional activity thanks to the Internet and other telecommunications technologies.”
(…)
“Promoting knowledge of the principles of the silver economy among commercial and non-commercial entities will be implemented through:
– conducting information activities addressed to entrepreneurs, as well as social and solidarity economy entities as regards knowledge of the principles of the silver economy and needs and solutions related to accessibility and adaptation of websites and electronic services to older persons;”
4. Ministry of Family and Social Policy
The first Polish Strategy for Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030
[page 18]
“The document identifies eight priority areas of the Strategy.”
(…)
“Another priority area is ‘Accessibility’. Accessibility is one of the basic conditions for participation of persons with disabilities in social and professional life. For this group of people, it determines the possibility of performing social roles and leading an independent life. It also entails ensuring to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, buildings, transportation, information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services.”
Appendix 1 (information material prepared by the Ministry of Justice)
Trainings
[page 43-44]
5.Topic: Combating hate speech crimes committed via the Internet, reference No K28/21. “Specific issues discussed during the training include, among others: the Internet as a space for hate speech offences – the scale, dynamics and specificity of the phenomenon; identifying the perpetrator of an act of hate speech committed via the Internet, the problem of identity theft – pretending to be another person; hate speech as an element of prohibited acts and freedom of speech, national and international case law; overcoming technical and legal difficulties in obtaining evidence from Internet service providers, owners and administrators of social networking sites.”
“Internet freedom and privacy are among the great global issues of the future. It is fundamental for Sweden that the human rights that apply offline also apply online. Sweden has taken initiatives to strengthen the dialogue with business on internet freedom. As a result of a Swedish initiative, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises now call on companies to support human rights on the internet. In addition, Sweden was part of the group of countries that tabled resolutions on internet freedom in the UN Human Rights Council in 2012 and 2014. These resolutions were adopted unanimously. The Stockholm Internet Forum organised by Sweden in 2012, 2013 and 2014 has focused entirely on issues of internet freedom”
Annex: Links [page 30]
“The European Commission has produced a guide to human rights for small and mediumsized enterprises in Swedish, based on the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. The Commission has also developed industry-specific guides for extractive industries (oil and gas), temporary-work agencies and the ICT sector. These are available on the Commission website: www.ec.europa.eu”
2 National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights 2020-23
2.1 Pillar 1: state duty to protect
2.1.2 Operational principles: legislative and information policy measures
Guiding Principles 1 to 3
Measure 1: Rules on the export of war material and technologies for internet surveillance
The export or brokerage of technologies for internet and mobile communication surveillance is governed by the Ordonnance sur l’exportation et le courtage de biens destinés à la surveillance d’Internet et des communications mobiles (Ordinance on the export and brokerage of technologies for internet and mobile communications surveillance). A licence to export or to broker such goods must be refused if there is reason to believe that the exported or brokered good will be used by the final recipient as a means of repression.
Objective
Indicator
Responsibility
Implement legal provisions on the transfer of controlled goods with a view to ensuring that international law and, in particular, human rights are respected.
Report on Federal Council activities to the parliamentary Control Committees detailing exports of war material, and the foreign economic policy report that includes an appendix listing all goods exported under the Goods Control Act.
EAER [Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research]
Guiding Principle 10
Measure 21: Support for UN bodies in charge of promoting the UN Guiding Principles
The federal government will continue to lend political and financial support to the UN Working Group, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the annual UN Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva. It will work with these bodies on several projects that:
– establish authoritative guidelines on the application of UN Guiding Principles to fundamental issues in connection with the development, use and governance of digital technologies;
Continue promoting international human rights dialogue and cooperation (page 9)
‘In the area of digital human rights, as talks with the European Union regarding a GDPR adequacy decision for Taiwan move forward, we will move methodically toward the establishment of an agency tasked with responsibility for promoting the protection of personal information.’
This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, The state duty to protect, UNGP9, Actions planned (page 49-50).
Appendix 2: Concrete actions taken by Taiwan to ensure respect by businesses for human right
In order to strengthen enterprises’ CSR implementation and enhance human rights awareness, the Taiwanese government and civil society have implemented a number of support measures, including the following:
‘The Secure Online Shopping Association put forward a “Good 34 E-Commerce Code of Conduct.” The code’s purpose is to establish a self-regulated, orderly, fair, efficient, clear, and safe e-commerce environment that will ensure consumer rights and interests and build consumer confidence in e-commerce. The effort is also designed to promote the sound development of e-commerce, and seeks to optimize the welfare of both e-commerce operators and consumers.
Taiwan’s Asustek Computer, Acer Corporation, Hon Hai Technology, HTC, and TSMC are all members of the Responsible Business Alliance and follow the “Responsible Business Alliance Code of Conduct” to strengthen the management of supply chains.
Asustek, Acer, HTC, and TSMC are also members of the Responsible Minerals Initiative, which helps firms manage issues related to conflict minerals. This includes assistance in due diligence efforts.’
This information is also covered under Appendix 4: Overview of the implementation of the state duty to protect and the access to remedy, The state duty to protect, UNGP7, Actions taken (page 46).
The current policy, legal and regulatory framework related to promo on of fair competition and consumer protection is fragmented. A number of sub-sectors have policies and laws that govern the promo on of competition and consumer protection. These include; … telecommunications; electricity generation and distribution; petroleum extraction, development and distribution; Information and Communications Technology.
(…)
It is important to note that a Consumer protection and Competition Act was submitted to parliament in 2015, however, it has not yet been passed. In a number of major sub-sectors of the economy, it is evident that there is need for improved consumer protection. The areas include;
The Information and technology sub-sector; aggrieved consumers have to follow a court procedure which is a lengthy process in addressing consumer complaints. Moreover, the laws do not provide for a clear consumer rights and awareness mechanism.
The UK 2016 Updated NAP also makes a reference to ICT in the section discussing Actions taken [page 9]:
“To give effect to the UN Guiding Principles, the Government has: (…) strengthened international rules relating to digital surveillance, including leading work in the Wassenaar Arrangement to adopt new controls on specific technologies of concern. Specifically, new controls were agreed on: – equipment and software for creating and delivering “intrusion software” designed to be covertly installed on devices to extract data. – “internet surveillance systems” which can monitor and analyse internet traffic and extract information about individuals and their communications.”
The UK 2016 Updated NAP refers to ICT in the section Cyber Export Guidance [page 18]:
“The expansion of ‘cyber space’ has brought huge economic and social benefits. However, it also poses risks and new opportunities for hackers, criminals and terrorists. To help mitigate these risks, companies have developed security products and services which defend networks from malicious activity. In many countries, such as the UK, these products are used legitimately, including by law enforcement authorities, in accordance with domestic and international law obligations. However, in some countries which do not adhere to their international human rights obligations, there is a risk that the same products are used in ways that could breach state’s legal obligations, e.g. to restrict freedom of expression or to contribute to internal repression. Normally, exports that could cause harm, such as arms, are covered by the export licensing regime. However, many cyber capabilities, products and services are not listed. This problem was recognized by the Cyber Growth Partnership a joint body representing industry, academia and government. The FCO worked with techUK, a technology trade association, and the Institute for Human Rights and Business to produce practical guidance for companies on managing human rights risks. “Assessing Cyber Security Export Risks: Human Rights and National Security” was published in November 2014. It is the first guidance for this sector in the world, and sets out:
the different sorts of potential harm associated with particular cyber capabilities;
a process to help companies assess country specific risks and to evaluate business partners and re-sellers; and
potential mitigation options for avoiding or reducing risks.”
Section III: Additional National Action Plan Commitments …
Technology (p.25-29)
“As a leader in scientific development, technological progress, and business innovation, the United States plays a critical role in advancing respect for democracy and human rights in the design, development, governance, and use of technology and continues to work to advance an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet. Through our engagement with businesses and with multilateral and multistakeholder initiatives, the USG can further a free, open, and secure digital ecosystem aligned with respect for democratic principles and human rights, while countering the misuse of technology globally from artificial intelligencepowered mass surveillance and censorship at scale to violations of privacy through targeted cyber intrusions without proper safeguards or legal authorities. The following commitments leverage diplomatic tools and initiatives to strengthen respect for democracy and human rights in the technology sector.
Table 4: Technology Commitments
The Department of State will lead an interagency task force to drive outreach to international partners on issues regarding content authenticity and provenance. The task force will build on diplomatic efforts to internationalize the U.S. voluntary commitments to ensure safe, secure, and trustworthy AI and to solidify broad global consensus on an international approach to AI technologies. State will lead the task force to accomplish the following objectives:
Develop and promote a global norm for countries to detect AI-generated synthetic content and label authentic government-produced content;
Discuss and develop mechanisms to share information and best practices on content authentication and synthetic content detection, leveraging existing platforms and dialogue structures;
Advance support for developing countries and civil society to conduct content authentication and provenance, including providing technical consultations, exchanges, and assistance;
Encourage engagement by foreign partners in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce’s”) process around standards, tools, methods, and practices for content authentication, identification, and labelling, as well as preventing the use of AI models to generate nonconsensual intimate images; and
Support engagement with international standards bodies to encourage a common global content authentication standard.
USAID will launch a five-year Advancing Digital Democracy (ADD) program in 2024. The program will strengthen rights-respecting digital ecosystems to promote the use of technology and data to advance rather than undermine democratic values and human rights. A key objective for ADD is to increase the extent to which human rights considerations are embedded in the design, development, deployment, use, and procurement of digital technologies. To achieve this key objective, ADD will support multistakeholder approaches that strengthen networks among government, civil society, academia, technology professional associations, consumer rights groups, and local private sectors and increase their capacity and resources to grow rights-respecting digital economies in USAID partner countries.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a bureau within Commerce, will publish a report on creating mechanisms for earned trust in AI systems. NTIA published a Request for Comment in 2023 and is using this feedback and discussions with stakeholders to write the report. The report will address audits, assessments, certifications, and other mechanisms that can help provide assurance an AI system is trustworthy.
The Department of State will internationalize efforts related to responsible government design, development, use, procurement, and deployment of AI through multistakeholder and multilateral initiatives. State will engage with the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) to develop a pledge on responsible government development, use, and procurement of AI and will work with FOC members to develop new workstreams to promote knowledge-sharing among member governments to operationalize responsible AI principles. State will also continue to engage with the various regional and international organizations active in those efforts, including the International Telecommunication Union and its AI for Good platform-related efforts, as well as the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), including UNESCO’s implementation efforts in the public and private sectors for its Recommendation on the Ethics of AI to help advance human rights-based approaches to the development of AI systems and mitigate potential risks of the misuse of AI, including in procurement.
The Department of State will designate staff as human rights and technology officers to increase engagement at key multilateral fora, as part of related State and U.S. interagency workstreams, and at bilateral cyberspace and digital policy dialogues. These officers will advance innovative development, application, and rights-based governance of AI systems and other technologies.
The Department of State will further implementation of the Export Controls and Human Rights Initiative Code of Conduct (“Code”). State will lead a multilateral discussion with Subscribing States to further identify, define, and share best practices in implementing the UNGPs as part of the Code.
The Department of State, in consultation with relevant interagency partners, will lead development of guidance to encourage investors to conduct HRDD when considering investments in technologies that could enable or exacerbate human rights abuses. State, in consultation with civil society, including labor organizations, and private equity and venture capital investors, will develop guidance to discuss downstream risk factors associated with the misuse of technology, potential safeguards throughout the product lifecycle, how investors can influence business decisions in companies whose technologies have been proven to enable human rights abuses if used improperly, and best practices in conducting HRDD.
The Department of State will designate a labor and AI expert to increase engagement on the impact of AI throughout labor-related workstreams. The expert will consult with regional and functional teams on opportunities to increase attention to the impact of AI on internationally recognized labor rights, workplace safety, worker well-being, and labor rights issues arising within the AI value chain such as in data labeling and content moderation across multiple State workstreams.
The Department of State, in its implementation of the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally, will engage with the private sector to identify solutions to technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) through the Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse (“Global Partnership”). The Global Partnership focuses its work on three strategic objectives: advance national, regional, and multilateral policies; scale programming and resources; and strengthen the evidence base for preventing and responding to TFGBV. The Global Partnership will engage the private sector, including technology platforms, through expansion of its multistakeholder Advisory Group and through a series of dialogues to increase shared understanding of and identify solutions to TFGBV in line with the Global Partnership’s three strategic objectives.
The Department of State will launch a new program, “Safe Online: Empowering Women in the Digital Economy,” to address risks of TFGBV facing women in business and the obstacles to women’s inclusion in the digital economy in Armenia and Georgia. In partnership with local organizations in each country, the program will encourage governments and private companies to implement online TFGBV and sexual harassment policies to improve the enabling environment for women in business. This program is supported by the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund.
The Department of State will work with Treasury to convene an interagency working group to strengthen human rights safeguards that apply to multilateral development bank funded telecommunications infrastructure projects.
The Department of State will engage with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on best practices for how ISPs can mitigate risks of Internet shutdowns. These best practices will be developed through a multistakeholder group focused on network restrictions or disruptions and will be promoted multilaterally.
The Department of State is releasing U.S. Guidance for Online Platforms on Protecting HRDs. The USG, building upon joint guidance released with the European Union through the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, is publishing detailed guidance for online platforms on how companies can effectively collaborate and coordinate with civil society and other relevant stakeholders to identify, address, mitigate, prevent, and enable access to remedies for online threats and attacks against HRDs.
The Department of Labor will explore the effects of the digitalization of the labor market on workers’ rights and identify best practices for companies to address negative impacts. Digitalization of the labor market holds significant potential to increase productivity, safety, and accessibility for workers but also presents potential risks for workers, including algorithmic bias and non-transparency surrounding automated systems. DOL will engage in efforts to identify best practices for companies to understand and address these impacts, such as adopting measures for companies to provide relevant information to workers on company use of automated systems and promoting among companies the creation of communication channels where workers and their representatives across enterprises can exchange information on the use of automated systems in the world of work.”
