ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

The platform on Disrupting Technological Innovation of the Centre for Global Challenges held an interdisciplinary and online conference entitled ‘Ethical Governance of Surveillance Technologies: Global Challenges and Divergent Perspectives’ on 30 October and 5 November 2020.

The online conference brought together a diverse group of researchers, experts, and students to examine how crises and crisis-narratives interact with the ongoing transformation in the governance of surveillance technologies in different parts of the world. Taking the Covid-19 pandemic as a starting point, the conference investigated the interplays between science and technology, human rights, ethics, culture and surveillance technologies. An innovative and interactive online conference design facilitated an ongoing conversation between scheduled speakers and registered participants.

Intensified concerns

The wider context for the conference relates to the increasing sophistication and globalisation of surveillance technologies, which has intensified concerns about whether existing governance structures and human rights principles provide adequate protections for individuals. At the same time, the urgent need for effective coordination of responses to global crises has strengthened calls for solutions that rely heavily on surveillance technologies. Faced with these conflicting concerns, many states are increasingly invoking ‘extraordinary circumstances‘ to legitimate the heightened surveillance of individuals. But there are profound differences between and within countries in how much weight is given to appeals to crises. The Covid-19 pandemic provides a particularly compelling illustration of this constellation of issues raised at the intersection of surveillance technology, divergent legal and cultural perspectives, and crisis narratives.

Global character

The global character of the conference was reflected not only in the issues addressed (especially the context-dependence of the ethical concerns) but also the speakers and panelists themselves, originating from South Korea, Turkey, Zimbabwe, Sweden, Israel, the US, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The conference also drew a diverse audience. Some registered participants were academic researchers, while other participants worked in a variety of societal sectors, such as Dutch ministries and non-governmental organisations, such as the UN Global Pulse. There was also a large group of students from different M.A. programs who participated: these students were given the opportunity to help orient the conference in a preparatory session, a week prior to the conference, where they were asked to come up with questions to guide the discussions at the conference.

Each conference day had a “break-out session” , during which participants were randomly distributed into groups of five to seven people for a half-hour.. The goal of these sessions was to formulate statements to which a panel of experts could react at the end of the conference. This interplay between participants and speakers led to fruitful discussions with some interesting results.

Protection of fundamental rights versus the role of trust

A central theme that emerged in the discussions on both conference days was the issue of the protection of fundamental rights versus the role of trust, which was found to be important in both the design and the adoption of surveillance technologies in times of crisis. This raised questions about how trust should be understood, and when it is warranted. Although differences in trust in public institutions may explain some of the divergence in the ways different countries deal with surveillance technologies, it was also emphasised that the degree of trust within countries is not uniform, and groups in different social positions can experience different effects from the same surveillance technologies. On top of this, both inter- and intranational factors can lead to there being more trust in private companies than in public institutions, which complicates the question who should take responsibility for surveillance technologies in times of crisis.

When the planning for this conference first started – over a year ago – the decision was already made to do it in a way that could facilitate remote participation both for reasons of increased global participation and decreased carbon footprint. The current “times of crisis” may not actually be so divergent. In her keynote, Karen Loevy critically interrogated the expectation of returning to an “old normal” after crises. In many ways, we all look forward to more in-person meetings with colleagues, but this conference also suggests that the “new normal” may have some real advantages.