Bill Echikson
Thanks for joining us here today. I’m Bill Echikson, a Senior Fellow specializing in digital policy at the Center for European Policy Analysis. The saying goes that data is the new oil and if that’s so then data only can achieve its full economic potential if it flows freely around the globe. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Authoritarian countries led by China and Russia are restricting data flows and building up giant digital walls. Democracies unwittingly or wittingly are also restricting data flows out of privacy concerns. We’re here to discuss an important initiative led by the Japanese government to break down those data walls, at least among democracies. It’s called Data Flows with Trust. At the upcoming G7 Summit this week in Hiroshima leaders will discuss how to manage the emergence of powerful new artificial intelligence systems like chatGPT and how to confront China’s tech ambition. Let me introduce the speakers. We have first Hideaki Fujisawa, Minister in the Economic Section of the Embassy of Japan to the United States. We have Geoffrey Gertz, Director of International Economics at the US National Security Council. We have Karen Kornbluh, Managing Director of Digital Innovation and Democracy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Rob Strayer, Executive Vice President Global Policy Information Technology Industry Council, and finally, Theodore Christakis, a Senior Fellow at the, and Professor of International and European law at the University of Grenoble, Alpes, good. Mr. Fujisawa, let’s start with you, you Japan is the author of this proposal. The data free flow for tust has taken the main stage in the pre talks, or one of the main stages in the pre talks at this G7 Summit. Could you briefly explain the proposal and speak about why your government made it?
Hideaki Fujisawa
Oh, thank you, Bill so I’m so, this is Hideaki Fujisawa, so I’m an Economic Minister in the Embassy of Japan. First of all, it’s a great honor to for me to participate in the wonderful panel discussion today. Thank you both very much for having me. So yes, so this year Japan holds the presidency of the G7. More than a year has passed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But we can find the roadmap to end the brutal behavior. The invasion has affected the entire world in the boldest ways, so against this backdrop G7 Summit will be held this weekend, actually, with the leaders of the world’s leading economies, government, Hiroshima and we’re traveling toward national security and economic issues are no longer discussed separately. So, the G7, which discuses global affairs is expected to discuss many topics related to economic economy this year. Specifically the G7 is expected discuss economic security such as how to make supply chain resilient and protect critical minerals and how to secure energy supplies for countries around the world including the global south. So digital policy, especially the DFFT, so as I said, data free flow is trust, which is one of the important issues for new economic policy reform the Joe Clark law perspective. Last century, digital technology has transforming society, the economy and the people’s lifestyles, creating various issues to be discussed at the G7. In addition to that, it has become extremely important to consider your political aspects and discuss these troubles. So plan prior to the G7 Summit this week, the G7 Digital and Tech Ministers meeting was held after the end of April, they may still get relation was adopted and outcome of the meeting. So please, for example, they’re promoting responsible AI and the global AI governance was the major theme, policymaking of AI is becoming important due to rapid technological progress and its diffusion in society, including a general age of AI researchers very recently become the hot topic. Japan is willing to lead discussion among the G7 and like minded countries about this AI issue. And crucially, internet governance was also ingredient in ministry regulation. For example, G7 committed itself to the declaration for the future of internet, and Japan said its commited, commitment to cooperating for its implementation. So these kinds of discussion as allies on the agenda, but while the main deliverable, deliverables of the G7 Digital Minister Meeting was the endorsement of the launch of the institutional arrangement for partnership IAP on which is the first in charge of framework for data. The IAP is a framework for solving creating challenges in terms of data fraud, in which governments and business are brought together to address data related issues to the implementation of projects. Once again I try to briefly explain the background of the DFFT, at the present, there is a no global agreement on digital rules and major countries plays different parties on them, especially digital protectionism, by the way, the author of changing countries could be the opposite of their body of data. On the other hand, even looking at Atlantic relations, yeah, exactly what is CEPA is focusing on there are some differences in views between the United States and in this situation is not changing the digital world may be you know, Blockchain age and the nation have also begun countries with technological power may govern the global digital economy. It is my, so, we have been devising the concept of DFFT since bands are pledges to or reduce have been edgy 20 also going in 2019. So, we have big no encouraging the careful discussion, Nicola in WTO, and the year that you balance the need for the digital business environment for companies to consumer confidence.
Bill Echikson
Thanks. I think that’s a good introduction. Yeah, okay. Because we’d like to keep it going. Thank you. Mr. Gertz, what’s the position of the United States on data flows with trust and how would this play into the European debate about adequacy and the privacy shield for transatlantic data flows?
Geoffrey Gertz
Great, thanks, Bill and thank you to CEPA for organizing this event. Real pleasure to join you and the other panelists here today to talk about data free flow with trust. So you know, I’ll start by saying that the free flow of data across borders is really critical. It’s enabled countless benefits to societies and economies across the globe. Global communications, joint research, the ability for small startups to scale are all enabled by data global free flows of data. And you know, it’s right please remember that this is not just important for large tech companies, but for companies large and small across all sectors of the economy. At the same time, we know that unfettered access to data in the wrong hands poses risks to both privacy and national security, and can undermine democratic institutions can be used to spread misinformation enable discrimination and human rights abuses. So really, we believe the global community needs to work together to develop approaches to data governance that protect national security and human rights while also enabling innovation and economic growth. So you know, since you mentioned the EU discussions, I’m gonna start there with a few brief comments. The EU US data privacy framework is the culmination of a joint effort by the United States and the European Commission to restore stability to transatlantic data flows following the trends to decision. So under the data privacy framework, the United States has made unprecedented commitments of first to strengthen privacy and civil liberties safeguards governing US signals intelligence, second to establish a new redress mechanism with independent and binding authority, and third to enhance existing rigorous and layered oversight of signals intelligence activities. So we continue to work with the European Commission in finalizing the adequacy process. Which will restore full legal certainty to transatlantic data flows which underpin the $7 trillion transatlantic economy. To be clear, we believe this framework fully addresses the concerns outlined in the Schrems II judgment and are confident will provide a durable legal basis for transatlantic data flows. But we also know that restoring EU US data flows, while unnecessary is definitely not sufficient. These are global conversations. We need global interoperable norms and rules to ensure that protection of data is being adaptable to different systems of government. And so that’s one of the reasons why the United States is working with eight other partners, including Japan, I note to expand the global cross border privacy rules system. That’s one of our kind of high priorities in these spaces. It’s an interoperable global framework for commercial data privacy. It’s also why the United States worked with partners with the OECD to negotiate the OECD Declaration on Government Access to Personal Data held by private sector entities. This was published last December, the declaration articulates common approaches to safeguarding privacy, human rights and freedoms when governments access personal data for national security and law enforcement purposes, quite excited about that as well. And then, you know, certainly the reason we’re here to talk today is why we’re also very grateful for Japan’s long standing leadership on data free flow with trust, and excited to join in the new initiative that the Minister was just speaking about. So you know, secure and trusted global data flows require that like minded governments work together requires defining what trust means, requires sharing information about the checks and balances in their different legal systems. And identifying commonalities and minimum technical standards to ensure data is protected from those who have not played by the same rules. Governments need to work with industry, academia and civil society to develop these shared understandings and trust across the ecosystem. And that’s why we’re very excited to be working with Japan and other G7 partners to make progress on this political agenda. I’ll stop there as introductory remarks and happy to continue the conversation.
Bill Echikson
Yeah, thanks. Ambassador Kornbluh, we met when you were at the OECD and the OECD is really leading on this issue. How can we operationalize I mean, some of the nice words about principles but what can we make them concrete?
Karen Kornbluh
That’s a great question and I’m so enthusiastic about the work that Japan is leading and the US is collaborating on in the G7, and hopefully, in the G20, as well. So I co chair, a global taskforce of experts on trusted data flows with Julie Brill, the former FTC Commissioner, and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft, and we’ve been taking a look at these issues for the last year. And there are two trends that I think are, are happening at the same time that are really important to take note of as we’re as we’re trying to address these issues to the G7. One is that as, as was just said, as Geoff just talking about, there’s been this incredible momentum that’s been created at the OECD. And what I hear is important about the OECD process is two things. One is just getting the uh, the intelligence communities to sit down with the privacy officials has been incredibly important. And then the second piece has been the agreement on principles, that we all follow these principles, and that this is what democratic nations and our our allies commit to. So that’s been incredibly important, then there’s also been this work on the US EU framework, the cloud act, movement forward on law enforcement issues, and then the CVPR work on commercial data privacy, so a lot of momentum, that it is incredibly important to leverage and take advantage of and lock in and build on. But on the other hand, there’s been increasing nervousness on behalf of national governments and movements towards other kinds of adequacy of saying, you know, I need to keep, we need to keep data local. And I don’t just mean in the US, but I mean, the EU. In the US as well, we’re concerned more and more about supply chains, and about cybersecurity and having data localized. We see that here, we see that in the EU, we see that in other places, and these reflect real concerns. But I think what we need to do is combine the progress we’ve made with some more granular ways of addressing the concerns of countries, because it’s not always as we know, in on this call, it’s not always the solution to keep the data localized, if you have some real concerns about cybersecurity, about getting access to your data. And the classic example, of course, is Ukraine, that Ukraine put its data in the cloud, and that was more secure than keeping the data on servers in country. So what we’re trying to do and I’ll just wrap this up real quick, um what we’re trying to do is figure out what not what’s the solution but what are some building blocks that we can put in place taking advantage of the progress that’s been made to start giving assurance to, to countries with these concerns. And we think that the the G7 process is just a wonderful opportunity, as they’re saying, to institutionalize it, and to think about what to do what to do next to build on these this progress.
Bill Echikson
Yeah, I think those are really good points. I mean, the, especially the cybersecurity or the lack of cybersecurity when you data, localize your data. So yeah. Mr. Christakis, Professor Christakis, I should say you were also working at the OECD, I believe on these on these principles. How do you find, and you’re in Europe now in Grenoble, I believe. Is Europe ready to accept this sort of, or, or feeling that data flows with trust threatens its sort of ability to decide who’s adequate and who isn’t in in data privacy?
Theodore Christakis
Yes, thanks. And apologies, I have some connection problems I’m connected with my telephone, still have been working as an external consultant in the OECD process. And I’m really delighted as Karen said that this process was successful. It was extremely important. Let me explain why. A few years ago, until a few years ago, the problem of government access to data held by the private sector was not a real issue in relation with international data transfers. If you see for instance, if we take the place where privacy is so important data protection is so important in Europe, the European Union, if you see the first adequacy decisions given to countries like Switzerland in 2000, in the year 2000, or for instances, right in year 2011, or New Zealand in year 2013, it was only two pages, and was only focusing on one issue, which was protection of data by the private sector. There was nothing at all about government data. And then suddenly really two big earthquakes happened. The first was the Snowden revelations 2013 and then immediately afterwards that are very much linked to this, the Schrems I decision in 2015, invalidating the safe harbor arrangement. And then suddenly, things change dramatically. If you see the subsequent adequacy decisions. with countries like for instance, South Korea in 2021, 122 pages with Japan, also almost 100 pages with the UK, 93 pages plus 52 concerning law enforcement directive. And most of these, the real focus is now government access to the data, which is extremely interesting, of course, you mentioned also the draft adequacy decision under discussion now and hopefully, will should be adopted with the United States in late June, early July. Now, not only these, but you see that other countries started to adopt the adequacy model, I was reading an article recently saying that there are 61 countries, including countries, it makes no sense at all like Russia. I mean, Russia has so low standards in terms of data protection and in terms of surveys, what does it mean, to give an adequacy decision in relation with what what kind of essential equivalence with Russian law on these issues? You know, it’s, it becomes a little bit, you know, I could say it makes love sometimes, this model of adequacy. And not only this, but as matter of fact, adequacy makes a lot of sense, we see that even the United States adopted the adequacy model in the second part of the cloud act, saying that they will only give this possibility to countries to qualify governments who meet some human rights requirements. So the United States was fighting against adequacy for a lot of years saying that, you know, it was double standards and things like that. And at the same time, they have been influenced themselves by the adequacy model in the second part of the cloud, which is a little bit crazy, because as a matter of fact, if you look at the adequacy model, the adequacy model is huge international negotiations, like for instance, take what is happening with the United States and and the European Union, years of very hard, tough negotiation. We tell with what I come from international law background, I can tell you that do not end with something which has to do with international law. The end of this process of this international process is what is a unilateral decision by the European Union saying that the United States offers an essential equivalent protection, a unilateral decision could be at any time strike down by the Court of Justice of the European Union. But if you follow this logic of international strong international negotiations, which we learned in later decision I have calculated, we have 193 member states of the EU, and I’m just talking about them, you will need 37, 249 adequacy decisions in order to have a free data flows, withdraws between all these countries, you understand that it is completely crazy, we need some kind of international process. We need somehow countries to get together and define what should be the standards and have some kind of international laws of love. And this is why as a matter of fact, what happened with the OECD and I was very fortunate to participate with this very interesting process was extremely important, because you cannot do this at the level of the UN, I’m sorry, there are so many authoritarian regimes. There are so many problems with human rights, we see already what is going on with the discussions concerning the cybercrime, the UN cybercrime, conven- convention, the huge issues concerning protection of human rights. So you need to start between, let’s say, like minded countries, and the OECD was a perfect forum for this and Japan had a brilliant at the end, continue to have a brilliant idea, which is you take 38 states, which are mostly democracy, which have some very important standards, and you try to identify you start in a pretty modest way you try to identify commonalities, this will what they will see the declaration did. So some people might be disappointed. It’s not new loads, commonalities. It’s not binding law, it’s soft law. But they don’t know that in relation to international law. Most of the times, we can do amazing things with soft law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was soft law and now it’s custom all over the world. The declaration, the principles concerning friendlier relations among states in 1970, was soft law, but it’s the most famous instrument of customary law, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples were soft law, and they were brilliant, the indigenous peoples are soft law. So you can do a lot of things with soft law, but you need to continue this process. And I will end there, Mr. Chair, you need to continue this process you need first of all, to have other countries, other big democracies to join, you need Brazil, you need India, you need all these big countries to join and to send a message to authoritarian regimes who are based on on a logic of surveillance. And that Japan, it’s I would really like to say that it is brilliant that they want to continue this process, which is also the legacy of the legacy of the former Prime Minister Abe, and but the G7 that means nothing, the G7 is an informal institution that don’t have a secretariat. So the only way to do it will be to go back to the OECD and you need back to the OECD, I’ve worked a lot of times with the OECD, there are a lot of fora, informal fora, you can continue this work, and that’s currents. And it was not just the principles, it was also the process for the first time you had for the first time in history you had representatives of national security agencies from all these countries, plus representatives of law enforcement agencies, even the two communities don’t necessarily know don’t speak to each other all the time. And then you have the privacy, also people and this is where you will be able to advance to advance good practice and standards, there’s a lot of things to do. And this is what the DMF initiative is doing, for instance, or the Chatham House and you see it is similar incentive. There are a lot a lot of things to do without doubt. And there is a lot of value in this process in order to create a real international system of free data flow with trust. Thank you very much.
Bill Echikson
Thank you. I mean, and I do agree that the OECD can start as a small group, and that’s been the criticism but expand as they did with the tax negotiation. So set the, set the goals and move forward. Rob Strayer, in Washington, how do you perceive what you’ve heard? What, is Washington really very excited about this proposal? And uh.
Rob Strayer
Short, short answer. Yes. I think that Washington and those in industry are very excited about the what came out of the G7 ministerial meeting. We really are at an inflection point. I mean, in the last four years, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has calculated that we’ve had a doubling in the number of countries that have regulations that require explicit or de facto localization of data and those localizations are happening because of privacy because of cybersecurity. And in the area of cybersecurity it’s really important to note that if the way that cyber attacks are launched around the world, if you don’t have surveillance about systems and networks, you can’t defeat those global cyber attacks. There’s also localization because of limitations on data transfers, which Professor Christakis just noticed. You know, he mentioned that there, if you had an agreement between every country for adequacy with every other country, that would be more than 37,000 agreements, the only thing I would add on to that is that each of those could require its own model contract clause, what they call standard contract clause. And that’s the framework that most businesses now are using to transfer their data legally, is these contract clauses, the answer to their agreements between data controllers and data processors? So it’s really important to note how complex that gets for data flows in the future and it’s not something that’s scalable, as they say, in the tech industry.
Bill Echikson
What do you see, what do you see as the next concrete steps to take? I mean, you said the G7 agreement, the digital ministers was was positive, but it still remained rather general, in my mind. What? Well,
Rob Strayer
I think what’s really great that came from the G7 ministers is, is this that we got to realize that data flows impacts so many parts of everyone’s government, just use Japan as an example, all three of their digital related ministers, their trade minister, their communications minister, and the digital agency minister all came together both for that ministerial and for the side events that happened before it, I actually hosted one with JADA, the Japanese trade association, and all three ministers participated in that and, and the actual Summit, that kind of coordination is what’s going to have to happen through the mechanism, that institutional arrangement for partnership, if that’s going to be hosted at the OECD, that’s going to uplevel this discussion, because it’s a trade discussion, it’s a national security discussion, and it’s a controversial discussion. So that needs to be brought together. And I think the most important line item that I would highlight within the annex from the from the G7 ministerial digital ministerial, is the line about regulatory cooperation. That is how can we achieve the goals of government building trust in data by adopting at least harmonized and interoperable policies, if not having unification of the policies?
Bill Echikson
Anyone else on the panel have some ideas about what concretely could push forward this initiative? Or fill it in?
Karen Kornbluh
I do want to pick up on what Professor Christakis said about soft law and the power of soft law, and just to underscore that, because, you know, I think we’ve our our understanding of multilateral institutions and multilateral mechanisms is a little rusty, you know, we think of it’s not something at the WTO where you can bring a case, it’s not meaningful. But if you look at as he said, if you look at at, you know, the examples that he provided, it’s true. I also saw what happens with the anti bribery convention at the OECD, which actually is a treaty, but its enforcement is all in name and shame and, and reviews. And then, even in the era in the in the, in the area of cybersecurity, where we’ve been talking about norms, norms norms for so long, and finally, they’re becoming enforceable. So I think it’s really, I think, I think a soft law. Agreement is is something to really recognize and celebrate and move move forward on.
Bill Echikson
I think that’s, it’s great. Mr. Fujisawa or or Mr. Gertz, any other ideas concretely on what you might negotiate what might come forward in the next year or so on data flows?
Hideaki Fujisawa
Yeah, thank you very much, actually, yeah, as I mentioned, so, we are now creating a new grammar for the IAP, which is a very plucked approach, not just focusing on the domes of something. So we should, you know, change the world by you know, in that kind of approach or way. So, I’d like to touch upon the three elements of the future of the IAP here. So, first, you have TRICARE for this is a project driven approach is a set of expected that in a complete project will be launched. Do you have a specific, do you have a specific topic? Now we think about that, you know, with you know, with colleagues or you know, stakeholders together, Christian OECD is made harder for us to you know, mobilize this a framework. So, so, we should you know, gathers informations, but at the same time, we should, you know, accept the differences among countries, so maybe slow talk and our project base there and approach might be better to move forward this discussion. So pragmatic rates are better. And one things about the importance of technologies as well. Yes, in our case, we have some, you know, privacy, enhancing technologies. PhDs are like that. So we can utilize these technologies to this project based approach. So it’s the mind, and although it might be a little bit a smaller one, that we can, you know, have some demonstration projects, to the discussion and the playback of it. Thank you.
Bill Echikson
Yeah and Mr. Gertz with what, what concrete steps would you like to see after you’ve listened to this discussion?
Geoffrey Gertz
Great, thanks. So, you know, I think, as Mr. Fujisawa just mentioned, you know, I think we’re really excited about these are project based approach in the institutional arrangement for partnership. And I think, you know, one of the things that we see is really appealing about this is the way it brings together stakeholders and government officials. And so I think core to this process is we really want to hear more from stakeholders on what are the projects that they think would be most useful as kind of immediate next steps. So we’re kind of certainly keen to hear from Karen, Theodore, Rob, and sort of, you know, full range of stakeholders on what are the best steps to take forward. So, you know, but I don’t want to get kind of too far ahead of that process, I think by saying, you know, here’s the next 10 things we want to do. Really, the appeal of IAP is sort of setting out that structure that then is the forum to happen, discussions about what are the best next projects.
Bill Echikson
Yeah, so the floor is open. For, for filling in to tell them. Yes, go Theodore.
Theodore Christakis
Yes, I think I totally agree with what what has been said. And let’s just think also that we’re not just talking about one process, the one of initiated by Japan, this is combined to other very important things, this will not stop the adequacy process, which is we think that GDPR extended the the DNA of the GDPR, to have free data flows, but with trust, the GDPR is open, and the European Union has always been open. So you will continue this very important process of privacy of adequacy, exactly in the same way that the United States will continue to conclude cloud act agreements. So we will have let’s not forget, for instance, we have also a negotiation, very important negotiation going on right now, between the European Union, the United States concerning, real international trade and law enforcement access to data. And all these things here, they if they are successful, will also be very helpful in order to promote global standards to have at the same time discussions for a binding convention 108 Plus and the interpretation of article 11, or the Council of Europe, this is extremely important. We have the protocol to the Budapest Convention, which concerns law enforcement also access to so all this is a piece of a big puzzle. And to go back to your real question about this process. I think that what is really fantastic with OECD is that the it’s the only organization that can have a real, real multi stakeholder approach. Not totally, you have delegations, which are absolutely impressive, because once again, this has never happened in history before what happened during the OECD process. You have all these national security people discussing to each other, you know, normally it’s something which is entirely devastated by secrecy. And for the first time they were they’re discussing common practice commonalities. And looking to every comma in this declaration, this has been absolutely impressive, and some of the people who participated here know it. So this is this process was very important, but at the same time you have the OECD has the civil society. And due to the constraints, there was no possibility to to involve the civil society as much as the OECD would have wanted. There has a habit to do, but they will definitely do it if there is a continuation of the process. And you have the business. Also, there are the ones as Rob said, there are suffering from these situations, you have dozens of thousands of businesses, hundreds thousands who are hostages to the situation related to government access to data and they can think a lot of elements and you can do fantastic things during the OECD process in combination with the other things that I have mentioned. You can have discussions going on, you can move move from commonalities to the promotion of best practices that will also be adopted by other countries. More and more countries joining like Brazil, India, once again, you can have also new rules which will start as soft, as Karen said, but which will have probably more influence than, because if you try to do hard law immediately, nobody, everybody will raise the shields and nobody would like to put something important in the text, while with soft law, what is good is that you can go far enough and indigenous people can recognize these and they were able to put the amazing things in their own declaration on on there, right? So you can have all the things and many others that I think you can even start to dreaming of organizing something or you know, helping organize something like a meaningful dialogue between oversight bodies around the world, because until now, it has been very timid and you know, oversight bodies are scared or afraid to speak to each other, because they are afraid of secrecy issues. But somehow you might find very inventive and constructive ways because otherwise oversight bodies all over the world have to reinvent the wheel, and to answer same kind of questions and to deal with same kinds of problems without even daring asking, what is going on in another jurisdiction? So a lot a lot of things. And probably let me end with utopia. This will be my final word belief. What about non spy agreements, concluding not spying agreements between democracies, of course, people will tell me you’re crazy, you cannot make international law to stop this second oldest profession. But as a matter of fact, there are some good things you can focus on some specific issues and promotion of some specific best practice, for instance, we don’t spy on we don’t request access to the public data stored with cloud providers public sector data, you know that you can start with very specific issues without hindering in any way, the capacity and the real need for democracies to be able to do intelligence in order to protect us. And we know how important that is, when we just see the importance of intelligence within the framework of the the aggression, the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and how important intelligence has been in order to help Ukraine exercise its right to self defense. Thank you very much.
Bill Echikson
No, I think that’s very interesting. I mean, another subject that sounds like a data flows, we let the genie out of the bottle and everything became very, very messy. Now we have AI and the leaders at the G7 tecH digital ministers talked about that. I think, before chat GPT was sort of a technical issue, like data flows and now it’s a front page issue. Do you see any progress coming at the G7? And some of the lessons we’ve learned from this data flows debate being able to be brought there? Are we going to have a conflict between the United States in Europe and other democracies between us?
Rob Strayer
Yeah no, if could start, I think that the commonality might be that, you know, we’re seeking of objective standards that are applied, applied to data flows. The cross border privacy rules are one area where we might see objective standards being applied in a more universal format that enhances interoperability near artificial intelligence. The G7 ministerial statement from the digital ministers mentions the important role that international standards place, there’s something called the international standards organization that works with the International Electrotechnical Commission to have this thing called the joint technical committee, which is basically the body that sets technical standards for information technology. They have a subcommittee that focus on AI. So far, that subcommittee has produced almost a dozen standards, it’s another dozen or so in the pipeline, they have a standard on risk management for AI. So adoption and understanding of the role that standards can play in the regulatory area for artificial intelligence, I think something really important that can come out of this OECD process or at the OECD, their 2019 OECD trust principles, but also be applied more broadly, among the G7 countries understanding the role that is of international standards.
Bill Echikson
Yeah, it’s interesting in the latest draft of the AI Act, in Parliament, European Parliament, they did discuss and agree on using the OECD definitions at least and if standards. Anyone else on AI, or is it a looming clash among democracies? Karen?
Karen Kornbluh
Yeah, no, I, I think the EU was gonna force the issue again, just as they have with data flows and the AI Act, you know, their first mover on that we’re still having a conversation in the US about ethics and what companies are going to do voluntarily and we don’t even have, you know, we’re not hearing what that will be. So I think it’ll be really interesting to hear, to see what the, what, where the AI Act winds up I mean, NTIA has put out something for comment and the administration is working on some stuff. And the FTC has, has said something very interesting, which is we’re going to enforce the laws that apply and the standards that apply and the norms that apply in other sectors to the world of AI. And so I think I think we’ll see how that that approach works with the European approach. But I think overarching it all overarching these domestic laws, we have to have some general overarching principles and that’s where I think the data flows fit in.
Bill Echikson
Yeah, yes, Theodore.
Theodore Christakis
Yes. Just as a follow up, I think that definitely there is a discussion to make at the international level with like minded countries and democracies, democracy’s starting, of course, with a eu, US tech technology council, about all these issues, the use of spyware, for instance, to major issue, the issue of deep fakes, and more generally, as you said, artificial intelligence, including, of course, generic of AI, which opens entirely and you will see all these calls for moratoria for a you know, these concerns coming from people, you you really, you really trust. And somehow I think it is very important for democracies, like EU Member States, the United States, Japan and other democracies to do some common soul searching about what does it mean to be a democracy at the age at the era of AI, and all these absolutely amazing technological tools. Just I have here a code that the European Court of Human Rights often repeats in surveillance cases. And I found it extremely interesting and very much reflecting what needs to be done. The techniques applied in monitoring operations have demonstrated remarkable progress in recent years and reached a level of sophistication, which is hardly conceivable for the average citizen. In the face of this progress, the court must scrutinize the question as to whether the development of surveillance methods resulting in masses of data collected has been accompanied by simultaneous development of legal standards, securing respect for citizens convention rights. Of course, this is a European Court of Human Rights. But this expresses in reality, all these concerns that we see also in the United States and in other democracies, and the bigger issue is how to regulate probably you will not be able to stop these developments. And, and you know, you have also this article saying that he will stop them, then the Chinese will do it. And they will have a lid on all this. And this will be or the Russians, and this could become really scary for democracies, and we will shoot ourselves on the foot. So how somehow you need to anticipate and to see how to regulate how to do this in a way that will be acceptable. And this is, of course, what the European Union is trying to do with the AIA act. But you see that there is some rush, unfortunately, because the whole AI Act was based on a risk based approach and had the perfect logic so that you will, like be able to regulate without hindering innovation. And suddenly, there was panic with a set of generative AI and strategies. And they started at the very anti European Parliament to change the logic and to introduce an entirely new logic in Annex three. And I think that this is a little bit problematic. And this shows that probably, even though the European Union won’t, to the AI act to lead the world last guaranted have the second GDPR with global influence, and the Brussels effect, as a matter of fact, probably there is a real need for allies to come together and to see how they will be able to harness this beast without hindering innovation, because there are a lot a lot of extremely positive outcomes that can come from all these.
Bill Echikson
Yeah, yes. I’m just gonna point to you, Mr. Gertz.
Geoffrey Gertz
Happy to quickly come in here. Yeah. So I think, you know, agree with what’s been said certainly, you know, we look at AI as both an extremely powerful technology extremely rapidly evolving technology. And really, you know, the focus is how do we kind of seize the opportunities that it presents, while also mitigating the risks and focus on you know, most of different kinds of risks those risks to our economy and ensuring kind of the labor force impacts of its risks of society in terms of sort of disinformation and sort of other aspects, but also certainly the risks of national security. And so kind of looking through all three of those lenses about how we think about models for regulating AI And that preserve this innovation, I really have dropped to sort of focus on responsible innovation as AI develops. So as you perhaps saw, we had four leading CEOs here at the White House a couple of weeks back now from Alpha alphabet, anthropic and Microsoft and open AI for quite a good discussion on these issues. You know, I think, broadly, the points that we need to work with allies, like minded partners, fully agree, so something that we’ve had long standing and discussions with our European partners through the Korean Technology Council, certainly also an issue discussing very closely in the g7, as well as at the OECD. So I think, you know, I can say that I’m confident these are going to be kind of important discussions are going to take up kind of more and more time, and all three of those bodies probably going forward. So, you know, key,
Bill Echikson
I mean, if you’re does change the whole perspective, and become much more restrictive on AI, that that would be something that would cause a conflict with us.
Geoffrey Gertz
You know, I think like, we certainly have been closely following the AI act and sort of engaging with your European counterparts on it. I think, you know, again, on a lot of these issues, we have broadly similar outlooks and sort of shared goals and shared concerns on these things. So the question is sort of how do we most effectively work together? And maybe to come back a bit to sort of some of the data flows points is that, you know, the real similarity, I think, is that we need to ensure we have kind of interoperability between our regulatory systems, which suddenly we’ve been sort of working on for a long time on data flows, and hopefully we can kind of get that set up quick, more quickly, I should say, on AI bossing.
Bill Echikson
Okay, let’s finish up by talking about the elephant in the room, China. We’ve mentioned Russia a little bit in Russia and Ukraine. But how does China play into this equation on data flows on AI, and the attempt by democracies to form a democratic way of looking at these issues? Does anyone have a comment on China? And is China actually driving the democracies together to to do this? In a similar way? I think I’ve silenced you all. Yes, Mr. Fujisawa?
Hideaki Fujisawa
Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir, for your very important topic. Issues. Actually, Japan is a the Asian country, in the East Asia. So China is our country. So So yeah, of course, no, we need to tackle this challenge in terms of digital or data free flow. Actually, you know, first of all, for examples of Southeast Asia, so they are facing single the became friends from Chinese, you know, platformers, or big tech. So they’re using some technology from a China moment. So we need to address this issue. So that’s why so, for example, our IEP should be, you know, broaden to this lesion. By, you know, engaging their stockholders. So, of course, now we need to, you know, unite the g7 members, but not limited to these members. So we need to broaden this discussion to Asia as well, because of their big challenge from China. So what are you thinking? Yeah,
Bill Echikson
no, I think it makes sense. We’re hearing Brazil and, and other democracies India need to be put into the process on data free flows, and I think on AI as well. Any other comments on China or any other? Yes, Rob,
Rob Strayer
as in sort of in line with that, if thinking about the greater Indo Pacific, it’s really important that the administration’s proposal to another dozen countries in the Indo Pacific economic framework, does address data does address for the free flows of data through appropriate terms about conditions for the transfers of data across borders, ensuring that we have the high standards that were in the US MCA and the Japan digital agreements. Those are obviously standards that countries should aspire to. Those are it’s a constant framework currently that China is not part of. So countries, including the g7 can be forums for establishing high standards by high objective standards for for training data and having appropriate trade terms commensurate with those those high standards. Back to you.
Karen Kornbluh
Yeah, I was just gonna say that it’s really important that we not just think of this as a commercial issue, but also as a human rights issue and that we don’t want to see people walled off industry It was walled off from the global Internet from from information from innovation, even though they live under repressive regimes. And so, you know, the rest of the world coming to some kinds of agreements on how to be interoperable, and what those basic standards of human rights are, so that we can make a clear contrast and push back on on the repressive regimes and try to allow people around the globe axis is really an important piece of this.
Bill Echikson
Thanks. I think we have a time just for a tour to tablet final sort of topical one, two minutes, everyone can give their final thoughts. And I appreciate that. I’ll start right to left on my screen. Mr. Gertz.
Geoffrey Gertz
Great, thanks, Bill. Thanks, all the panelists for this really rich and interesting discussion. You know, I think, again, thanks to Seba for bringing us together organizers, you know, probably just reiterate our kind of things and support to Japan for sort of really putting the DFT on the global agenda, I think it’s sort of been, you know, great seen as an idea and concept develop over the past three years and sort of, you know, moving forward and flushing out sort of from a slogan to a real sort of institutionalized program. And I think, you know, looking forward to going into a real sort of practical set of tools and projects that advance our shared goals on promoting data free flow, while ensuring effective protections for privacy for intellectual property for data security. So you know, just to say, we are certainly very keen to keep working on this process with Japan and other g7 partners, as I think was Theodore mentioned, and, you know, we very much see this specific sort of institutional arrangement for partnership, as part of this broader efforts on sort of, you know, what is really the future of global data froze and how we promote secure and trusted data flows, including the global cross border privacy rules forum, including ongoing work at the OECD, including and sort of, you know, multiple different kinds of engagements with like minded countries all around the world. So certainly a key issue for us something that we will be spending a lot of time on in the months and years ahead and sort of continue to welcome support from think tanks from industry from civil society stakeholders as we develop this program.
Bill Echikson
Thanks. Thanks, Rob.
Rob Strayer
I think the g7 can really continue to play a very important role to set high standards for trust in technology. So trust in the way that governments approach technology and things like that OECD Declaration on government access to private sector, personal data, or the cross border privacy rules forum that Mr. Guterres just mentioned, those, those are ways that we can continue to build trust in the OECD and the g7 can amplify those important standards. And just want to thank you, Bill for bringing us together and MCs both for doing this great event. Thanks, Karen.
Karen Kornbluh
I just want to thank Japan for its leadership on this in the US for working with it, obviously. And I just really appreciated the comments by presser is Takus. And Rob, and I think I think there’s so much deep thinking going on in this and creativity being brought to it. I feel pretty confident that we’re going to make great progress over the next year.
Bill Echikson
Mr. Fujisawa?
Hideaki Fujisawa
Thank you very much. Yes. First of all, I just say that echo Roberts comments are weighing in aspect. And I’m Kramer’s actually tells is also important framework for us. Next week, so all the IETF ministerial meeting in Detroit, so there’ll be no most important area, the potential issue. And thank you very much for having me today. And some, you know, several comments on Japan. So actually, as a member of Japanese government, and deeply moved the citizen digital Minister meeting has provided the vehicle for the VFD. So maybe the next me this week summiting Hiroshima. I hope the leaders of each country will make a stronger into my endorsement of the Yes, so actually, you know, the average deal idea 50 should not be limited to discussion or to the annual meeting of g7 summits. The launcher by pap is not to the end of discussion. So maybe the first step. So in order to launch the IP, ARP, we’d like to create a mechanism in which the government and stakeholders can work together. to the center, your cooperation is the indispensable so we could actually ask for your continued support. Thank you. Thanks.
Bill Echikson
Theodore professor, professors,
Theodore Christakis
that’s just to also to highlight how important it is that we’re talking about all these issues for the first time. It’s very recent, quite important. One on One more compliment, Mr. Minister, the leadership of countries like Japan is, but also the very active role and very constructive role of countries such as the United States, the European Union and the Commission, the European Commission in the OECD process. The United Kingdom and several other countries played a very, very active role in order to make this process successful. And of course, the OECD leaders also on these, and at the same time, you have politics supportive initiatives, like the one which is led by Corinne and Julie bream, the German Marshall Fund with an amazing number of great experts thinking on these issues, very similar initiative with another fantastic Task Force in Chatham House. So it’s very important for for these thinking to continue, and for these initiatives to continue. And I am optimistic that only successful outcomes can come out of this because there is a real need to deal with these issues. And just a final word. A few years ago, several years ago, nobody was really talking that much about these issues. Professor Peters wire created a think tank, the cross border data forum, and can’t be doing during these last year’s a lot, a lot of work or working with a lot of great colleagues, experts on these issues. And I would just like to invite people who are interested who might be listening to this fantastic meeting today for which I thank you once again, to follow us and to subscribe to our newsletter and follow our publications. Were trying out precisely to be helpful with this process, both concerning access for national security purposes, but also for law enforcement purposes, where there are a lot of important issues to discuss. Also, thanks a lot, once again, for organizing this and for having us.
Bill Echikson
And thank you for all five of you for participating in this discussion. I do remember that the work you did there with Peter Swire LED or helped formulate what became the Privacy Shield, which we hope will stand up to scrutiny. And it is, I think, important that Japan has taken the lead in this and getting fair due recognition for its role in promoting democracy and time. Sorry. And so thank you to all of you and I look forward to continuing the discussion in future events and in future articles. Bye.
