E305 - Emma Day, Co-CEO Tech Legality | Human Rights & AI Governance Lawyer
[00:00] Debbie Reynolds: The personal views expressed by our podcast guests are their own and are not legal advice or official statements by their organizations.
[00:12] Hello, my name is Debbie Runnels, and call me the Data Diva. This is the Data Diva Talks Privacy podcast where we discuss data privacy issues with industry leaders around the world with information that businesses need to know.
[00:24] Now I have a very special guest all the way from Portugal,
[00:29] Emma Day. She is the co CEO of Tech Legality and also a human rights lawyer. Welcome.
[00:37] Emma Day: Thanks so much, Debbie. I'm a big fan of your podcast, so I'm really honored to be here. Thanks for having me.
[00:43] Debbie Reynolds: Oh, wow, that's so sweet. Well, it's a thrill to have you here. I've been following your work and I think your work is really interesting and fascinating.
[00:50] You work a lot with data,
[00:53] data about children globally, and I would love to know your background, your interests, the things you know. How did you become interested in that, that area? I think it's. First of all, I think it's such a vital,
[01:05] huge area to think about. So I would love to know how you got into that.
[01:10] Emma Day: Yeah, sure. I feel like it's quite a long story that really I can trace Back to around 1999, when I was teaching in Rwanda.
[01:20] And I really learned then that privacy could be a matter of life or death.
[01:25] My students were all orphans from the genocide that took place in 1994,
[01:30] and they were at a boarding school that was actually also an orphanage in Ramagana in eastern Rwanda,
[01:36] where I lived for two years, just right opposite the school.
[01:40] And I learned from my students in the community I lived in how the genocide had been organized. And this was partly through radio broadcasts.
[01:49] And on the radio, they'd been stoking fear between two groups, the Hutus and Tutsis.
[01:55] And once the genocide was underway,
[01:57] people were stopped at checkpoints and they had to show a national ID card that recorded which group they belonged to, Hutu or Tutsi. And that's really all it took. One data point decided who lived,
[02:10] and afterwards the government made it unlawful to put that information on the ID card at all.
[02:16] So that's the most extreme version of something that since then, I've watched play out in far less dramatic, far more common forms.
[02:24] So where one piece of information that's personal to somebody, say it's about their sexuality,
[02:30] their ethnicity, their religion,
[02:32] becomes the thing that gets them discriminated against, denied something, or sometimes worse.
[02:39] And since Rwanda, I've lived in eight different countries across four continents and worked in countless more countries.
[02:46] And are those thankfully not Every country is dealing with genocide, although some of them still are.
[02:52] Every country has its minority or marginalized groups who rely on the right to privacy to prevent personal information about themselves being used against them. And this can be when they're accessing services,
[03:04] employment, or really just to be treated equally in societies which,
[03:09] as you know, all have their prejudices.
[03:12] So that's really where my interest in privacy started back in Rwanda, and also my interest in justice.
[03:19] I wouldn't have called it privacy at that time, and I wouldn't have called that information data, because those words were not really so commonly used at the time. And I wasn't a lawyer at that time either.
[03:30] But fast forward,
[03:31] and now I lead a consulting company together with my co founder, Dr. Sabina Whitting, and our entire focus is on law and technology,
[03:40] because to us, this is the entry point to address the core human rights issues of our time.
[03:46] Debbie Reynolds: Oh, my God. Thank you so much for sharing that.
[03:49] I think the work that you're doing is of vital importance. And the example that you gave in Rwanda really is a very stark one. And I think back to, for example,
[04:01] the EU putting the right to privacy in their constitution.
[04:07] That was based on what had happened with people's data in **** Germany. So they understood the harm that could happen and how that data could be used or abused against people.
[04:19] But as you're seeing around the world, I think different cultures have different ideas of that. But that harmful example that you gave is an extreme one, but it's a possible one.
[04:29] And so not only that marginalization and that discrimination,
[04:35] it just gets written or embedded into technology and code, as we're seeing. But what do you think?
[04:43] Emma Day: Yeah, no, absolutely agree. And I think one of the things I've seen, I've been working in human rights for 25 years now, but around 10 years ago, I noticed almost all the topics I've been working on started to have an Internet element and were shifting online,
[05:00] which necessarily involves data and privacy. Actually, I see privacy like a kind of gateway to all the other human rights.
[05:09] And so things like I've been working on offline, like incitement to violence or child exploitation,
[05:16] treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, access to health services,
[05:20] just access to justice generally. These are all really core human rights topics.
[05:25] All of this had picked up an Internet dimension.
[05:28] And it really felt like overnight everything had become a question of platform regulation and now AI governance.
[05:34] And this was hugely challenging because although the human rights sector has always had really incredible legal experts,
[05:44] we were not equipped to deal with these new and highly technical areas of technology law.
[05:48] And so our sector, myself included, has had to upscale quickly in order to understand the new legal landscape and also to challenge shifting sources of power.
[05:59] So really a lot of the power is now in the private sector, whereas previously on human rights issues we used to really look more to governments in terms of resolving those issues.
[06:10] Debbie Reynolds: I think that's true. I want to talk a bit about your focus on children,
[06:16] children's protection,
[06:19] which includes protection of their data and protection of their privacy.
[06:23] Tell me a bit more about why that's an interest or focus for you, why you think that's something that people need to pay attention to.
[06:32] Emma Day: Well,
[06:33] I think,
[06:34] as I said before, I really think privacy is a kind of gateway to the other rights. And maybe we need to come up with a different word actually, because I think what a lot of people think of by privacy is a much narrower issue to do with people sort of reading their emails and that kind of thing.
[06:50] We work a lot at technicality with the un, including unicef.
[06:54] And one of the topics that we just finished the piece of work on was Data Governance in EdTech. So education technology.
[07:02] And this is an area where I think we need to see more action and it's really a key area in terms of children's data that I think illustrates kind of why it's important.
[07:12] I first started looking at this topic of ed tech a few years ago during the COVID lockdowns for the Digital Futures Commission in the uk.
[07:22] As I'm sure you know, schools everywhere went online almost overnight and that meant making fast decisions about which platforms to use for classroom management and which apps to use for teaching and learning.
[07:35] And when I was doing this research in the uk, I saw one website from a school which listed over 85 different apps the school was using in the school.
[07:45] And Human Rights Watch actually later looked at 163 of these kinds of education technology products used by 49 governments during the pandemic.
[07:56] And they found that most of them were putting children's privacy at risk or actively violating it for entirely non educational purposes.
[08:05] So that's not a fringe finding. That's most of the products.
[08:09] I listened to your episode with Jesper from Denmark about the Danish DPA and Google Chromebooks. And I think it's fantastic the impact he's managed to have amazing advocacy, but also to actually extract a commitment from the government to take action on the issue.
[08:26] Honestly what struck me is how rare that is.
[08:29] So I think even in the rest of Europe, where privacy gets real weight in the conversation and there is a lot of advocacy.
[08:37] Proactive enforcement in edtech by regulators has been very thin on the ground.
[08:43] So Denmark is the exception and definitely not the norm there.
[08:47] And what we found doing this work for unicef, looking globally, is that the risk isn't really evenly spread.
[08:54] So in Europe at least, the conversation's happening even if implementation is lagging behind.
[09:00] But then it's really contrasted. If you look at sub Saharan African countries where we ran some consultations,
[09:07] the context there is that 9 out of 1010 children age 10 are still unable to read or understand a simple text.
[09:15] And so there's an urgent need for them to access educational devices and connectivity.
[09:21] And privacy isn't where the energy goes, understandably, because people are focusing kind of on a hierarchy of needs and then privacy lags behind.
[09:31] And in both Asia and Latin America there was a call from civil society for guidance on what good looks like really so they can to help them, to advocate locally, to raise the bar around the governance of edtech and to guide regulators who are often new to this topic and don't really know what the best practice should be internationally.
[09:53] It was also very clear to me doing this study that there is a handful of US companies who supply edtech platforms globally,
[10:03] sometimes offering them for free or discounted to schools in lower income countries in exchange for weaker data terms.
[10:12] And I find this quite a disturbing aspect that big tech companies know they can get schools in poorer countries or poorer schools within an otherwise reasonably well off country to exchange their students data in return for access to software.
[10:27] So it looks like philanthropy because they're giving generously the software for free, but actually there is a price that's being extracted in terms of children's data.
[10:37] So that's the deal actually on the table right now in a lot of places.
[10:41] Debbie Reynolds: And I would call that exploitation very much so. Thank you for sharing that. What are your thoughts about the regulatory landscape as it relates to children's data?
[10:54] Emma Day: This is a topic that is starting to be picked up by regulators. So for that UNICEF study on edtech we worked with the Global Privacy assembly, who I assume you probably know quite well, which is the mechanism for the data protection authorities around the world to come together.
[11:12] And they have a working group on education actually,
[11:16] which is where they discuss all the topics to do with children's data.
[11:21] And we are now seeing the UK introduced an age appropriate design code which goes into detail about how children's data should be processed according to the gdpr.
[11:35] And Ireland has produced a similar code and there are codes coming up in other countries now as well.
[11:42] And we see there's guidance come out of Kenya,
[11:46] Indonesia,
[11:47] so there are countries who are starting to pick this up. And to understand that children's data is different to adults data and needs special consideration and really how it follows them into their adult life.
[12:00] And that children cannot give meaningful consent in the way that adults supposedly can. Though that's another question for another debate. I think so. I think it's a growing area that is starting to make progress around the world,
[12:16] but I think the problem is that a lot of regulators don't really have the capacity to follow through on that.
[12:24] So if you look at the resourcing of data protection authorities around the world,
[12:30] they started out having quite a small mandate, and as the Internet has grown, and some of them now are also the AI regulator,
[12:38] if you think they're supposed to oversee all the data processing in every sector of society,
[12:44] it's really impossible. They're not set up for that and they're not resourced for that. So I think that's going to be the next frontier, is having the resources to implement the emerging new regulations related to children's data.
[12:59] Debbie Reynolds: Absolutely.
[13:00] Two things that you mentioned that I would love to dig into more deeply and I want your thoughts.
[13:08] And this is about the capture of children's data and how it follows them as they get older, and then also the idea that their data may be taken and used for a purpose that they may not know about or even their parents know about,
[13:27] and what that can do, what types of harms can result from that.
[13:33] Emma Day: Yeah. So I think maybe the first question around the data following them, if you dig into some of the terms and conditions, I think a lot of the products that children use are quite opaque and it's quite hard to really get into the details of what will happen to the children's data when they turn maybe 16 or 18,
[13:56] depending on the date,
[13:58] on the age in the country in which they're living, when it is allowed to process their data without parental permission,
[14:06] often there will be some details in the terms and conditions which will allow the company to take that data once they reach that threshold and then use it for profiling purposes.
[14:19] So I think it depends on the sphere of the child's life.
[14:23] In terms of, say, in the school context that we've been discussing,
[14:27] you can have very granular data about children's behaviour.
[14:32] Maybe their capacity for different subjects can be quite deterministic of their future trajectory then, and of what has been decided that they're good at or bad at.
[14:43] And those kinds of Behavioral backgrounds, if they're shared beyond the school, if they become part of their record to go to university or for future employers, then this is something that kind of becomes part of their reputation and their character, which seems quite unfair when their character is still in development.
[15:04] As a child and in the past, we used to have the opportunity to make mistakes, and those kinds of things wouldn't follow us into the future. And that's part of what helps us to grow as people.
[15:16] It's really part of, in human rights law, what we would call the right to development.
[15:21] And that seems to be shrinking at the moment.
[15:24] It seems to be that when children,
[15:27] like adults, when there is this feeling of surveillance,
[15:30] so they're being monitored constantly,
[15:33] it has a kind of chilling effect on allowing them to express themselves freely and to experiment and to try new things and to not have the fear of failure because it's not being documented all of the time.
[15:47] Debbie Reynolds: I guess I was trying to think more about the inference and you touched on it a bit. So you're saying the right to development,
[15:57] meaning like you said, people do develop, they change, they grow different things like that. And then the idea that somehow,
[16:05] I guess this is a segue into artificial intelligence,
[16:09] somehow decisions will be made about them, like maybe they won't progress to certain areas, or maybe they'll be steered toward different types of vocations as a result.
[16:21] Something that happened in third grade or when they were younger, but their development was different, or maybe their attention was different.
[16:28] We know that a lot of good students may not be great at school because children learn in different ways. So that's one thing that really concerns me. Having a child sort of in a cast in a way,
[16:40] based on where they started in their digital life. But what are your thoughts?
[16:45] Emma Day: Yeah, I agree. I think that's exactly right. And now one of the things that UNICEF was looking at alongside the project we were doing on edtech was on neurotech, and that is being brought into classrooms also in some countries to monitor, even if children are paying attention.
[17:05] It sounds horrendous to me. I can't imagine when I was at school having someone monitoring me to that degree.
[17:11] And also monitoring, trying to maybe with good intentions, trying to pick up on children with special needs who perhaps would not be picked up in time. So there can be some benefits and there is a place for some of this technology, but at the same time that can cause a kind of over diagnosis,
[17:31] possibly in some children who are being categorized.
[17:34] I think the most extreme example, we did consultations around edtech in Several different regions. And in the consultation with North America, people were talking about the school to prison pipeline in the us where children.
[17:50] And that is really around data that's collected on children in school that's fed to law enforcement.
[17:55] And we don't have that exact phenomenon, I would say, in Europe, but we do have data being shared with law enforcement and with immigration departments.
[18:07] School used to be a very safe haven for,
[18:10] say, undocumented children,
[18:12] so that all children should be accessing education.
[18:15] But it is becoming now a more kind of securitized environment, which I think is also concerning for more marginalized children as well.
[18:24] Debbie Reynolds: I agree with that. How do you think artificial intelligence changes the landscape?
[18:30] I think it may make it a bit more complex in my view, because I feel like the technology is moving very fast.
[18:37] And a lot of the implementation, in my view, is about innovation and moving fast and unfortunately breaking things, which could be breaking people. And that to me is just a tough thing to do, especially as it relates to children.
[18:54] Emma Day: No, I agree. And I think this is where the regulations are lagging behind everywhere, really, and struggling to keep up with the pace of change. And I think government reluctant to.
[19:05] They feel that if they put too much regulation in place, they're going to hold back innovation.
[19:11] But in fact, we've seen in China they have a lot of regulations in place and they're still managing to innovate. So maybe that's more of a myth.
[19:19] And actually in China they have more regulations in place around AI chatbots for children.
[19:25] These are going to be coming into place also in the UK and I think probably in Europe,
[19:31] though Europe can move a bit more slowly because it's a block of countries moving together.
[19:37] So I think some aspects of AI are being regulated now. I think there's particular concern around the kind of chatbots, the AI companions,
[19:47] children sort of having a virtual.
[19:51] Sometimes it's a romantic kind of interaction and sometimes it's a confidant and it can lead children.
[19:58] We've all seen the cases of children being led into kind of suicide in the extremes. But I think beyond that, just the kind of sycophantic nature of the AI, it's not the best thing to teach children to interact with something that's always affirming everything that they believe and telling them how great they are.
[20:15] It's not the most real interaction. So I think beyond the data aspects, there are some other ethical aspects to do with children and AI that are concerning. But at the same time there are also,
[20:29] there are tools that can be used for good for children particularly, I think in the areas of children with disabilities, kind of learning aids,
[20:37] adaptive technologies have been really helpful for children.
[20:41] I think it's a tool that it depends what you do with it.
[20:44] But from a human rights law perspective, and in the work we do at Tech Legality, we work with tech companies to do a thorough human rights impact assessment before they deploy the tools.
[20:57] So the idea is that they assess all of the potential risks to human rights, to children's rights, at the development stage, at the design stage,
[21:07] and mitigate those before deploying them. And I think that is not happening routinely at the moment. And that's what I would like to see,
[21:16] to make sure that these things have been thought through and that they're not just thrown out there, particularly with children to test and see what happens.
[21:25] Debbie Reynolds: I agree with that.
[21:26] We're seeing a lot of laws and regulations pop up around the world around social media bans for children of certain ages. So, like, I think Australia was the first major one saying that children under 16 couldn't be on social media.
[21:42] I think. I'm not sure, I think. Was it Italy?
[21:46] I think Italy may be one. There are some states in the US that are trying to do this. So I think that this ideas seems to be gaining traction, but obviously there's.
[21:57] It's a challenge to do that. Right. Because a lot of times when a kid is online on social media,
[22:03] you don't know. You assume that the account that they're using is theirs or that they're being truthful about who they are or like how old they are. Just what are your thoughts about this trend towards trying to limit the age of children on social media?
[22:20] Emma Day: Yeah, I think while we've seen some of the evidence that's come out of Australia, which is that it's not really working, it seems to be quite a crude solution, really, to a complex problem.
[22:32] And I think what most people really want is safety by design.
[22:37] And I think this is a sort of frustrated move from governments who feel like they don't have the power to regulate the design of mostly American tech companies.
[22:49] For countries outside of the US it's very difficult for them to influence the recommender systems, the business model. And it's a sort of populist move to say, well, we're going to ban social media.
[23:00] And I think in practice it comes down to,
[23:03] as you're saying, whether children can get around it, whether they're really who they say they are, whether the age assurance tools that mostly underpin these social media bans, how effective they are.
[23:15] And what other problems they might introduce in terms of data protection, privacy,
[23:20] social exclusion. It is quite concerning that this has taken off really around the world.
[23:26] And that's something I've seen quite a lot in my work, that bills that are introduced in Europe, or mostly Europe or the us get cut and paste into other countries and contexts where the meaning can be quite different under different laws.
[23:42] So things like where online safety legislation that may work in Australia or the uk,
[23:50] say that sort of has great enforcement measures against illegal or harmful content, when that's transposed into another country where many things are illegal or considered harmful that are in breach of human rights laws, actually that's where you start to get broad censorship as well.
[24:09] So this kind of idea of cut and pasting a law and putting it into operation around the world is quite concerning to me. And certainly most countries outside of Europe and North America don't really have the infrastructure in place to implement age assurance.
[24:28] Children are sharing devices.
[24:31] It's really not a realistic option that that's going to be possible.
[24:36] Debbie Reynolds: Yeah, I agree with that. And I think for me the thing that has been concerning is that in order to do this type of implementation,
[24:47] they're requesting more data of children than less.
[24:52] So it's like now we're basically creating a new class of data that never existed on the Internet or online before.
[25:01] And there's just no telling what will happen with that because typically data about children, especially their ages, that was sort of kept with their parent, their school people on a need to know basis.
[25:13] And so now creating this whole new cauldron of information about children and have it kind of follow them through even beyond their teenage years, I think is concerning.
[25:26] Emma Day: Yeah, no, I totally agree. I love the idea of a cauldron of information. I might have to use that one in myself in the future.
[25:33] I think what we're seeing, to me, me this is kind of a form of techno solutionism, really, that we say this technology will solve the problem.
[25:42] I think what we also need, if we're going to have age assurance, then we really need to be also regulating the age assurance. So we need to actually have evidence that it's privacy preserving.
[25:55] We need to see the data protection impact assessment,
[25:58] see the training data, and all of the independent evidence around bias and discrimination as well, because at the moment most of that data is proprietary for the age assurance companies.
[26:12] And one of the things you will hear me say whenever I get the opportunity is that the age assurance industry itself is worth actually billions of dollars globally.
[26:22] So we can't just Trust them that they're providing the solution. We need to really start overseeing this if this is going to be what governments want to introduce to protect children,
[26:33] whether we think that's a good idea or not.
[26:36] Debbie Reynolds: I find that the boil the ocean approaches to things don't really work because it has to be, especially when you're thinking about things about the public or our population.
[26:47] Not everybody is the same and not everybody's a customer, quote unquote. But the people we're dealing with are humans and they are not the same. And so trying to push something that's trying to make everybody the same or assume that people are the same,
[27:04] I think it just, it has a lot of gaps and cracks to it. I feel.
[27:09] Emma Day: Absolutely, absolutely.
[27:11] Debbie Reynolds: I'd rather see less data of children online.
[27:15] Not like, oh, let's collect more and then we'll just be really good at securing it. It's like. No, it's like collect less.
[27:22] Less information,
[27:24] right?
[27:24] Emma Day: Yeah, I mean, I think some of the solutions that use zero knowledge proof like the EU model really is there is going to be a digital ID in Europe and so the idea would be that the age assurance would integrate with that and just be able to ping the age and to have a very privacy preserving solution.
[27:45] I think there have been some hiccups with that already.
[27:49] So I'm yet to see a solution that is flawless from a privacy perspective. I think what I see is that privacy preserving has become the term a bit like organic or whatever the other label is that companies stick on the product.
[28:06] But to me this is kind of co opting human rights language really. It's a bit of a cynical approach and I think what we really need to see is the evidence behind that and what privacy preserving really means.
[28:18] If that's the label that's being used.
[28:21] Debbie Reynolds: Right. Because me, privacy preserving isn't me turning over all this information and trusting that you're going to keep it safe like that. I don't think that's privacy preserving in my view.
[28:33] Emma Day: No, I agree.
[28:36] Debbie Reynolds: You talked a bit about like privacy, the realities in different regions. Right. So definitely there's different cultural ideas about privacy or data protection. And as you say,
[28:51] when you had given the example about the school, kids are a certain age, they weren't able to read and so being able to get them technology solutions that help them in education, I think that's really, really great.
[29:04] But what are your thoughts about the cultural differences of how people think about the protection of children information like regional in different regions? Your thoughts?
[29:16] Emma Day: Yeah, I think,
[29:18] I mean there are broad, probably regional differences. I don't want to reduce regions too much,
[29:24] but I think that there is a sort of hierarchy of needs.
[29:28] But I think this, this is a dangerous road to go down. So a bit like the example of the children in sub Saharan Africa who,
[29:35] who really need access to education,
[29:37] it should not be that they have to choose between access to education and protecting their privacy because there is a way for them to have the privacy protections in place built into the edtech that's being deployed there.
[29:49] So I think we have to be careful of that because in human rights law, human rights are non hierarchical. So they are all interdependent and they are on a flat line.
[29:59] So we can't say privacy is less important than access to education today.
[30:04] They all rely on each other really.
[30:06] I think that it's one of those concepts that I'm not sure you could probably get a different answer from many people even in the one country.
[30:15] But I think that generally the divide would be in Western cultures we have more individualism,
[30:22] so people relate more to the idea of individual privacy that they value.
[30:27] Whereas in more Eastern cultures there's more of a collective idea of community and social values. So collective rights are more what people relate to than individual privacy.
[30:39] But I think to me it's the real meaning of privacy goes beyond the individual because I am also part of a group.
[30:48] So something information that's shared about other people in my group can actually impact me in the way that I'm treated as well.
[30:56] So I think that really a population level, we need to do a lot more education around why privacy is important, what it really means, what the impacts can be on both individuals and groups.
[31:08] And I don't think that's happening in most parts of the world really at the moment. Which is why I think we need a new word and not just privacy actually to convey this information.
[31:18] So yeah, I think between the east and west would be the biggest differences that I can see. But even in the way people live in many countries there's more collective living where your interpersonal privacy is much less than it is in like for me, I live on my own in an apartment,
[31:35] but that's kind of unheard of in a lot of cultures. So you know, I think the concept is,
[31:41] is very contextual. But I think that when it comes down to it, if you really got into it with most people around the consequences of sharing personal information that can have an impact on their lives, most people don't want that.
[31:55] And I think in some countries the fear is sharing information with the government.
[32:01] And in some countries, the fear is more sharing information with the private sector, who may use it for commercial purposes. And that kind of trust differs. I found when I lived in the U.S.
[32:12] one of the things that really struck me was that people in the US seem to trust the private sector more than they trust the government.
[32:20] Whereas I think in Europe, we trust the government more than the private sector, actually.
[32:26] And international human rights law is based on the idea that the government is the duty bearer. So it's the state who is responsible for implementing human rights and should regulate, and that's who is the primary entity we hold accountable.
[32:42] So I think these things are different around the world for sure.
[32:47] Debbie Reynolds: Thank you for that perspective. That's really eye opening.
[32:51] But if it were the world according to you, Emma, and we did everything you said, what would be your wish for privacy for data protection anywhere in the world, whether that be human behavior,
[33:03] technology, or regulation?
[33:05] Emma Day: Wow. Okay. I hope this is a wish that will be granted to me.
[33:10] So to me,
[33:12] in the digital age we live in now,
[33:14] there's really an urgent need for governments.
[33:17] So I believe in government regulation and I really think that governments need to implement systematic oversight over data protection regulations and privacy laws. And to me, this is really a prerequisite for the rule of law.
[33:31] So this means allocating technical, financial and human resources to data protection authorities and AI regulators and really proactively enforcing human rights laws and regulations.
[33:44] I think there's also a need to introduce minimum standards for data protection and cybersecurity and government procurement rules. So if a government is going to procure technology for education,
[33:55] for health,
[33:57] for social welfare,
[33:58] for prisons, you know, some of the things that really impact people's lives,
[34:02] then I think we need to make sure that they're doing their due diligence beforehand and requiring those data protection impact assessments and human rights impact assessments.
[34:13] So I think there needs to be enough oversight that companies are motivated to see data governance as an area they need to invest in, just like they need to keep up with their accounting and tax obligations.
[34:25] To me,
[34:26] this is a matter of compliance with the law. So we need to make sure that that motivation is there. And I know in many places governments are not stepping up and taking up this responsibility to regulate tech companies.
[34:39] But for me, that doesn't let tech companies off the hook. There is non binding international guidance for tech companies.
[34:46] The UN Guiding principles on business and human rights, for instance,
[34:50] require tech companies to respect human rights and at the bare minimum, ensure they do no harm to their users. So I don't think tech companies should wait for governments to catch up.
[35:01] I think they should be carrying out impact assessments prior to deployment and publishing a version of this for the public so that we can also, as the public have some oversight and apply the same standards everywhere they operate, not just where the law forces them to.
[35:19] So this is really key to me that I think tech companies need to be ethical and responsible in that area.
[35:26] And then I think to me we do work with tech companies.
[35:30] A lot of them are startups and some of them have been ed tech companies. And in my experience, a lot of them actually acting in good faith.
[35:39] It's just that they haven't really been checking and looking at what's happening with the data that they're processing.
[35:46] So I think companies who are developing products at speed like edtech or age assurance or online games or AI chatbots,
[35:57] often they're not fully sure what is required by regulators across all the jurisdictions they operate in. And they haven't thought through the second order effects of the ways in which they process users personal data.
[36:10] So that's the kind of thing we look at at tech legality, not to get them to tick a box,
[36:15] but getting them to land somewhere genuinely rights respecting and publicly trusted. And I think in the end this is the place that regulators want companies to land anyway.
[36:27] So I think by doing that due diligence, it's also a kind of way of mitigating risk to the companies in the future as well as doing the right thing.
[36:36] So I would like to see this becoming routinely the way that tech companies behave for the future of our societies.
[36:45] Debbie Reynolds: That's an excellent wish. I share your wish. Right. Because especially with children's data,
[36:52] you're collecting data that had never really been collected or created before and it can create a harm to the individual, but then also to the companies as well. Right. Because they have a higher obligation to that more sensitive data that they may not be thinking about.
[37:10] So it's true.
[37:12] Emma Day: Exactly. And sometimes I think they don't even need to, if you actually look, get into what they're using the data for,
[37:18] it's an unnecessary risk that's being taken. So if that can be mitigated, I think it helps everybody. Really?
[37:25] Debbie Reynolds: Yes. Sometimes less really is more.
[37:30] Oh my gosh. Well, thank you so much, Emma.
[37:33] Really thrilled with the work that you're doing.
[37:35] And yeah, if anyone wants to get in contact with you, let me know how people can follow your work and get in contact with you.
[37:42] Emma Day: Yeah, if you would like to contact us, we have a website which is techlegality.com and there's a Contact Us page on there or please follow me on LinkedIn. Quite a frequent poster on there.
[37:54] But yes, please anyone feel free to reach out. We'd love to talk about all these topics further. And thank you so much for having me here today. It was really great to talk to you, Debbie.
[38:04] I really appreciate it.
[38:05] Debbie Reynolds: Oh, thank you. I'm thrilled and we're were able to get together and talk today. So thank you so much. And again, thank I really appreciate and support the work that you're doing around the world.
[38:15] Emma Day: Thank you. Likewise, Debbie.
[38:17] Debbie Reynolds: All right, talk to you soon. Thank you.
[38:19] Emma Day: Thanks. Bye.
[38:20] Debbie Reynolds: Goodbye.
