miércoles, 18 de octubre de 2017

Brexit does not mean #Brexit in the digital dimension



After the position paper on the flow of personal data future relationship between UK and EU, UK government has published a paper containing its vision on the UK-EU cooperation on foreign policy, defence and development after Brexit. Coherently with the rising tide of threats for all countries coming from cyberspace, the paper has dedicated some space to the future cybersecurity cooperation.

It looks quite logical that UK and EU maintain a tight relationship on cybersecurity matters. According with the ITU Global Cybersecurity Index 2017, UK scored 4th among European countries and 14th globally in the world rank of countries commited towards cybersecurity. Besides beign an important global player in cybersecurity, UK has played the role of  bridge between EU and US in this field. However, in the cybersecurity field as in other areas it looks that UK asks for a Brexit without Brexit. 
The framework for cybersecurity relationships in the European Union is defined in the Network and Information Security Directive (NIS Directive). This Directive defines the existence of two groups for cooperation among Member States, the Cooperation Group (article 11) and the CSIRT Network (article 12). The first group aims to facilitate strategic cooperation, while the second has an operational nature, but, as I said previously, they are groups or Member States only by its legal definition. For the surprise of all, the UK proposes to "collaborating closely through participation in the CSIRT network and Cooperation Group" after Brexit.  

An important part of the European digital community was horrified after Brexit, and I include myself among them. But this position of Brexit without Brexit was beyond our expectations. After the aspiration to continue its membership of EU privacy cooperation groups, now UK has uncovered the same intention towards cybersecurity cooperation groups. Perhaps, they need to review those old Sesame Street chapters describing what means in and what means out.


miércoles, 11 de octubre de 2017

The case for a world summit on the future of work

There is a certain panic along the world with the unstoppable raising of the usage of robots and Artificial Intelligence (AI). People so far from being a luddite as Elon Musk or Bill Gates have make calls to be cautious in their development and even the AI industrial leaders are advocates of a certain limitation on their usages. The identification of AI as the basis for new world empires by some kind of politicians do not contribute to dilute the apprehension.

But beyond the apocalyptic visions of Terminator-like robots exterminating the human race, what worries the man and woman of main street is the risk of losing their job. Trade Unions in different countries are drawing the attention on the challenge of boosting productivity but not a the cost of employees. Different proposals are begining to be debate aiming to sooth the population on these fears about a jobless future (and therefore, without a wage for living). The idea of taxing the usage of robots in the centre of this ideas, but it is facing the difficult task of defining what is a robot.

However, not everybody is equally worried about having robots as working mates and rivals for obtaining a job. Those who are going to be the main actors of the future look robots as a complement for their activities and an opportunity to avoid doing the harder tasks in working environments.On the other hand, the governments of aging and advanced societies like Germany are welcoming robots as the remedy for the shortage of workers.

As on the field of the AI and robot usages for wars, the role of robots on the future of work deserve an international UN summit. The alternative will be masses of unemployed and continuous global unrest. But if the summit is called, beware that this time everybody pays their fair share of the organisational fees.

miércoles, 4 de octubre de 2017

Personal Data in the future relationship EU-UK

Brexit negotiations are on march since some months ago. Strictly guided by the text of article 50 of the treaty, the conversations between the two parts has started talking only about the issues related with the UK´s exit from the EU. There are few if any digital issues to be tackled on this stage of the negotiations.

The British team is eeager to start the second stage of the negotiations on the future relationship, although for its dismay the efforts are despised by the EU. Not even the flood of papers on the future relationship published by the UK in August in order to prove its readiness to start the second phase has obtained any oficial reaction from the EU. Among the most ignored was the paper on personal data flows, "The exchange and protection of personal data - a future partnership paper".

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be one of the last EU regulations that are going to be applied in the UK. Although its applicability would end the Brexit day, there is a commitment with the continuity of its application on british soil. To be concrete, the new Brtish Data Protection Bill will bring the complete GDPR into British legal framework and the UK firms are taking seriously its fulfilment hiring people to meet with its obligations.

According with this privileged situation, the UK´s proposal for the future relationship on the field of data is continuity as if nothing has happened. Certainly, there is a sound rationale for the almost automatic publication of adequacy decission by the European Commission on Brexit day that would enable the continuity of data flows by UK and the EU. Furthermore, another option will be harmful for both parts.

Nevertheless, besides this logic proposal the paper also shows some clues that the UK has not grasp the dimension of Brexit. As an alternative for building up a regulatory cooperation in this area is to continue the involvement of the ICO (UK Data Protection Authority) in the EU Data protection Authorities network, but we the disclaimer that the UK government will be the unique responsible of the data protection in UK.

So it´s not a good start for the negotiations of the digital Brexit. As it was expected, digital economy looks as one cherry of UK´s cherrypicking strategy. That could mean on the end a tougher position from the EU on this field, and therefore more uncertainty about the final result. Another block on the middle of Europe´s digital policies.
palyginti kainas