This IGF session was designed to create an honest space of conversation with different representatives from the multi-stakeholder model, in order to reflect on one of the biggest challenges at the intersection of digitization of public policies. Namely, what are the trade-offs to be considered at the intersection of public security and human rights when deploying digital systems, with a particular focus in the right to privacy.

The session was predominantly composed by representatives from civil society, but also with one representative from the government. It was aimed to also include the voices of the private sector in this matter, but due to time constraints, this was not achieve.

The panel had numerous reflections useful to the matter in question. It started from a characterization from the different panelists and their work. Such panelists presented case studies from the Triple Border Area (border shared between Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay), Colombia, Argentina,Uganda and also case studies from a more bird- eye view, particularly related to the African context. Amongst the main topics discussed:

• The trends and discourse that is identified when reflecting in the implementation of technologies in public security contexts (particularly in the Triple Border Area) is that of technology as a synonym for eficiency; efficiency as a value opposed to rights; opaqueness based on the justification of public security

• When thinking in the collection of biometrics data in the context of border control, there is an ongoing process in the context of the large flux of migrants coming from Venezuela and Colombia. There is a large use of biometrics in this context were the State collects more biometric data to grant basic rights to Venezuelan migrant communities and in comparison to the data collected from Colombian citizens. Such is an experimental deployment of technologies in migrants

• When thinking in the access to information revolving security programmes, there is quite a gap in general. In the case of Argentina, there is a lack of information in the aquisition and use of surveillance technologies. These technologies are bought from local suppliers and not the manufacturers, which makes practices even more opaque. There is a public-private trend in the implementation of these technologies

• From a sovereignty point of view: surveillance technologies are not produced in Africa, but imported there, so that adds human rights international bodies and communities to the agenda, as they can strenghten the narrative that these technologies are not needed and are not synonyms for security

• Data protection laws usually exempt their application to public and national security matters, so that makes it easier for States to implement surveillance technologies - and they have been doing that without impact assessments of any kind (both human rights impact assessment or data protection impact assessments)

• There is a big responsibility from international cooperation both from international organizations or States when thinking in the deployment of security and technology. The US national security agency has provided technologies to Ethiopia; China and the EU have also invested money in African countries for the deployment of surveillance technologies
  The EU has been equiping non members States with surveillance technologies in order to prevent migration fluxes before migrants actually reach the physical borders of the EU
  Private economic interests, lack of transparency and lack of legislation are some of the challenges to work against this movement. Going after private companies that manufacturer the technologies and after countries that provide them to other ones are also some of the possible paths to moving forward.

• From a government point of view is important to recognize that technologies are a tool for States to provide services, including public security. States engage with human rights (Paraguay is directly involved with international human rights systems). However, it is also important to reflect on the issue that States are not uniform bodies, and sometimes, approaches to a given matter change between different public bodies. This includes public security as a policy.

   

Audience engagement

 

• As long as countries from the Global South use technologies developed in other countries, they will not be free and be able to protect their citizens. Africa doesn't have a strong political will to develop its own technologies and some countries are just moving away from authoritarian to democratic regimes now. Civil society is also not strong in this context. Another challenge is the lack of laws of access to information, as well as a lack of collaboration between strong international human rights organizations and local organizations (specially francophone Africa)
  It's a muti- stakeholder ecosystem and coordinated efforts are necessary to attack it

• More needs to be done when reflecting not only in the role of the State, but also international cooperation and private actors who predominantly have shareholders interests in mind. The multi- stakeholder process is and should be a tool to use when reflecting in this role and the duty of this stakeholders when thinking in human rights compliance and particularly when considering global south particularities.

• Lastly, CSOs should be in touch with each other and with journalists and the media in order to unveil current opaqueness. Also with international human rights actors, who usually have the possibility of engage more directly and put more pressure in States