Digital Identity

PSGR has always been concerned about how the state regulates technology, to ensure the safety of the biology around us, from our mokopuna, to kōura to the food crops that we consume. Rather than being ‘techno-optimists’ and engaging in hopeful imaginaries, we recognise that technology is embedded in political, cultural and social systems, and the way technology is harnessed and engaged is a function of how power operates in those systems.

A primary consideration is that technology should be regulated (stewarded and governed) in such a way as to ensure the health and safety of our most vulnerable, our pregnant mothers and children – of future generations. This technology may be GE, pesticides, food additives, EMF radiation, medical treatment - or our digital identities. Technology carries an added risk because the rate and magnitude of implementation of these technologies far exceeds development of technology fifty, or one hundred years ago.

Discussion drawing attention to regulation is 'controversial' because, very simply, if a technology is found to be unsafe and regulated, there will be an impact on corporate profitability. It can be contested, because - if we look at pollutant exposures, the impact on a 60kg adult is different from a baby, or for those experiencing second generation exposures. The capacity to regulate before harm has occurred, is due to the strength of the overarching regulatory regime, the degree of transparency and accountability built into the system in order to govern and place limits on the power of institutional actors with a vested interest.

Frequently, it takes many years before an unsafe new technology or initiative can be 'proven' safe in such a way as to enable regulation, as often, proving harm is difficult - and there is little funding or resourcing to explore the potential for harm (leaving civil society in a state of ignorance). Online data can be used and applied by large institutions, and that the way this data is applied or strategically weaponised can directly impact our wellbeing and health, and that of our children. We are also aware that for twenty years regulatory environments and the scientific communities that should support them, have been distinctly underfunded and state institutions have been encouraged to work cooperatively with the actors they regulate. This promotes an environment of 'regulatory capture'.

This is why PSGR has prioritised participation in discussion concerning the development of digital identity (or passports) and the ongoing social and legal governance of these technologies. As with all technologies, it is the stewardship of the technology in such a way that protects human health and wellbeing that is of the utmost importance.

Digital identity systems aggregate identification in one place. This produces an enormous amount of data which has potential to be exploited for behavioural and financial gains. Much of this can be ‘black boxed’, and the capacity for effective governance rests on the independence of commissioners, the ongoing oversight that can ensure that those tasked with the day to day management, are not susceptible to influences that result in political or legal erosion of the commitment to protecting the public interest.

As Elizabeth Renieris has noted:

The pandemic has highlighted the pressing global governance challenges we face with respect to digital technologies, from the swift erosion of privacy to mass surveillance, a widening digital divide and increasing digital exclusion, and a transfer of power and control over infrastructure from governments to private corporations. In the face of these challenges, proposed interventions that only address individual civil and political rights are unlikely to succeed. And yet, a human rights-based approach has never been more vital. Human rights can be relevant again in the age of technology when properly recalibrated to reflect a more balanced approach—one that integrates individual civil and political rights, such as the freedom of expression and privacy, with more collective economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to enjoy physical and mental health, and the right to take part in cultural life.

The first step of PSGR has been to submit to the Department of Internal Affairs consultation Towards a Digital Strategy for Aotearoa. PSGR’s submission document reflected the importance of producing a robust overarching legal (constitutional) structure which would place the protection of human rights at the centre of all policy and legislative work.

The next step is to submit to the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill. The closing date for submissions is December 2, 2021.

Reference: Renieris E. Human Rights and the Pandemic: The Other Half of the Story How our approach to technologies deployed during the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates a need to recalibrate our view of human rights in the digital age. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University. Text.

Information