Rutte IV wants to establish an algorithm regulator that functions under the supervision of the Personal Data Authority. Much about this is still unclear, but a possible example looms from unexpected quarters. Indeed, China will soon become the first country in the world with a strict algorithm regulator. What can, or can't, the Netherlands learn from China? Data&Privacyweb talked to two China experts about the differences between the Netherlands and China in digital supervision and the handling of data.
In the new coalition agreement the parties are committed to the protection of citizens' rights online. A substantial financial boost for the Personal Data Authority (AP) must realize this ambition, as well as an additional set of tasks for the AP. This includes, according to the agreement: "[a strengthened] cooperation and coherence between the various digital regulators. We legally regulate that algorithms are checked for transparency, discrimination and arbitrariness. An algorithm supervisor monitors this."
The desire to appoint an algorithm supervisor has long existed within national politics. Back in May 2019, a motion was introduced in the House of Representatives for a regulator to oversee the lawful use of algorithms by the government. The benefits affair is a clear example of what has gone wrong in recent years due to inadequate regulation of algorithms in government.
How is algorithm oversight going elsewhere? Western countries are not yet running as fast with legislation on algorithms, but in China new legislation related to the digital domain is being introduced rapidly. The great transformation, in which China's digital economy has found itself in recent years, is also leading the government to tighten the reins on several tech giants, such as Alibaba. Consequently, stricter legislation on explicit algorithms will be introduced in March this year, in part to better control the uninhibited growth of China's platform sector. This will make China a global leader and role model in oversight of algorithms.
The new Chinese legislation is called Provisions on the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations in Internet Information Services. 1) Techwatcher Ed Sander, who specializes in technology from China, interprets the new legislation as primarily reasonable, in protecting Internet users. Sander explains, "On the one hand, the law serves very well to better protect consumers, minors, the elderly and platform workers. On the other hand, the new guidelines put a big emphasis on algorithms, which can distort online opinion." The Chinese government is increasing its control over information flows, which reach the general public, determining from above what is correct information or misinformation for Chinese citizens. 2) "The government determines what is or is not fake news," Sander said. The dangers of misinformation are also well known to us in the Netherlands by now, but in general the average Dutchman will strongly oppose a government dictating what is correct or incorrect on the Internet.
So the Dutch, and Europeans in general, think differently about sovereignty on the Internet than the Chinese. This is partly explained by our definition of privacy. Within Europe, privacy is generally seen as a fundamental right to autonomy over what happens to an individual's data. China expert Rogier Creemers, assistant professor at Leiden University, sees things are very different in the Chinese context. "In China, privacy is about potential harm to an individual, for example through online misuse of their personal data. Legislation from the government should prevent this. This is not so much because there is a fundamental right to it, but rather because the government wants the digital economy to develop," he explains. For that, it is important that that data-related abuse no longer occurs."
Thus, in the service of fighting online crime, the collective interest is considered more important by the government than the protection of individual personal data. Data malpractice, such as online scams and phishing, is a persistent problem that has reached hefty proportions in China due to the lightning-fast adoption of the Internet on a very extensive scale. The idea that the government should control a public space, such as the Internet, to prevent these kinds of scams is much more prevalent in China than in the Netherlands.
However, how we should deal with data, which in some cases is socially undesirable, has become an increasing topic of discussion in recent years due to the global perils surrounding misinformation and fake news. Creemers points to China as a potential source of inspiration, but under strict conditions.
Creemers: "The question of how we as a whole society protect ourselves from data-based abuse is also important in Europe, but that is a conversation that is not yet being had here at all. When we talk about data protection and privacy here, we use them almost as synonyms. Then we talk about the protection of individual personal data and the protection of the individual himself. What Chinese legislation says is that data can also harm national security and the public interest. Regulation of data should then be done not only on the basis of personal data, but on all types of data."
It is fascinating to watch, from a distance, how the new legislation will land in China and how local governments will deal with it. The task of carrying out correct enforcement of the law is considerable. This is not only because of the huge geographical size of the country, but also because of the size of China's Internet with more than 1 billion users. Sander reminds us, "Ultimately, this new law is primarily a directive. The question is not only how it will be enforced, but also whether it will be enforced at all." China will face hefty stumbling blocks either way.
The Clingendael Institute recently published a report on the Digital China Challenge and the implications of emerging digital China for European policy. 3) More than enough reason to pay close attention to the country and form clear policies towards it. But opportunities also present themselves to adopt good practices for the digital ambitions of the Dutch government . Perhaps it is time to carefully turn our gaze eastward to see what aspects of Chinese policy on algorithms and data protection are worth bringing to the Netherlands. Creemers argues that we can learn from the Chinese. "China takes the thorny issues that technology brings very seriously and often comes up with competent ideas for dealing with them."
This article is the second part of a series by Data&Privacyweb on China's position within the privacy domain. In controlling data, is China a country to look up to or down on? In the first article we explored the sharing of personal data by international platforms with a Chinese parent company and European policies regarding this.
Footnotes
https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/algorithms/
https://www.chinatalk.nl/is-china-showing-us-the-way-in-regulating-algorithms/
https://www.clingendael.org/publication/chinas-digital-power-assessing-implications-eu
