Put the public back in tech policy

How can democratic governments and their citizens regain agency over decisions made about digital technologies? Banner image: Shutterstock/DedMityay

Like Comment

This article is part of a series in which OECD experts and thought leaders — from around the world and all parts of society — address the COVID-19 crisis, discussing and developing solutions now and for the future. Aiming to foster the fruitful exchange of expertise and perspectives across fields to help us rise to this critical challenge, opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the OECD.

To keep updated on all of the OECD's work supporting the fight against COVID-19, visit our Digital Content Hub.


President Biden remarked after the Cyber Summit he hosted last summer in the White House that most critical infrastructure is now in the hands of private companies. He is right, and as if that was not enough of a dramatic conclusion, what’s more is that almost all digitised processes and products today are also made and operated by private companies. Whether we look at infrastructure or national (cyber)security tools, identity verification or digital currencies, data governance or intelligence gathering, core functions that until recently were the exclusive domain of governments no longer are.

The narrative from Silicon Valley is that through digitisation and with the help of corporate services, more efficiency and innovation are delivered. Cities become smart, intelligence is programmable, and processes become less bureaucratic. And who does not want that? Yet as technologies are adopted and decision-making processes outsourced, vital principles are lost in the process. Through digitisation, democratic governments lose access to information, agency to govern and the ability to hold liable or accountable critical actors in geopolitics. Tech companies know more about citizens and their preferences than governments do. Without reclaiming their roles, democracies risk losing the capacity to govern effectively—both online and offline.

Access to information

With every algorithm designed, datacentre built or surveillance tool deployed, companies gain valuable insights while the public remains in the dark. After all, most digital and technological systems are protected by trade secrets and other intellectual property protections. Few people are skilled to understand specific technologies and on top of that the opaque decisions made by and through them. Access to information is critical in and of itself, but also empowers individuals to exercise their agency to make decisions. Without transparency, accountability is impossible.

Learn more about the OECD Principles on AI for the responsible stewardship of trustworthy Artifical Intelligence

Agency

Without the right prerequisites and knowledge, a public debate, journalistic investigation or parliamentary inquiries are difficult and incomplete. The screening of tax databases, national security capabilities or rights protections are increasingly harder to conduct in the digital realm. While companies learn from the bulk data they collect and process, meaningful details or insights do not inform the public. As a result, the ability to translate the outcomes of a public debate into a public policy process are obstructed. Meanwhile de facto norms are often set by companies through technological standards and business models. As we speak, social media giants decide whether politicians have access to online audiences, software sellers choose whether to invest in better security or in marketing, and shady brokers mint digital currencies that evade monetary policies. The uptake of artificial intelligence risks exponentially accelerating these disruptions further. Agency is a precondition for democratic participation, so it is vital that citizens and states regain it vis-à-vis the technologies that now govern so many parts of our lives.

More on the Forum Network: Artificial Intelligence and Health Care in Light of COVID-19: Ensuring a human-rights perspective by Selin Sayek Böke, Member of Parliament, Grand National Assembly of Turkey

Accountability

The consequence of the lack of public awareness and dearth of public policies is a growing accountability gap. Too often, there are no consequences for perpetrators of harmful behaviour involving technologies: hacking, holding of data for ransom, acting anticompetitively or violating anti-discrimination legislation happens too often, and with impunity.

So while it may be tempting to look to private companies to double down on investing in cybersecurity—or to offer solutions for the very problems that are created elsewhere in the market—the net result is a further erosion of knowledge, agency and democratic accountability.

Like banks in the previous decade, tech companies have become “too big to scrutinise”, even benefitting from the pandemic to grow their already outsized power. Leaders and public authorities in democratic societies need to wake up and change this course before it is too late.

Find out more about the OECD's work on Digital

An screenshot of the OECD's Digital homepage

See more OECD data on Government

Related Topics

Tackling COVID-19 Artificial Intelligence Privacy & Cybersecurity Reimagining Democracy

Marietje Schaake

President, Cyber Peace Institute; International Policy Director, Cyber Policy Center, Stanford University

Marietje Schaake is the international policy director at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center and international policy fellow at Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. She was named President of the Cyber Peace Institute.

Between 2009 and 2019, Marietje served as a Member of European Parliament for the Dutch liberal democratic party where she focused on trade, foreign affairs and technology policies. Marietje is affiliated with a number of non-profits including the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Observer Research Foundation in India and writes a monthly column for the Financial Times and a bi-monthly column for the Dutch NRC newspaper.