Session
Organizer 1: Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Organizer 2: Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Organizer 2: Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 1: Helani Galpaya, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 2: Pranesh Prakash, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 3: Narayan Vinay, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 4: Alison Gillwald, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 5: Judith Mariscal, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 2: Pranesh Prakash, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 3: Narayan Vinay, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 4: Alison Gillwald, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 5: Judith Mariscal, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Format
Roundtable
Duration (minutes): 60
Format description: A roundtable format is proposed as this would allow participants to exchange experiences and knowledge and foster an interactive session. A roundtable format ensures that all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to participate and share their experiences. The setting is less formal than a traditional panel and encourages flexible conversations.
Duration (minutes): 60
Format description: A roundtable format is proposed as this would allow participants to exchange experiences and knowledge and foster an interactive session. A roundtable format ensures that all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to participate and share their experiences. The setting is less formal than a traditional panel and encourages flexible conversations.
Policy Question(s)
1. How can a balance be achieved between the need to collect data (often of a personal nature), in order to enable DPI systems to work, and the need to protect the privacy and security of individuals concerned? Is such a balance even possible and can these competing needs be reconciled?
2. What recommendations can be made for policy frameworks and regulatory measures that would help achieve such a balance?
What will participants gain from attending this session? Participants will gain practical and research based insights into DPI models adopted by different countries. Through discussions with experts from different regions they will explore the possibilities of balancing competing needs of providing effective services while protecting the privacy of data subjects.
By engaging in interactive dialogue and peer-to-peer learning, participants will exchange experiences, reflect on successful and failed interventions, and identify gaps in current approaches. The session will also draw on research being carried out by LIRNEasia, exploring the existing and emerging data governance laws and policies in South and Southeast Asia, identifying important gaps in these data ecosystems, and making recommendations to enable rights-preserving and innovation-enabling data governance systems. The session will provide insights from this research and focus on case studies where possible. The discussion will also touch on experiences of other Global South regions such as Latin America.
Description:
Digital Public infrastructure (DPI) can be a critical enabler of digital transformation and assist in improving public service delivery.Governments now use DPI to improve delivery of public services, and push economic development. Many different systems of DPI exist, such as digital identity systems and digital payment systems. One example of such a digital identity system is India's Aadhar, which provides digital identification that citizens can use for different services. The functioning of DPI systems obviously requires the collection of large amounts of data, (with the consent of data subjects). This collection of data comes with ethical and practical considerations. Competing needs exist that have to be balanced. In order to provide services through DPI, governments must engage in mass collection of data. However this is accompanied by public concerns regarding privacy and ethical considerations. For example, if public services are provided on the basis of caste, DPI systems will need to have access to caste data. What are the potential risks associated with the collection and storage of such data, and how these risks be minimized? Can these competing goals be reconciled? This roundtable will bring together stakeholders from multiple sectors, and initiate discussions on how these conflicting needs can be tackled. The discussion will explore how existing DPI models have tackled these issues and draw on LIRNEasia’s research into laws and policies surrounding data governance in South and South East Asia, to make recommendations on best practices. The discussion will also consider experiences from other Global South South regions such as Latin America. The discussion will then be opened up to allow participants to share their examples of what has worked and what has not with regard to DPI systems. Participants will have the opportunity to exchange knowledge and experiences.
Digital Public infrastructure (DPI) can be a critical enabler of digital transformation and assist in improving public service delivery.Governments now use DPI to improve delivery of public services, and push economic development. Many different systems of DPI exist, such as digital identity systems and digital payment systems. One example of such a digital identity system is India's Aadhar, which provides digital identification that citizens can use for different services. The functioning of DPI systems obviously requires the collection of large amounts of data, (with the consent of data subjects). This collection of data comes with ethical and practical considerations. Competing needs exist that have to be balanced. In order to provide services through DPI, governments must engage in mass collection of data. However this is accompanied by public concerns regarding privacy and ethical considerations. For example, if public services are provided on the basis of caste, DPI systems will need to have access to caste data. What are the potential risks associated with the collection and storage of such data, and how these risks be minimized? Can these competing goals be reconciled? This roundtable will bring together stakeholders from multiple sectors, and initiate discussions on how these conflicting needs can be tackled. The discussion will explore how existing DPI models have tackled these issues and draw on LIRNEasia’s research into laws and policies surrounding data governance in South and South East Asia, to make recommendations on best practices. The discussion will also consider experiences from other Global South South regions such as Latin America. The discussion will then be opened up to allow participants to share their examples of what has worked and what has not with regard to DPI systems. Participants will have the opportunity to exchange knowledge and experiences.
Expected Outcomes
1. A policy brief summarizing the key findings of the session will be shared with key actors
2. Feedback from the workshop learnings will be shared with the LIRNEasia research team working on researching laws, policies related to data governance in South and South East Asia
3. Session learnings will also feed into LIRNEasia’s other engagements with policy makers working in the area of data governance
Hybrid Format: 1. The invited speakers will initially speak – this will be limited to 30 minutes, so that the remaining half the session (30 mins) can be devoted to audience participation
2. The session will be hybrid. There will be an online moderator who will manage the virtual platform. Online participants can pose questions verbally or through the chat. The online moderator will monitor the chat rooms, and relay questions and comments that are posed in the chat. Audience participation will alternate between online and on-site audience speakers, so that remote participants will have equal chance to pose questions.