It can't protect privacy. A non-profit isn't a public authority. This initiative is meant to (a) create technology that adheres to existing legislation and (b) lobby - read argue or ask - with politics to use this technology.
The harsh reality is that authorities can happily ignore or cherry pick from such efforts, and that they are free to change or deprecate legal frameworks is such is deemed necessary "in the public interest".
This initiative sounds nice, but I don't read anywhere how they tie into the longstanding efforts of human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
That's why I feel this is a technological experiment. It simply doesn't even consider the social impacts: there's no mention whatsoever of social research or leveraging existing social research.
So are wars and terrorism. Fundamental human rights are pressured as soon as they are threatened.
I'll leave this here:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/02/joint-civil-society-stat...
> it’s specifically set up to protect privacy.
It can't protect privacy. A non-profit isn't a public authority. This initiative is meant to (a) create technology that adheres to existing legislation and (b) lobby - read argue or ask - with politics to use this technology.
The harsh reality is that authorities can happily ignore or cherry pick from such efforts, and that they are free to change or deprecate legal frameworks is such is deemed necessary "in the public interest".
This initiative sounds nice, but I don't read anywhere how they tie into the longstanding efforts of human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
That's why I feel this is a technological experiment. It simply doesn't even consider the social impacts: there's no mention whatsoever of social research or leveraging existing social research.