Private governance or public good

The Manitoba government recently held public forums to discuss regulations for Bill 51, the Public Sector Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity Governance Act. I was able to participate in the meeting in Brandon and there was also a session in Winnipeg.

I was a bit fired up, ready to rail about data centres and phone terms and conditions and generally give it to big tech. The discussion, however, was focused on what the public sector responses should be regarding cybersecurity, data and privacy protections, and AI usage in government.

With all the recent attention on social media bans, the harms of AI, misinformation and the like, I was somewhat disappointed that these would not be tackled directly in this meeting. Those issues may be discussed at future forums.

At this event, as focus groups developed responses, the discussion between private companies and public governance kept getting mixed in, pointing out the reliance of government services on private companies in running their digital operations. As government operations become more dependent on digital infrastructure and towards AI agency and control, rethinking how technology is implemented may be crucial to our democracy.

We consider government infrastructure an essential public good. We build a highway, for instance. A highway is vitally important for people to get from place to place. The government owns, controls and maintains that highway for the public good. There is a sense of permanence and certainty in infrastructure. The public is happy to be using government-built roads.

Then one day, the government decides for the sake of safety that there should be four-way stops at every intersection. There is outrage. There are protests. The government hears the complaints and removes the unnecessary stop signs to improve traffic flow, as the people have spoken. This is democracy in action, where people have a say.

Along comes the digital superhighway, or digital technology in general. Most technology is owned by private corporations. A company is not a democracy. They may build software or an app or a phone and then change the terms and conditions as they like (stop signs). Do you have any recourse? Nope. Throw the phone away if you disagree. (Or shut down the highway).

This is increasingly what individuals and consequently governments are up against with the reliance on digital technology. It is not democratic.

The software or services and their companies are not accountable to the public. What they do is for the service of profit, not the good of the people. Governments may be subservient to anti-democratic governance through technology without recourse. Through lack of foresight and the ease of convenience, technology has made more of the operations of government less transparent and accountable to the people they are meant to serve.

For technology companies, this is an intended windfall. Regulatory capture by influence over government operations under the guise of improved efficiency has meant more of what should be done directly through government has taken away agency that allows governments to serve the good of the people.

In other words, as governments rely more on outside technology for their operations, the more influence private governance has over public good.

Privacy management, personal data handling, and age verification are some recent regulatory functions that governments have allowed private companies to take over.

These responsibilities — which I would argue should fall under government management — once given to private governance by technology companies, erode government power and the protections of citizens. As it is important that any critical infrastructure be under the control of the governments of its jurisdiction, it may be more important than ever to construct and control government digital infrastructure.

To get back to the discussion at the public consultation meeting, what does making a better government digital infrastructure look like?

Use open-source software and services, or create custom software within government. This means that specific uses can be implemented, controlled, and functionally modified, set by the government and based on what is good for citizens.

Regulate data sovereignty and security. Design and control systems that manage critical data securely and have that data reside only in the jurisdiction it belongs. Exercise autonomy over digital infrastructure, data, and intellectual property.

For private technology that must be used for public functions, mandate usage agreements that ensure transparency, accountability, and management of algorithms and other processes, such as AI. Outline clear policies for usage of each technology.

Legal remedies for citizens and governments need to be enforced based on jurisdictional laws and regulations. In other words, technology must meet government terms and conditions, not the other way around, otherwise we throw it away.

These are just some suggestions, and many more were developed at the forum. I was glad to be part of the discussion and look forward to more public consultations on the use of technology and government. People talking to people is what makes governments more accountable. Making our digital infrastructure work for us in a positive way is democracy in action. Get your voice heard in any other upcoming forums. Things can’t change if you don’t get involved. Democracy is action.

David Nutbean belonged to many provincial organizations promoting the safe and effective use of technology.