AI Governance: Less Regulation ─ or More?

Teo Yi-Ling

25 November 2021

SYNOPSIS

As governments put in place governance frameworks for technology development, differing models are emerging that reflect the contrasting preferences of the US, Europe, and China. The pivotal issue is reconciling accountability and human rights. Should Singapore re-think its approach to technology innovation governance?

Source: Pixabay

COMMENTARY

IN 2014, the European Court of Justice enshrined the “right to be forgotten” as a human right in ruling against Google in the Costeja case. In doing so, it drew a line in the sand against the permanence and pervasiveness of personal data recordation on the World Wide Web. 2018 saw the promulgation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which effectively established a bulwark against unrestricted collection and use of personal data for EU residents.

In April  this year, the European Commission unveiled  the Artificial Intelligence Act. At the time of writing, the proposed Act has yet to come into force; upon ratification by all 27 EU member states, it will be the first legislative and governance framework to comprehensively address the creation, deployment, and use of artificial intelligence systems in the EU. A fundamental tenet of this framework is data protection and privacy, among other human rights recognised in the EU. Like the GDPR, this proposed legislation will have extra-territorial effect.

The China Model: Regulating Tech Giants

Ongoing for some time now is the Chinese government’s reining in of large Chinese technology companies and cracking down on cryptocurrency activity. In August, China took two significant steps in the direction of technology regulation.

Read the rest at https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/cens/ai-governance-less-regulation-%E2%94%80-or-more