Page 469 - Kaleidoscope Academic Conference Proceedings 2024

Innovation and Digital Transformation for a Sustainable World

needs to remain viable, it should not be at the detriment of the technology principles as the foundation of an overarching
privacy and security of individuals or groups of individuals. HRDaT framework, aimed at refocusing developers towards
a single strategic pathway supporting global human rights.
5.5 Decentralization This paper recommends future research to validate the
specific W3.0 technical designs required to achieve each of
Technology designs should support an ecosystem of the five principles across varying industry sectors and
decentralized self-sovereignty that recognizes no borders business models. Also, for compliance and governance
whether digital or physical. The decentralized design frameworks to be able to hold technology providers
principle should allow greater freedom of movement and accountable against these principles, new frameworks for
opportunities for individuals to remove themselves from measuring human rights centric impacts must be derived
environments which do not meet our expectations for human from multi-disciplinary research inviting input from political
rights. Example: Decentralization and SSI reduce opportunities for science, economics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and
surveillance by agents who would hold individuals in a state of law, to name a few. Additionally, research should look at
servitude or slavery, and/or restrict freedom of movement, and/or how wider society, as the majority stakeholder in the
inhumanely treat individuals or groups. Through SSI individuals discussion, is informed and educated on emerging changes
also hold more control over data which may be used to attack their
reputation or to discredit them during democratic challenges to to technology and the impacts that has on their human rights.
politically biased policies. Providing non-technical citizens with tools to protect their
human rights holds little value if those stakeholders do not
6. CONCLUSION understand how to use them effectively or the impact their
decisions are having on their human rights or the
In this paper we have argued that privacy underpins our accumulative rights of their social networks.
ability as a society to meet the human rights standards set out
in UDHR and ECHR. It has made the case that current W2.0 REFERENCES
privacy models not only undermine but actively remove [1] A. Rusbridger, E. MacAskill, and J. Gibson, ed., "Edward
many of the human rights of minority and politically non- Snowden: a right to privacy is the same as freedom of
conforming groups through the centralization of personal speech – video interview," theguardian.com, 2015.
data and data access points. It went on to review the [2] J. Swanson, The Public and Private in Aristotle's political
opportunities and risks associated with moving from a Philosophy, Cornell University Press, London, 1992.
centralized W2.0 to a decentralized W3.0 ecosystem, [3] F. Schoeman, “Privacy: Philosophical Dimensions,”
highlighting where questions remain outstanding. It has American Philosophical Quarterly, vol.21, no.3, pp. 199-
shown that for us to be able to re-establish our human rights 213, 1984.
in a digital future, we require the decentralization offered by
W3.0 as it allows for a self-sovereign ecosystem that can [4] K. Nissim, A. Wood, “Is privacy privacy?,” Philosophical
support privacy based human rights. Finally, this paper has Transactions: A Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, vol.376, no.2128, pp. 1-17, 2018.
offered a set of five human rights-based privacy driven

– 425 –