Digi­tal socie­ties’ rights and responsibilities

Digi­ta­li­sa­tion should bene­fit ever­yone. ‘If a society wants to take advan­tage of the bene­fits of digi­ta­li­sa­tion, it needs the right oppor­tu­ni­ties to do so – and the population’s trust is key,’ says Erik Schö­nen­ber­ger, Direc­tor of Digi­tale Gesell­schaft (Digi­tal Society). ‘You also need the right infra­struc­ture.’ This includes high-perfor­mance broad­band inter­net access and full mobile coverage. It’s not just tech­ni­cal capa­city that matters: the way in which the flow of data is control­led is also crucial for the libe­ral use of the web. Just five years ago, the issue of net neutra­lity was high on the agenda, with discus­sions on whether certain data packets could be trans­mit­ted with prio­rity status. If this were the case, inter­net provi­ders could have shown a prefe­rence for their own services or offers from solvent custo­mers. Things didn’t get that far. ‘Thanks to the efforts of digi­tal civil society, we now have good, clear regu­la­tion that ensu­res net neutra­lity,’ says Schö­nen­ber­ger. In order for digi­ta­li­sa­tion to add value for ever­yone, services must be available to ever­yone, too. This is parti­cu­larly true of state services. In addi­tion, the services must be intui­tive to use: users should not have to acquire the skills to do so. ‘The autho­ri­ties need to break down barriers,’ he says. A digi­tally trans­pa­rent state that is under­stan­da­ble to ever­yone boosts trust.

Sove­reig­nty and trust

In terms of infra­struc­ture, howe­ver, tech­no­logy jour­na­list Adri­enne Fich­ter belie­ves that Switz­er­land has quite some work to do. Because autho­ri­ties rely on Ameri­can clouds for their commu­ni­ca­ti­ons infra­struc­ture, they are vulnerable to black­mail, she says, if tax or social data is sent through them. Some think that the data is secure because the Swiss autho­ri­ties hold the keys to the data­ba­ses – but she considers this to be a fall­acy. ‘After all, it’s the big tech compa­nies that hold the keys to encryp­ting the data.’ This makes it all the more pres­sing for Switz­er­land to consider where it can be inde­pen­dent along the entire hard­ware and soft­ware supply chain. If it wants to streng­then its digi­tal sove­reig­nty, it must join forces with Europe. Europe needs its own solu­ti­ons, and regu­la­tion alone is not enough, in Adri­enne Fichter’s eyes: tech­no­lo­gies have to be deri­ved from this. Europe and Switz­er­land must now make massive invest­ments, inclu­ding in indus­trial policy, she argues. Open-source soft­ware must be promo­ted. ‘This can’t just be some­thing that’s done in our free time,’ she says. The tech­no­logy needs to be as effi­ci­ent and secure as its global compe­ti­tors. She belie­ves that it is important not to copy the US model, with its large tech conglo­me­ra­tes and closed soft­ware univer­ses. Euro­pean values call for solu­ti­ons that comply with data protec­tion and data economy while achie­ving a high level of cybersecurity.

Protec­tion and liability

Digi­tale Gesell­schaft is calling for a new regu­la­tion on data protec­tion – and has come up with a concept for this. Erik Schö­nen­ber­ger is not impres­sed by the current regu­la­tion: ‘To put it simply, this means that we have the right to infor­ma­tio­nal self-deter­mi­na­tion – but we also have to exer­cise this right.’ Nowa­days, inter­net users need to read the data protec­tion provi­si­ons and cookie banner regu­la­ti­ons before they can make an infor­med decis­ion. This is exactly what Schö­nen­ber­ger wants to reverse. Careful hand­ling of data should be a matter of course at a guaran­teed basic level – and this should be the bare mini­mum. In contrast to the current solu­tion, the propo­sal is based on six protec­tion objec­ti­ves that every orga­ni­sa­tion or autho­rity must comply with. These objec­ti­ves include protec­tion against discri­mi­na­tion or mani­pu­la­tion. The advan­tage of a regu­la­tion of this nature is that it is tech­no­logy-inde­pen­dent. He belie­ves that it could feasi­bly regu­late arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence (AI) appli­ca­ti­ons, as well. And he fore­sees other bene­fits, too. Data could be used more flexi­bly while comply­ing with the protec­tion objec­ti­ves. Health data, for exam­ple, could be used more easily for rese­arch purpo­ses. Howe­ver, if a data protec­tion solu­tion like this is to have any chance of being imple­men­ted in Switz­er­land, it must be accepted by the EU. He’s opti­mi­stic: ‘In our opinion, a Swiss regu­la­tion with protec­tion objec­ti­ves, like this one, would conti­nue to be compa­ti­ble with the EU Gene­ral Data Protec­tion Regu­la­tion (GDPR).’

Daniel Säuberli points out that data does not always have to be coll­ec­ted: there are alre­ady low-data alter­na­ti­ves that can be used when perso­nal data is presen­ted. Tech­no­lo­gies for enhan­ced protec­tion of privacy, such as zero-know­ledge proofs, show that the authen­ti­city of the requi­red infor­ma­tion for tran­sac­tions, such as those rest­ric­ted to people over 18, can be veri­fied using a person’s e‑ID without fully disclo­sing their iden­tity data. The co-foun­der and presi­dent of DIDAS (Digi­tal Iden­tity and Data Sove­reig­nty Asso­cia­tion) says: ‘These tech­no­lo­gies aren’t an abstract promise for the future: they’d alre­ady be opera­tio­nal if the neces­sary finan­cial resour­ces and the poli­ti­cal will to colla­bo­rate inter­na­tio­nally on quali­ta­tive speci­fi­ca­ti­ons, stan­dar­di­s­a­tion and regu­la­tory accep­tance and their further deve­lo­p­ment were empha­ti­cally funded.’ DIDAS has been support­ing the Swiss e‑ID and trust infra­struc­ture project for four years and aims to advance tech­no­lo­gies, products and services that protect privacy, enable digi­tal inte­grity and self-deter­mi­na­tion, and faci­li­tate the secure use of elec­tro­ni­cally veri­fia­ble data.

Digi­ta­li­sa­tion and its limits

Digi­ta­li­sa­tion and data secu­rity take centre stage with respect to demo­cra­tic proces­ses, in parti­cu­lar. The possi­bi­lity of coll­ec­ting signa­tures digi­tally for initia­ti­ves and refe­ren­dums is curr­ently under discus­sion. E‑Collect could well be a winner here, not least because of the issues with coll­ec­ting signa­tures on paper. The forged signa­tures of the recent past have shown the vulnerabi­lity of this approach. This is where E‑Collect could bring bene­fits – but Erik Schö­nen­ber­ger also belie­ves that it has its limits. He is criti­cal of e‑voting, explai­ning that the problem  lies in the three conflic­ting requi­re­ments impo­sed on it. The votes must be coun­ted correctly, the secrecy of the votes and the ballot must be preser­ved and, at the same time, trans­pa­rency is needed to enable any recoun­ting. This would be tech­ni­cally feasi­ble. ‘But the solu­ti­ons are very complex. Few people would be able to under­stand it,’ he says. If these proces­ses are no longer traceable, results can easily be discredi­ted due to suspi­cion. ‘This would be a very deli­cate situa­tion from a demo­cra­tic point of view.’

People and technology

The prin­ci­ples asso­cia­ted with our Swiss values are central to the design of a digi­tal iden­tity. Switz­er­land does not curr­ently have e‑IDs. ‘This is the only way to turn data into compre­hen­si­ble, veri­fia­ble and legally relia­ble infor­ma­tion that crea­tes value in inter­ac­tions and tran­sac­tions,’ says Daniel Säuberli. ‘The programme is a prime exam­ple of Swiss fore­sight and how complex govern­ment digi­ta­li­sa­tion projects can be successfully plan­ned and imple­men­ted: an open and parti­ci­pa­tory deve­lo­p­ment process, the ancho­ring of important civil society values and safe­guards, the publi­ca­tion of the source code and the scope for further deve­lo­p­ment.’ Use levels in pionee­ring count­ries such as Esto­nia have reached 99 percent, but these solu­ti­ons also have their short­co­mings. Switz­er­land is still in the early stages with its new e‑ID law for natu­ral persons. ‘This is also because it conta­ins features that are not easily imple­men­ted in the digi­tal world. You have to strike a balance between secu­rity, self-deter­mi­na­tion and user-friend­li­ness,’ says Säuberli. In an incre­asingly digi­ta­li­sed society, the importance of protec­ting against cyber­crime is also on the up. ‘The global damage caused by cyber­crime each year is esti­ma­ted at around USD 10 tril­lion in 2025,’ he says. As a result, the cost of secu­rity measu­res is expec­ted to rise to over USD 500 billion by 2032. 

‘The mecha­nisms within the e‑ID address a long-stan­ding problem of the inter­net, namely the lack of veri­fia­bi­lity and thus the basis of digi­tal trust. That’s why it’s still advi­sa­ble to be suspi­cious of infor­ma­tion coming from the inter­net until it’s been veri­fied.’ Säuberli points out that tech­no­logy alone cannot create the basis of trust for a demo­cracy. ‘Without struc­tu­ral trust through the inter­wea­ving of tech­ni­cal measu­res such as cryp­to­gra­phy with the rules and laws that apply in the real world and repre­sent human trust, the digi­tal sphere will remain unchar­ted waters.’ Säuberli cites the current parlia­men­tary motion on E‑Collect, which combi­nes tech­no­lo­gi­cal secu­rity with a legally binding frame­work and demo­cra­tic trans­pa­rency, as a good exam­ple of how this can be achie­ved. ‘Hopefully this will be accom­pa­nied by a rese­arch project, coor­di­na­ted by DIDAS with parlia­men­tary support and submit­ted to the Hasler and Merca­tor foun­da­ti­ons.’ Another good exam­ple is the Linux Foun­da­tion. Accor­ding to Säuberli, this wants to make the supply chain of the most important open-source program libra­ries more trans­pa­rent by inte­gra­ting trust-buil­ding measu­res on both a tech­no­lo­gi­cal and a human level.

Policy and technology

The big tech compa­nies are heading in the oppo­site direc­tion; Adri­enne Fich­ter finds them to be incre­asingly opaque. Until a few years ago, they would have respon­ded to public pres­sure. They were anxious to win the favour of jour­na­lists, and supported jour­na­li­stic projects as a result. That charm offen­sive is over, she belie­ves. ‘Even though Switz­er­land is gaining in importance as a loca­tion for the big tech compa­nies, I find them incre­asingly opaque, cautious and hostile towards the media on ques­ti­ons of tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ment,’ she says. Criti­cally deal­ing with these issues is important for a libe­ral society. She belie­ves that deve­lo­p­ments from Sili­con Valley need to undergo criti­cal scru­tiny. ‘You shouldn’t just adopt them verba­tim,’ she says. Howe­ver, the German-spea­king media, parti­cu­larly in Switz­er­land, have not yet unders­tood the importance of this area. She appre­cia­tes that topics such as AI are rather abstract and dry, which puts lots of people off. It’s not just about tech­no­logy. ‘We have to under­stand that this isn’t a niche topic for a specia­list audi­ence,’ she says. It’s a poli­ti­cal issue. She descri­bes hers­elf as a poli­ti­cal jour­na­list, even though she works in tech jour­na­lism. The media doesn’t adequa­tely reflect the importance of the topic. She adds: ‘In Bern, too, there are many digi­tal policy issues that receive little attention.’ 

Trust and credibility

To bring scien­ti­fi­cally complex issues to the public, GESDA (Geneva Science and Diplo­macy Anti­ci­pa­tor) is working on projects like the Anti­ci­pa­tion Obser­va­tory, which aim to make scien­ti­fic infor­ma­tion clearly acces­si­ble – free from fake news, cura­ted by people. The initia­tive brings toge­ther science and diplo­macy to achieve this goal. ‘Both are important stake­hol­ders,’ says Jean-Marc Crevoi­sier, Direc­tor Commu­ni­ca­tion and Media at GESDA. The initia­tive aims to anti­ci­pate future scien­ti­fic achie­ve­ments and use them for the bene­fit of society. ‘We do this in line with the United Nati­ons’ Sustainable Deve­lo­p­ment Goals (SDGs), which serve as a frame­work for us,’ says Crevoisier.

Science and technology

GESDA func­tions as a think tank. The initia­tive iden­ti­fies and analy­ses the most pres­sing trends in science and tech­no­logy and trans­la­tes them into concrete measu­res for the bene­fit of society. To this end, it seeks to soli­cit input from the worl­d’s best scien­tists and bring toge­ther stake­hol­ders from diffe­rent count­ries and sectors. ‘We work with scien­tists on all five conti­nents and our initia­ti­ves are aimed at the whole world,’ says Crevoi­sier. GESDA has a global network of 2,100 scien­tists. These rese­ar­chers are often the first to know what’s going on in tech­no­logy world­wide. They provide insights into global scien­ti­fic breakth­roughs and assess their poten­tial for the next five or 25 years. ‘They share their findings with us and we summa­rise the analy­ses in the GESDA Science Breakth­rough Radar,’ he says. 

The 2024 edition high­lights seve­ral scien­ti­fic trends that will have a major impact on society in the deca­des to come. This includes the use of science and tech­no­logy to improve and restore ecosys­tems. Another trend is rese­arch into alter­na­ti­ves to conven­tio­nal binary data proces­sing such as quan­tum and biolo­gi­cal systems and the impro­ve­ment of brain func­tion through tech­no­logy with brain-compu­ter inter­faces. ‘These trends span all disci­pli­nes – from the natu­ral and engi­nee­ring scien­ces to the social scien­ces and huma­ni­ties – and show just how inter­con­nec­ted of today’s scien­ti­fic chal­lenges are,’ says Crevoi­sier. GESDA is also a do tank. And this work is more time-consum­ing. ‘It takes more time to turn these trends into real initia­ti­ves,’ says Crevoi­sier. Take quan­tum tech­no­logy, for instance: It was first presen­ted in the Science Breakth­rough Radar 2021. The idea for the Open Quan­tum Insti­tute (OQI) arose during the GESDA summit in 2022, where leading repre­sen­ta­ti­ves from science and indus­try propo­sed an open insti­tute to use quan­tum tech­no­lo­gies for the bene­fit of society. ‘This idea went through an incu­ba­tion phase, where its struc­ture and objec­ti­ves were defi­ned. In the mean­time, GESDA secu­red the neces­sary funding to start a pilot project, which began in spring 2024.’

Stimu­la­tor and facilitator

Foun­da­ti­ons can play a crucial role in finan­cing projects that directly bene­fit civil society, the public sector and a respon­si­ble economy. ‘Nevert­hel­ess, people often lack the under­stan­ding, resour­ces and stra­te­gic impe­tus,’ says Daniel Säuberli. Initia­ti­ves could create space for expe­ri­men­ta­tion, serving to educate people and contri­bute to digi­tal liter­acy. They act as a cata­lyst for buil­ding trust in the long run. Foun­da­ti­ons could also actively support digi­tal public goods. He cites the Swiss foun­da­tion GLEIF as an exam­ple, which crea­tes a veri­fia­ble orga­ni­sa­tion iden­tity. ‘With this system, compa­nies around the world can digi­tally prove that they exist and that the data linked to this iden­tity is authen­tic,’ explains Säuberli. Unfort­u­na­tely, he often notes that people, parti­cu­larly in poli­tics, public admi­nis­tra­tion and busi­ness, fail to fully under­stand what digi­tal public goods can achieve. This also leads to inter­na­tio­nally connec­ta­ble tech­no­lo­gies not being used. He calls for the promo­tion of effec­tive, scalable and openly licen­sed projects, such as the Verifiable.trade foun­da­tion, which aims to simplify access to global trade. ‘If we want long-term sustainable, fair and afforda­ble (or even free-to-use) digi­tal infra­struc­tures, we need stra­te­gic, phil­an­thro­pic start-up finan­cing at an early stage,’ he says. These digi­tal public goods are crucial to tack­ling one of the grea­test chal­lenges of our time: inter­ope­ra­bi­lity. Säuberli: ‘We need to design our digi­tal systems in such a way that they can work toge­ther in trust across silos and borders. Only then will the tech­no­logy have a real impact.’

Secu­rity and self-determination

Phil­an­thro­pic foun­da­ti­ons are essen­tial to GESDA’s exis­tence. They provide two-thirds of the annual opera­ting budget. ‘Without their support GESDA simply wouldn’t exist,’ says Jean-Marc Crevoi­sier. And they can do even more. And they can do even more. Daniel Säuberli is convin­ced that ‘Switz­er­land has the poten­tial to play a leading role in shaping a digi­tal future – a future that relies on streng­thening the digi­tal self-deter­mi­na­tion of indi­vi­du­als and orga­ni­sa­ti­ons and is made possi­ble by trust­wor­thy secu­rity mecha­nisms.’ It’s not about mere logins or access rights – it’s about a funda­men­tal change: the estab­lish­ment of digi­tal rela­ti­onships in which people and orga­ni­sa­ti­ons can take their data with them and use and share it inde­pendently. This would leave us not depen­dent on the rules of the big corpo­ra­ti­ons, but able to shape the play­ing field accor­ding to our own values and rules. We are at a criti­cal point where we still have the oppor­tu­nity to build a digi­tal ‘safe house’ to safe­guard our ability to act in the digi­tal sphere. This infra­struc­ture is a key element of future digi­tal public services – a kind of digi­tal back­bone – that can only be built in colla­bo­ra­tion with the state. Säuberli: ‘Because it’s not for profit, but serves the common good – parti­cu­larly in Switz­er­land, where the level of trust in insti­tu­ti­ons is high. It’s about laying the digi­tal tracks of tomor­row, based on prin­ci­ples that both secure indi­vi­dual free­dom and set clear limits on govern­ment interference.’