Our Cyborg Future: Law and Policy Implications

Tuesday, September 9, 2014


Mungkin ada yang tertarik dengan legal futurism? Laporan dari Brookings institute ini menarik sekali untuk disimak. Laporan ini bermula dari putusan penting (landmark decision) dari MA Amerika Serikat dalam kasus Riley v California. Dalam kasus tersebut, SCOTUS memutuskan bahwa melakukan penggeledahan pada telepon selular tanpa dilengkapi surat perintah adalah tidak konstitusional.

Lalu, apa hubungannya dengan Cyborg? Dalam kasus tersebut, salah satu hakim SCOTUS berpendapat:

"These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."

Nah, pengertian dari Cyborg adalah:

1. a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device;

2. a person whose physical tolerances or capabilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by a machine or other external agency that modifies the body's functioning; an integrated man–machine system.

Maka ketika SCOTUS menyebut demikian (entah sengaja atau tidak), metafor Cyborg timbul ke permukaan. Intinya, SCOTUS seperti mengakui adanya integrasi antara manusia dengan mesin -- dalam hal ini telepon seluler -- dan bahwa handphone -- dalam bahasa mereka "...are not just another technological convenience" -- tapi bagian dari manusia yang layak pula diberikan perlindungan dan privasi.

Masalah integrasi manusia-mesin ini, dan kemudian, kesulitan untuk membedakan mana yang manusia dan mana yang sekedar mesin, merupakan objek studi dari Wittes dan Chong. 

Di kalangan Transhuman, diskusi soal Cyborg dan AI serta implikasi politik, kebijakan dan hukumnya sudah lama ramai diperbincangkan. Ada yang mendukung, seperti Hughes dan ada juga yang menolak, seperti Fukuyama (Artikel di FP dan Buku). 

Argumen Fukuyama lumayan solid. Cyborg, apalagi intelligence amplification, akan membuat manusia menjadi timpang. Ada yang sangat maju (lebih cepat dan kuat -- misalnya menggunakan eksoskeleton atau lebih pintar dengan amplifikasi dan ada yang terbelakang). Hal ini akan merusak demokrasi.

Tapi, beberapa pakar seperti Hughes menyatakan bahwa manusia harus diberikan kebebasan atas dirinya, termasuk untuk menjadi post human -- sebuah posisi yang sebenarnya libertarian. Salah satu justifikasi terkuat atas transhumanisme datang dari Bostrom.



Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani, PhD

 

[Privasi] Rumah Anda Masuk Google Street View?

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Kamis kemarin, Google secara resmi meluncurkan fitur streetview untuk Indonesia. Sebagaimana diutarakan Menteri Mari Pangestu pada tahun 2012, kemitraan Indonesia dengan Google diharapkan untuk dapat meningkatkan pariwisata Indonesia:


 “Tourism is such an important contributor to Indonesia’s economy and with the help of features like Google Maps, we hope to promote sustainable tourism by giving people a whole new way to experience Indonesia. We believe this mapping technology will have many different uses – allowing tourists to check out hotels before arriving, make travel plans and arrange meeting points. And with these available digital tools, hotels, tourism sites and businesses can be more creative in making it easier for visitors to find their stores, location and websites.”

Google Maps dengan Navigasi Hadir di Indonesia

Image: Tempo

Namun Streetview juga mempunyai aspek negatif, yakni intrusi terhadap privasi. Banyak gambar orang ketika sedang melakukan hal yang tidak layak dipandang umum masuk kedalam streetview. Salah satu kasus yang diperkarakan di Amerika dan Eropa adalah pengumpulan data wifi oleh Google. Di California District Court Amerika, Google diputus bersalah melanggar UU Penyadapan karena mengumpulkan data lokasi dan transmisi wifi. Atas kasus yang sama, Google juga didenda di Jerman. 

Sementara itu di Inggris, regulator Keterbukaan Informasi sekaligus Privasi, Information Commissioner's Office mengungkapkan:

"On 14 May 2010, the Commissioner became aware that the data controller’s Street View vehicles (adapted to collect publicly available Wi-Fi radio signals) had mistakenly collected payload data including email addresses, URLs and passwords relating to thousands of individuals. The data controller had intended to identify Wi-Fi networks and map their approximate location using the vehicle’s GPS co-ordinates when the radio signal was received. The aim was to improve the geographic location database for location-based mobile applications."

Kemudian, ICO memerintahkan berdasarkan Data Protection Act UK:

"In view of the matters referred to above the Commissioner hereby gives notice that, in exercise of his powers under section 40 of the Act, he requires that:
(1) Within 35 days of the date of this notice the data controller shall securely destroy any personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 held on vehicle discs and collected in the UK using Street View vehicles (to the extent that the data controller has no other legal obligations to retain such data) and,
(2) If the data controller subsequently discovers a Street View vehicle disk holding personal data and collected in the UK it shall promptly inform the Information Commissioner."

Masalahnya, Indonesia belum memiliki UU perlindungan hak privasi. Dengan demikian, masyarakat Indonesia akan lebih rentan dilanggar hak privasinya ketimbang masyarakat Uni Eropa yang dilindungi oleh Data Protection Directive. Memang, dalam UU Keterbukaan Informasi Publik terdapat pengecualian pembukaan informasi pribadi dan terdapat pula sanksi apabila membuka informasi pribadi. Namun penegakan dari sanksi ini masih belum jelas. 

Permasalahan lain adalah, kita tidak pernah mengetahui data apa saja yang dikumpulkan oleh Google. Gambar-gambar jalan dan rumah adalah data yang kelihatan, sementara sinyal wifi adalah data yang tidak kelihatan. Maka dari sisi Google sendiri diperlukan transparansi, berapa payload data yang dikumpulkan dan apa saja klasifikasinya. 

Tidak semua permasalahan privasi harus maju ke kepolisian lewat jalur pidana atau ke pengadilan lewat jalur perdata. Seperti di Inggris, permasalahan regulasi informasi seharusnya cukup diselesaikan lewat regulator yang kompeten. Karena (i) kebutuhan privasi mendesak, (i) sebenarnya sudah ada sedikit pengaturan di UU KIP dan (iii) Komisi Informasi Pusat sudah beroperasi beberapa lama, menarik untuk dikaji apakah kompetensi Komisi sebaiknya diperluas dalam menangani kasus kasus privasi. 

Cara untuk lapor ke Google

Kalau rumah anda, pelat mobil anda atau wajah anda masuk Google Street View, anda bisa lapor ke Google untuk minta dikaburkan gambarnya. Caranya, masuk ke Google Street View di dekat gambar yang ingin dilaporkan, kemudian click report a problem. Dari situ anda akan dihadapkan pada beberapa formulir untuk melaporkan keberatan anda. 

Biasanya setelah launching, dalam waktu dekat, akan ada banyak koleksi gambar-gambar Street View yang pribadi sifatnya. Setidaknya anda cek dulu apakah rumah anda masuk didalamnya. 

Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani
CRPG

 

, ,

47 ACTION PLANS HAVE BEEN RELEASED FOR 2014-2015 (47 RENCANA AKSI TELAH DIRILIS UNTUK PERIODE 2014-2015)

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Indonesia has released the 3rd Action Plan for 2014-2015. The design is made to assure the equality with Indonesia’s OGP Lead Chairmanship theme of ‘Promoting Public Participation’. It also emphasizes the importance of OGP movement to sub-national provinces and city level, where there are the center of citizens and real development. The Action Plan has announced some innovation to increase the awareness of public participation, such as holding “SOLUSIMU” (“Your Solution” in English), the contest of proposing any solution from people across nation to improve governance system; integrating inputs from CSOs to formulate the CSOs’ recommendation for the Action Plan; and involving youth as a new stakeholder group in each action plan development meeting.

Indonesia telah merilis Rencana Aksi yang ketiga untuk periode 2014-2015. Desain Rencana Aksi (Renaksi) ini dibuat untuk menjamin kesetaraan dengan kepemimpinan Pemerintahan Terbuka yang bertemakan “Meningkatkan Partisipasi Masyarakat” (Promoting Public Participation). Hal ini juga menekankan pentingnya gerakan Pemerintahan Terbuka untuk tingkat provinsi sub-nasional dan kota, di mana wilayah tersebut merupakan tempat pemusatan warga dan tempat perkembangan riil. Renaksi ini telah membuat beberapa terobosan untuk meningkatkan kesadaran partisipasi publik., seperti “SOLUSIMU” (dalam Bahasa Inggris Your Solution) yaitu suatu kontes di mana orang-orang yang berbeda negara bisa mengusulkan solusi apapun untuk memperbaiki sistem pemerintahan; menggabungkan masukan-masukan dari Organisasi-organisasi Masyarakat Sipil (OMS) untuk Renaksi; dan melibatkan pemuda sebagai kelompok stakeholder baru untuk berpartisipasi dalam setiap pertemuan pengembangan Renaksi.


There are 47 Action Plans agreed and divided into four groups of commitments related to the public service area. The action plan has the aim of increasing transparency and accountability on every ministry in vital sectors, such as economy, health, education, social, and law.

Terdapat sebanyak 47 Renaksi yang telah disepakati dan diklasifikasikan menjadi empat kelompok komitmen yang terkait dengan area pelayanan publik. Renaksi ini memiliki tujuan untuk meningkatkan transparansi dan akuntabilitas pada setiap kementrian di sektor-sektor utama, seperti ekonomi, kesehatan, pendidikan, sosial dan hukum.

 

Tentang "Negara Mundur" dan Konsekuensinya Terhadap Hukum Administrasi (The State in Retreat and Its Consequences on Administrative Law)

Saturday, April 19, 2014

I was invited to Municipal Services Project Conference, Putting Public in Public Services: Research, Action and Equity in the Global South International Conference – Cape Town, South Africa April 13-16, 2014. My paper entitled "The State Retreats and Never Returns: Consequences of Neoliberal Reforms on Administrative Law Protection in Indonesia" and the conference presentation are available for download int he links provided (both in English). The remainder of this post will be in Bahasa Indonesia.

Saya diundang oleh Municipal Services Project untuk memberikan presentasi atas karya tulis saya, pada Konferensi Putting Public in Public Services: Research, Action and Equity in the Global South International Conference – Cape Town, South Africa April 13-16, 2014. Paper saya yang berjudul  "The State Retreats and Never Returns: Consequences of Neoliberal Reforms on Administrative Law Protection in Indonesia" beserta presentasinya dapat di download di link tersebut.

Pada intinya tulisan saya membahas mengenai fenomena "negara mundur" dan penolakan terhadap "negara regulasi" di Indonesia. Baik fenomena negara mundur dan diskursus perihal "negara regulasi" sebenarnya belum begitu populer di Indonesia, walaupun pada kenyataannya, gejala tersebut ditemukan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari.

Saya membandingkan fenomena mundurnya negara di Indonesia dengan di beberapa negara industri maju, terutama di eropah. Di eropah, negara mundur dan kemudian kembali lagi sebagai regulator, yang mana perannya tidak lagi memberikan pelayanan publik, melainkan sebagai regulator atas pelayanan publik yang diberikan oleh pihak bukan negara (non state actors). Nah, di Indonesia, menurut analisa dan beberapa studi kasus yang saya lakukan, negara juga mundur, namun tidak kembali lagi sebagai regulator. Sebagai konsekuensinya, maka beberapa perlindungan hukum administrasi negara yang tadinya tersedia bagi warga negara, menjadi tidak tersedia. Saya memberikan beberapa studi kasus: Privatisasi Air di Batam, Penerapan UU Keterbukaan Informasi Publik pada Konsesi Air di Jakarta dan terakhir, Keterbatasan UU Pelayanan Publik. 

Ada dua penjelasan yang saya tawarkan. Pertama, penolakan Negara Regulasi pada tingkatan Mahkamah Konstitusi -- karena pengaruh beberapa Jurist yang mendukung negara kesejahteraan seperti Wolfgang Friedmann -- dan di sisi lain, delegasi/privatisasi terselubung kepada aktor bukan negara, yakni privatisasi yang dilakukan bukan dengan metode "full divestiture" atau penjualan saham atau aset, melainkan lewat kontrak dan mekanisme lainnya. Ironisnya, gerakan menolak privatisasi menurut saya, justru mengakibatkan regulasi tidak berkembang dan perlindungan hukum administrasi menjadi hilang.

Penjelasan kedua adalah gerakan tata kelola pemerintahan (Good Governance), yang hanya menitik beratkan akuntabilitas pada fungsi tradisional negara, sementara fungsi-fungsi tersebut sebenarnya sudah didelegasikan kepada aktor bukan negara. Trend ini, misalnya lewat UU Keterbukaan Informasi Publik atau UU Pelayanan Publik memang cukup efektif dalam membuat negara akuntabel, tapi tidak efektif atau tidak berguna pada fungsi-fungsi yang didelegasikan.

Dalam konferensi saya bertemu banyak delegasi dari negara lain yang memberikan penjelasan menarik atas pelayanan publik di negaranya masing masing. Saya mendapatkan banyak kasus menarik mengenai pemberdayaan Perusahaan Milik Negara/BUMN di Malaysia (Kesehatan), Uruguay (Telekom) dan juga pemberdayaan sektor informal di India dan beberapa negara lainnya.

 

The Free Flow Principles from Article 19

Sunday, April 6, 2014

I was invited for an expert meeting in London by Article 19 last February, to discuss transparency principles applicable to water resources and services. The meeting provides input to the Free Flow Principles launched by Article 19 on the eve of the World Water Day. 


image

Below are quotes from several experts and activists invited to the meeting:

Amadou Kanoute, CICODEV, Senegal:
“Two years ago we heard through the media about the government's plan to overhaul the institutional framework of the water delivery service in Senegal. The planned move from a service contract to a 25-year concession to a private company, would have meant a 41% increase on the tariff of water and would have made it difficult for disadvantaged consumers to access such an essential service. Just having that information and then being able to expose it pushed the government to revert. But what could have happened in Senegal has already taken place in many other countries in Africa, without notice and without people being given the opportunity to air their views. In our case we were lucky to have a free press to alert us. The Free Flow Principles – specifying obligations of states in regard to right to know, right to be heard, right to speak, public participation and transparency – will be useful to all advocacy efforts on rights to water and sanitation.”
Vanessa Lucena Empinotti, Environmental Governance Research Group at PROCAM/IEE/University of São Paulo, Brazil:
“The Free Flow Principles will be instrumental in increasing transparency practices and access to information in the field of water resources.  Particularly in Brazil, The Principles will reinforce the participatory and decentralized water institutions already in place and consequently increase their influence over the State and private sector. Access to information is critical to ensuring equitable access to water and sanitation.”
Rezaul Karim Chowdhury, Coast Trust, Bangladesh:
“In Bangladesh, we are in the midst of a drinking water crisis in both coastal and urban areas, mostly due to climate change. The situation is particularly critical for women who, in carrying the burden of providing for their families, are the worst to suffer. These Principles will be an invaluable tool for communities and civil society activists advocating for better governance.”
Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani, Center for Water Governance, Indonesia:
“In Indonesia, disclosure in water and sanitation sector is minimal. Contracts are often kept secret and water governance tends to be implemented in a highly technical, exclusive and elitist manner. Problems relating to water are not simply about pipes and infrastructures. They are about how people resolve disputes amongst themselves and how they are able to relate themselves to the environment. If water democracy is to be realized, the public must be enabled to participate meaningfully in the process. The Principles will help empower people to do so.”
Scott Griffen, International Press Institute, Austria:
"These Principles reflect an increasing recognition of the link between development and freedom of expression. By assisting journalists to define those rights and seek to improve and promote journalistic coverage of development issues, The Principles will very much compliment our efforts to  guide journalists in their reporting of development issues. We look forward to distributing The Free Flow Principles to our network."

You can download the full principles here (English).

Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani

 

FoI commission needs strengthening

Saturday, July 27, 2013



Mohamad Mova Al’Afghani, Bogor, West Java | Opinion (The Jakarta Post) | Tue, July 16 2013 

The House of Representatives has elected seven members to the National Freedom of Information (FoI) Commission who will serve for the next four years. 

The role of the commission is crucial in the reform process as it is mandated by the Freedom of Information Law No. 14/2008 to preside over disputes between the public and public bodies concerning access to information. 

After four years, what have we learned so far from the commission? 

First of all, the commission still lacks structural independence. Although Law No. 14/2008 stipulates that the commission is an “independent” body, it financially relies on the Communications and Information Ministry. In practice, the commission is a “task force” under the ministry, because it can only propose a budget through the 
Ministry’s secretariat-general. 

Worse, the commission has no liberty to appoint and recruit its own administrative officers. The commission staff members are employees of the ministry. These disadvantages will adversely impact on the performance of the commission’s employees.

In regulation theories, budgetary and employment issues are the two key determinants of independence. A regulatory body is said to be truly independent from the executive if its budget and human resources administration are not dependent on executive entities. 

The rationale for promoting the commission’s independence is because it hears disputes between the public and the government. 

Thus, the commission is expected to be neutral, fair and able to resist any pressure from the government side. But due to the lack of independence on budgetary and employment matters, the commission is prone to influence and pressure from the executive. 

The pressure may not be in the form of repression, but snail-paced approval of budgets or limited manpower support. The issue of independence is becoming more important with the 2014 elections drawing near. It is very likely that public requests for information related to political parties’ budget and election disputes will rise. 

Second, there is a need to uphold the personal integrity of the FoI commissioners. The commission has enacted a “code of ethics” but it short stops of regulating conflicts of interest. In advanced jurisdictions, conflicts of interest are not only regulated but also made transparent. 

Independent bodies in advanced jurisdictions publish a register of their members’ past, present and potential conflicts of interest and include a list of past employment, political-party affiliation, share ownership, directorship and 
consulting projects. 

This register of interest is then published on the institution’s website. This sort of transparency mechanism will prevent conflicts of interest from occurring as disputants will know beforehand and can raise objections to the composition of a dispute panel.

Third, there has to be value for money in bureaucracy. We need to be constantly reminded that transparency comes at a price despite the benefits it provides. FoI in the UK costs around £35.5 million (US$53.4) per year (2005) while in the US it costs US$382 million per year (2009). Such expenditure includes both the cost of compliance by public bodies and the operational cost of the FoI commission.

Just as the efficiency of courts is evaluated, a FoI commission can be evaluated in terms of its case-handling. The part of the case-flow where adjudication and deliberation takes places is not a subject for evaluation since judges and arbitrators can take a long time to deliberate a single case and the length of deliberation is oftentimes not an indication of a measure of justice. 

Nevertheless, this can still be used as an indicator or an estimate of efficiency in case handling. 

However, the genuinely administrative part of a dispute-settlement body can always be subjected to efficiency scrutiny. 

This includes, among other things, the process of filing or case registration, notifications to disputants, determination of panel members and inter-institutional cooperation for execution. A justice system can be said to be efficient if these administrative processes are not time consuming. 

It is possible to benchmark and rate quasi-judicial bodies such as the FoI commission (including the election commission, or the competition commission in this respect) in terms of their administrative efficiency. We can then see — on average — how much time is required by each of these commissions for each case, notwithstanding the complexity and differences in the nature of the disputes settled by them.

Fourth and finally, there is a need to enhance the quality of decisions or recommendations rendered by the commission. 

While dispute resolution is the primary duty of the commission, promotion and other forms of public relations activities are only secondary to this. One essential skill imperative for the fulfillment of this core duty is the skill of case analysis and writing judgments. 

FoI commissioners must have strong analytical abilities and be conversant in the art of legal hermeneutics. They must be able to interpret abstract legal notions such as “the public interest” in concrete cases. Such skills are not easy because case-law has not really developed in our legal system. 

Thus, the commissioner may not find a lot on “public interest” through case-law and as a consequence they may be required to develop their own interpretations.

What is important for a commissioner is not to render politically correct judgments, such as those that are in favor of transparency merely because it is more popular in civil society. What needs to be done is to arrive at the right and just decision. 

When internal capacity is lacking, a FoI commissioner should then hire experts in order to carry out the research in difficult cases in which precedence is lacking. There is a developing discipline of “comparative FoI” which looks at the norms, policies and practices of FoI in other jurisdictions that could be used as an approach to settle difficult cases.

The writer is a member of the Indonesian FoI Network. He has a PhD in law from the University of Dundee, UK.

 

Cash-strapped governments will need private sector investment to meet sustainable transport objectives, OECD says

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

OECD published a new report on transport:

 

Cash-strapped governments will need private sector investment to meet sustainable transport objectives, OECD says

 

Boosting private sector investment in sustainable transport infrastructure will be essential as governments seek to meet long-term economic and environmental objectives at a time of constrained public finances, according to a new OECD report.

Mobilising Private Investment in Sustainable Transport: The Case of Land-Based Passenger Transport Infrastructure points out that investment in transport systems is a powerful driver of long-term growth. It also notes, however, that the transport sector is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally, contributing 23% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, as well as a significant source of pollutants which pose serious risks to human health. 

 

Transport emissions could double by 2050 if governments fail to address unsustainable patterns in existing models, the OECD said.  The new report encourages policymakers and private sector actors to shift investments away from emissions-intensive transport infrastructure that is not resilient to climate change towards more sustainable transport modes, such as metros, passenger rail, bus rapid transit or electric vehicle charging stations.   

 

"It is urgent that investment in transportation moves towards building right, not just building more. The private sector has a key role to play in this shift, which will help governments to meet the pressing economic, social and environmental challenges they will face over coming decades." OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said during the launch of the report at the International Transport Forum's annual summit in Leipzig, Germany. "Governments on their part must play a central role in mobilising private sector investment for sustainable transport infrastructure."

 

The new OECD working paper provides governments with a comprehensive toolkit of key policy instruments to mobilise private investment in sustainable transport infrastructure. It builds on the OECD's Green Investment Policy Framework, and emphasises the need for integrated, domestic policy frameworks to address investment barriers.

The OECD Green Investment Policy Framework

 

Source: Adapted from Corfee-Morlot et al., 2012.

Key policy recommendations include:

 

·         Adopt a "co-benefits" approach.  While sustainable transport projects are often driven by a range of policy objectives, including reduced traffic congestion and local air pollution, when properly implemented they can also help achieve climate change goals. The Bus Rapid Transit system in Mexico City reduced travel time for users by 40%, significantly reduced exposure to particulate matter, and in addition achieved annual GHG emissions savings of 110.000 tons.

 

·         Use pricing instruments such as carbon prices, fuel and vehicle taxes, reform of fossil-fuel subsidies and congestion charges to shift incentives away from fossil-fuel based road transport. Successful congestion charges operate in London, Stockholm and Singapore.

 

·         Implement regulations and standards that complement pricing instruments, such as zoning policies and land use planning, standards and public procurement programs.

 

·         Use innovative financial tools and risk-sharing mechanisms to mobilise new sources of financing. Land value capture tools, for example, aim to harness revenues from the increase in property value generated by new or renovated transport infrastructure. They can be used as part of the capital financing mix to improve projects' profitability, as in the case of the Hong Kong transit railway Setting suitable financing vehicles is particularly critical to attract institutional investors such as pension funds.

 

·         Build capacity and implement soft policy tools to change business and consumer behaviour, such as public awareness campaigns.

The working paper is available here, and is summarized here. More information on OECD's work on climate finance and investment is provided at www.oecd.org/env/cc/financing.

For further information, journalists can contact Geraldine Ang or Virginie Marchal of the OECD Environment Directorate or the OECD Media Office (tel.: +33 1 45 24 97 00).

See German version here.

About the OECD: The OECD is the global economic policy forum. It provides analysis and advice to its 34 member governments and other countries worldwide, promoting better policies for better lives.

 

 

 

Louise Fietz
Media Coordinator
Public Affairs and Communications Directorate, Media Division

 

2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Tel: +33 1 45 24 80 91 –  Fax: +33 1 45 24 94 37

Louise.Fietz@oecd.org  || www.oecd.org

 

Follow us on: