These principles are designed to (1) guide the internal development of legislative, regulatory, and other policy proposals by CHT, either alone or together with our partners and collaborators, and (2) provide a means by which to evaluate any legislative, regulatory, or other policy proposals put forward by parties external to CHT.
They are intended to cover a broad array of legislative, regulatory, and other policy proposals relating to “tech policy,” broadly construed. This may include proposals related to the regulation of technology itself, the classification or legal status of tech companies, the taxation of tech companies or their services, the expansion of existing regulatory authority and/or the creation of new regulators, competition-related measures, and data governance-related measures (including privacy legislation).
1) Put people first
2) Avoid “atomizing” solutions
3) Confront power
4) Address root causes
5) Presume harm
6) Compel caution
7) Embrace complexity
8) Seek sustainability
For a variety of reasons, including significant corporate lobbying efforts and (often) superior industry knowledge and expertise, many technology-related laws, regulations, and policies are written from the perspective of companies and tend to privilege commercial interests. We must invert this model and put the rights and interests of actual human beings above corporate interests and agendas. Policies should be written from a people-centered point of view, accounting for human strengths and vulnerabilities, and with particular regard for the safety and wellbeing of children, families, and socially or economically disadvantaged or marginalized communities. Note, this is not the same as “human-centered” design, which still puts much of the onus on the individual (see Principle 2 below).
Tech-related policies are often hyper-focused on the individual and individual harms. Although we are each impacted by technology as individuals, impact and harms are often disproportionately experienced by certain groups and populations—usually the most vulnerable. In thinking about the impact of a particular technology or tech-related policy, we must consider its potential for collective and societal harms in addition to individual ones. Moreover, while we have limited power and capacity to negotiate rights or to absorb any harmful effects as individuals, we are stronger together. By thinking about our collective, shared experiences with technology, we can formulate stronger policy solutions.
The wielding of technology is ultimately about power. A policy or proposal that seeks to regulate a technology, its proponents, or its effects must account for power asymmetries and imbalances, including the impact of systemic racism and oppression. It should clearly articulate the legal, financial, and ethical responsibilities and liability of tech companies for their products and services. Reining in or rebalancing power may require tools from different legal domains, including consumer protection, non-discrimination laws, product and other liability frameworks, fiduciary law, and competition or “anti-monopoly” style measures. Effective policies should consider a combination of measures to address the underlying power dynamics in context. Where an imbalance of power remains (or a balance is unachievable), the policy should require those with more power to serve those with less. This includes placing the burden of proof and compliance on those with more power.
The true impact of technology on our lives can be subtle and profound at once. Activities that appear harmless in isolation (e.g. scrolling through social media) can be extremely harmful in the aggregate (e.g. social media addiction). Effective policies or proposals will tackle the underlying causes of harmful behaviors, rather than merely addressing symptoms. While often more politically challenging at the outset, they are likely to be more sustainable in the long-term. Relevant root causes in the context of tech policy include underlying business models; vast asymmetries of power, knowledge, capacity, and resources; and an absence of agreed upon norms in the digital realm.
Technology is never neutral. Depending on its use and context, every technology is capable of inflicting a variety of harms. At present, most laws and policies presume that technology is neutral and safe unless proven otherwise. Instead, policy interventions should presume harm and, in accordance with Principle 6 (below), compel caution. First and foremost, this means identifying and naming foreseeable risks and harms and anticipating unforeseeable ones. This also means placing the burden of proof on the owner, operator, or proponent of a technology to prove the absence, or effective mitigation, of specific kinds of risks and harms. Further, it may require imposing specific disclosure requirements about the risks and harms of a technology or practice, both to consumers through warning labels or certification schemes, as well as to regulators through certified corporate statements and mandatory reporting requirements.
The age of moving fast and breaking things is over. It’s time to acknowledge the fragility of our systems and the potential for powerful actors to exploit this fragility. Effective laws and policies to regulate technology itself will require companies to assess risks in advance and build in adequate safeguards against potential harms before deploying a technology product, service, or solution. Relatedly, policy proposals that address the status, taxation, or regulation of tech companies should include economic and other measures that incentivize a precautionary approach. Relevant steps may include undertaking an array of cost-benefit analyses and impact assessments (potentially including a social impact and/or human rights impact assessment), as well as harm reduction measures, among others. If addressing the market or competition, the policy may also impose certain fiduciary-related duties or other obligations on technology companies.
Humane policy proposals will acknowledge and demonstrate an awareness of the fact that everything is connected. Effective policy proposals do not propose “silver bullet” solutions or magical thinking; rather, they situate solutions within their interconnected and complex environment. Effective policy proposals will consider a spectrum of flexible, calibrated options, while avoiding reductionist or binary thinking and false dichotomies. While more challenging, this approach is more likely to result in sustainable solutions.
Technology evolves at a lightning pace, while law and policy-making are slow and deliberative by design. As a result, “harm creation” outpaces “harm response.” We must recognize the self-terminating properties of existing systems and avoid “band aid” solutions. Where possible, we should prioritize sustainable solutions that will not require frequent changes or the regular introduction of new measures. We should favor adaptive solutions that create positive feedback loops, ensuring relevance and ongoing suitability for a purpose. Sustainable solutions are not easy to evade, and account for the arc of technology.
Have comments about these Policy Principles? Let us know. Our small team gets a lot of requests so forgive us if we are not able to respond directly.
