Your research focuses on the intersection of public law and emerging technologies like AI and surveillance tools. From your perspective, what are the most urgent legal challenges that democracies face today in regulating these technologies?
I would say that the central challenge is to rebuild the social contract in these technological times. This requires a fundamental rethinking of the role that we – the citizens- wish to entrust to the government in the years and decades to come. To illustrate this with a very practical example, most governments implemented measures in the 20th century to ensure pluralism in the media. Today, this pluralism is clearly under threat in cyberspace, particularly due to the
phenomenon of filter bubbles and disinformation, sometimes assisted by AI.
Technology has thus succeeded in dismantling, in just a few years, fundamental legal safeguards that we thought were secure. Another example is that of “smart” cameras. Beyond the issue of facial recognition, is it acceptable to let algorithms determine what constitutes abnormal behavior and report it to law enforcement? While some argue that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, it is now well established that the mere fact of being monitored profoundly alters our behavior—this is the chilling effect. Beyond this issue, there are many questions: who designs the algorithm, and how can we ensure the absence of bias? What degree of decision-making autonomy does the government retain? In addition to the issues of civil liberties – which are essential – this ultimately calls into question the very meaning of what it means to “build a society” in the 21st century. In this regard, training public officials, particularly on AI-related issues, is a major necessity to preserve this relationship of trust. This is, for example, what our team at Lille University is doing as part of a major project co-funded by Digital Europe (www.ai4gov-x.eu).
Having worked on national and European projects around mass surveillance, how do you see the balance evolving between security needs and fundamental rights such as privacy and data protection?
We are indeed witnessing a major shift: growing pressure to adopt surveillance technologies. This is an application of the concept of techno-solutionism, driven by the idea that we live in an increasingly dangerous world, that human resources are no longer sufficient, and that technology is necessary to protect us. Let’s not forget, either, that these technologies represent a significant economic market, and that there is therefore a certain amount of pressure to adopt them.
Faced with this situation, I get the sense that public opinion is shifting. A few decades ago, the fact that governments could process citizens’ data on a massive scale for the purpose of maintaining public order was heavily criticized; there were fears of a “Big Brother” effect. Today, these fears seem to have largely subsided, and indeed, we are seeing police databases proliferate almost everywhere, in Europe and around the world. As an academic, the point is not to criticize this as such, but to question this trend, its operational relevance, and the risks it entails. In this regard, I believe it is essential that research projects systematically incorporate this ethical and legal dimension to analyze as objectively as possible the balance between fundamental rights and security needs.
As a member of the CERTAIN advisory board, what role do you believe interdisciplinary collaboration plays in shaping effective and ethical digital governance frameworks in Europe?
In my view, it is impossible to understand the legal and ethical implications of digital technologies without an interdisciplinary approach. For example, data security is a crucial issue today that cannot be addressed without taking technical aspects into account. I am, for instance, a member of a COST project (https://beingwise.eu) that facilitates high-quality interactions among researchers from very different fields regarding the security of emerging wireless
communications. We learn a great deal from these interactions, particularly because data security cannot be reduced to technical safeguards (encryption, antivirus software, etc.); we must also incorporate the human dimension, as it is often within this organisational security that the most significant vulnerabilities lie.
It is therefore always fascinating to exchange ideas with colleagues from other disciplines in order to better understand the challenges of technology, establish the necessary safeguards, and better identify conceptual differences. The CERTAIN project fits fully into this dynamic, and I am pleased to contribute to it as a member of the advisory board.