Episode 40 | Beyond "I Agree": Data Sovereignty and the AI Black Box Featuring Ken Katayama

Jul 11
25 min read

Updated: Aug 2

Click the arrow (›) below to expand or collapse the transcript.

TRANSCRIPT

Stella Micheong Cheong 00:01

Hello, listeners, and welcome back to Season 5 of Conversations4Citizenship! I’m your host, Stella Micheong Cheong, from Yonsei University.

In this season five, we have chosen ‘The New World Order’ as the overarching theme for Season 5, and we are delighted to welcome Ken Katayama, a Digital Policy Evangelist from Japan in the first episode to kick off the new theme. Have you ever wondered what happens to your privacy the moment you step out your front door in today’s hyper-connected world? Artificial intelligence and mass surveillance are silently reshaping our public spaces, stripping away our anonymity, and challenging everything we thought we knew about data protection.

Today, we explore why simply clicking "I Agree" is no longer enough to protect us. The hidden dangers of the AI "black box", and why the global spread of facial recognition technology affects us all so, we are speaking with Mr. Katayama for a deeply interactive and practical conversation about the real-world impact of digital transformation. Let’s get started! Hi, how are you Mr. Katayama.

Ken Katayama 01:42

Thank you very much. How are you doing, Stella?

Stella Micheong Cheong 01:57

I'm good, but sorry my voice, yeah, sorry for that, but I will do my best.Okay, before we dive deep, could you share with our listeners, why you prefer to be called a digital policy evangelist, and what led you to your work in digital transformation.

Ken Katayama 02:11

Okay, well, again, thank you again, Stella, for having me, and I hope I look forward to our discussion today. So, let's start first with the word digital policy. So digital policy in my world, I believe it's privacy, data, cyber security and AI, I think these are the four sort of areas that we would call digital policy, meaning in the sense that we're all connected to the cyberspace. So the cyberspace, I mean, obviously you're in Korea now. I'm in Japan, but so we're physically not in the same area, but in the cyberspace, we're in the same cyberspace saying this zoom and in order to make you know, our conversation possible today, it's because we both want to have a free, fair and secure cyberspace which enables us to be connected. And you talked about privacy or privacy earlier. You know, the data that we share not only technology in a technological sense, but also in the policy sense. I think earlier, we were having a discussion about your students. You know, when they participate in classes, you know, how is their privacy respected? So, in the digital policy world we look at, we talk with various stakeholders which may include the government, academics like yourself, obviously the civil society, companies. How do we work with all these stakeholders to have a balanced digital policy framework, so to speak? So as an evangelist, you may have heard the word evangelist in the sense that, I think in very historical times, and Evangelist would be somebody sort of like trying to spread religious, sort of understanding a certain religion. So, we've expanded that word. How do we increase the understanding among stakeholders about how? Why? For example, why privacy is important. Or in this case of cybersecurity, you know, how do we deal with nation state attacks? Or, in the case of AI, how do we use that technology, obviously, data. But I guess today's discussion will maybe be centered specifically on privacy. So as a digital policy evangelist, how do we work to have a balanced sort of a cyberspace that makes it beneficial, both for the users as well as protects society? So, I'll stop there. Thank you.

Stella Micheong Cheong 04:50

Oh, wow, I’m impressed. So, Ken, let's start with the big picture you already made. You mentioned about digital policy, the domain of digital policy. So, we've come from a world where we explicitly told companies who we were to a reality where a tech company like meta or Google use AI to silently infer incredibly intimate details about our lives, habit and even our futures. So how is this massive shift in knowledge production changing the balance of power of everyday citizens and what we are calling the New World Order?

Ken Katayama 05:40

I guess maybe we should start, you know, I mentioned the word cyberspace, you know, in the world that we live in, you know, land, sea, air, space, I mean all these things, or the ocean. Of course, all these things are some things that both you and I have not created, you know, some may say, God. But again, all these things are natural sort of domains. But the cyberspace is something that's created by humans like you and me, right? Obviously, the cyberspace is basically, you know, cables, you know, undersea cables connected. And there's also, sort of, you know, wireless transmissions, etc, and everything is created by humans. And as you say, the companies that you referred to are also technology companies, which have their platforms which we utilize to exchange information and data. So, you know, whereas, like the ocean or the air or the space, you know, it's governing it, you know there's rules, but in the cyberspace, you know, technically, this is something that the humans have created. And then you know, some may argue that cyberspace is basically just a handful of companies who've created the platform. I think maybe we're probably going to discuss this, maybe now or later. But the digital serenity, you know, where the data located should remain in the country that the citizen resides. You know, this kind of status, sovereignty, digital serenity. You know, these are issues that seem to be Stella, you mentioned that you were in Europe recently. But I think the you know, the thinking of serenity, you know, it's not a new terminology. But still, at the same time, I think that you know, 100 years ago, you were in a certain country where you defend your own land, but now in the cyberspace, where's your serenity in the cyberspace? That is, I think, an interesting twist on this new world order. I'll give the mic back to you.

Stella Micheong Cheong 07:59

Then, yeah, that's such an interesting point. That you mentioned about data sovereignty. Then how? How can you define data sovereignty? And how can I, as I ask you, how is this massive shift in the knowledge protection in terms of digital sovereignty? Who acquired this data? Oh, sorry, yeah, I would like to hear more about your thoughts.

Ken Katayama 08:44

So I guess, you know, in a very what you call, broad sense, serenity. I mean, here again, you live in Korea, you're Korean. I'm Japanese. I live in Japan. You know, obviously, as a citizen of a country, we have sovereignty, right? I mean, we have, you know, passports where you know, in my case, I'm Japanese, you know. And then you know, we assume that you know our citizens are bound by our country. You know your country's well Koreans have their own rules, that order, so to speak. And that's your sovereignty, right? I mean, and again, if, God forbid, one of us were to be kidnapped or something in a different foreign country, you know, our governments would probably come to save us. Because, you know, as citizens, you know, we enjoy the protections of our government. So when we look at the digital world, or the cyberspace, you know, the data that we have, I mean, you can't physically see it, but as you may know, I mean, like, for example, like, you know, recently, when I participated in your conference, you know, we took photos. And then, you know, we exchanged photos, but the photos are kept in the cloud, right? So is the cloud? Are the photos that you took, Stella, are they the photos in the cloud that's within Korea, or are the photos in the cloud which is in Japan? Because you know, you know, when you look at the data center, so to speak, both Korea and Japan have data centers. The data resides within that data center could be, you know, in Korean borders or Japanese borders, but again, it's not a physical presence, it's a digital presence. And hence, you know, the term sovereignty, you know, in, I guess in that sort of narrow sense, you know, the data, if there is, does it reside in your country, or does it not? So that's what I would probably refer to as digital sovereignty. I'll give the microphone back to you.

Stella Micheong Cheong 10:53

All right, yeah, thank you. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, and Ken, personally, I'm thinking nowadays that the data looks like resources in the Imperial era, you see what I mean? So, if a country or if an individual, acquires the data, they might be controlled everything. So as data becomes increasingly consolidated, it almost feels like a new kind of Imperial competition, so similar to how countries once competed for natural resources. So, from your perspectives, what should we be doing in terms of data governance to make sure opportunity and benefits are shared more fairly between the Global North and Global South?

Ken Katayama 11:59

Well, again, you know, I think that in the end, we should always keep people at the center, you know. I mean, you know, I do like the GDPR, you know, the general data protection regulation of Europe in the sense that it defines, you know, privacy as a fundamental human right. So, you know, keeping humans at the center, you know, it's a very basic thing. But, you know, you mentioned data, but , whose data is it? You know it belongs to someone. So always keeping humans at the center, I think, is fundamental. And then, how do you know? How do governments, the technology companies who host, you know, the platforms, but it seemed to also be educating civil society. I think you know, earlier we were talking about privacy policies, they were increasingly becoming somewhat difficult to read. You know, is everybody reading, the privacy policies correctly? Again, I think all the stakeholders have a certain responsibility to make sure the data remains in the way that you know, the holder of the data at the same time, the people who want to utilize that data for good. I mean, another way, like, for example, I'm normally in the healthcare area. I mean, let's say there was a disease, you know, or a sickness, it's very rare. And then let's say I had it, but, you know, and I have the, , my medical data I want should be my own. With that said, if I had a rare disease, the data could be shared with other, you know, people in other countries who have that same rare disease. You know, maybe that data can be combined and utilized to find a cure for us. So, you know, again, you know the data should reside with the person who owns it, but at the same time, if you know, by utilizing that data for greater good, you know, that's also, beneficial for all. So let me stop there. Back to you.

Stella Micheong Cheong 14:13

Yeah, I do agree with your thought. And then I would like to move on to the issue of accountability. Oh, yeah, because you already mentioned about responsibility. So, we are witnessing the many, the complexity of the AI system, artificial intelligence. It’s like a deep neutral network, operating as a black box, making decision that even their own programmers cannot fully explain. So, if an algorithm unfairly denies someone a job or targets them for policing. How do we govern this system so citizen can actually get a fair and clear explanation?

Ken Katayama 15:15

So again, yeah. I mean, I super love the word, the term, or, you know, understanding of accountability. Obviously, the GDPR, you know, accountability is in the articles itself. You know, some people may say, explainability. But again, you know, the platformers who you know, utilize the data, or who gather the data, you know, have a responsibility or accountability to the user on how the data is being used. I mean, again, if you and I put data into a certain platform, we have a reasonable sort of understanding of privacy, right? We assume that the platform, orI mean, if we give consent for our data to be used in a certain way, and we assume that the data would be used only in that way, not in a way that we wouldn't, hadn't even imagined. So, yeah, I'm reminded of, and I'm sure there's an incident in Korea as well, too. But in Japan, there was an incident where a company which gathered data about university students who, were asked what kind of jobs they wanted to go for the future. So, let's say, 10 university students wanted to go to your university, YONSEI, get a job at YONSEI. But what had happened? So, the reason why that the university students were providing that platformer with their name, what year they graduated, for example, providing that information to be able to provide feedback on which would be a good job. And you know, some of them wanted to go YONSEI, but what happened, unfortunately was that the platform utilized some of the information the university students gave to sell it to prospective employers. So, you know, the students who had put information into the platform did not expect their information to be used that way. So, accountability in the sense that the platform using the data in a way that you know, the customer or the provider actually gave consent to? So you know, the account with accountability. You know, we, all companies have the responsibility to provide that kind of explanation on how the data is being used. So, super in favor of accountability. I'll give the microphone back to you.

Stella Micheong Cheong 17:57

Yeah, that's a really important point that I do agree with. Nowadays, AI governance is extremely important. You also mentioned about the bio data and so in terms of data ethics these days, I think almost every citizen in the Global North, the people who use the devices like smart watch or even our online shopping habits can reveal deeply personal things like possible health conditions or even pregnancy. Personally, I'm using the Aura Ring. You know, the Aura Ring? but I stopped using this since last month because I realized that this Aura Ring captured every single moment of me, my life, and I paid almost $8 per month. It's super expensive to pay. I provide my bio data and every single moment of my life. So, I'm thinking about this, is it right that sometimes these things know before we know it ourselves? Do you think a company should inform people about this kind of predictions, or should individuals have a right not to know and be protected from this kind of information?

Ken Katayama 19:44

No, I mean, again, no, you answered your own question. Still, I mean, yes, you know the companies, if they're going to be, gathering or utilizing your data, they would have a responsibility, or have to display accountability on how the information is going to be used so totally. Yes. I mean, when we think about, sure if we should mention names, but, like a social media platform, I mean, if you and I are sharing information on the social media platform, how is if I put up a photo about, you know, I went to YONSEI University, and then showed a picture of you and me on a social media site. You know, it's the reason why I wanted to share. It was because, I wanted to show your friends and my friends that I was in Korea for an event at YONSEI. But if the social platform utilizes that to, I don't know, provide ads about YONSEI. You know, I should go to YONSEI or, I don't know, you utilize that, as I said, as you said, the data that was put in in a way that I didn't expect it to be. You know, that's not right, so to speak. So again, I agree with that the platformers have a responsibility to explain. With that said, also, though, I think that the users themselves, the digital literacy, I mean, we all ha have to make an effort to also be educated, which is super difficult when this technology is becoming more and more advanced. But I think also, we also need to be kept in touch or keep abreast of how these technological developments are taking place. So, so maybe, you know, maybe I'll go one last point. So, I guess in Korea as well, too, when you see a movie, when I go see a movie, there's a website for the movie theater. I put my name in. I want to watch Mission Impossible on March the 27th or something. And then, you know, at three o'clock at theater A. I would make the reservation. But frankly speaking, I do not put my birthday. I mean, they asked for my birthday, but I don't put my real birthday in because, who knows? I mean, first of all, if there's a data breach, I don't think I want my birthday to be associated with a certain movie. But, again, I think we all as users have to take these precautions as well. So let me stop there. Thank you, Stella.

Stella Micheong Cheong 22:34

Oh, wow, wow. Thank you so much, Ken. Given the time constraint, I'm going pass over to my colleague, Dr Kamille.

Kamille Beye 22:45

So thank you so much. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Stella.

Stella Micheong Cheong 22:51

No it's for you. Okay.

Kamille Beye 22:53

Thank you so much, Ken. I've been listening to you and Stella, and I just have a couple of questions as well to piggyback, I wanted to highlight the idea of the GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation, how it differs from country to country, specifically in the United States, where privacy laws are not as stringent as in Europe or in Asia. And so, I wanted to know what we can talk to our listeners about on how they can stay safe in countries where the rules are somewhat twisted. I feel like in the United States for instance, there are always these loopholes that big tech and companies find to extract more and more personal information, and people are not as digitally literate as we think, especially going into areas like the working poor, and so I'm just trying to think, what can we do, or how can those who may not be abreast of the latest policy changes or understand all the tracking mechanisms? How can we help those types of people get the information they need to protect themselves in the digital space?

Ken Katayama 24:03

Thank you, Kamille for the question, how? I guess it really, well, first of all, really trying to make, , users more aware. I mean in the sense that. I mean in a way, what you just said, I mean, once you enter your name or date of birth or address in some sort of a digital form. You know, you have to be prepared that , unfortunately, there might be some sort of a data breach or that you try to be aware of how the data is going to be used. As you say Europe does have the GDPR. The United States, unfortunately does not have a federal law. As you say, I know that states like California, Virginia, Texas, there are individual states that have a privacy law, but unfortunately, that's only 20. My understanding is that there's only 20 of the 50 states that have a privacy law within the United States. So. I mean, again, governments and companies, , the stakeholders are working together, to make this environment where users privacy is respected, but at the same time allows for data to be used. But with that said, the users themselves, I guess, maybe the media or how can we relay that the information that may have been used in what this way or that way, I guess maybe thinking back, I mean, a steak knife is to be used to cut steak, right? And we all want to enjoy a juicy steak, but with a fork and a knife. But, a steak knife can be used in a way, as a weapon as well, too. So, I mean, realizing they're both, there are benefits and also dangers. You know, continual education. I mean, it's an ongoing process. Kamille, I think, for lack of a better answer. I hope that is a comment for you. Thank you.

Kamille Beye 26:23

Yes, I think it's good. And I'm just thinking more. So you know people are moving more to digitalization for everything. There are many places here in the US that don't take checks anymore. You have to use some kind of, a digital transaction. And so, because of this move to digital everything, we are putting more information in places. In some aspects, you can't put your fake birthday or a fake address, you know what I mean? And so, you are always exposed, even when your best intention is to, I guess, be less surveilled or so. It's really interesting, like, how do you get to that fine line? And I think especially here in the US, where we don't have a federal policy, and that's what makes it tricky, compared to other nations, where there seems to be more privacy laws in place to protect your privacy if you don't want something to continue to be exposed or not. And so, I think that's really interesting. But then you mentioned something earlier about utilizing data for the greater good, and I thought that was interesting in the fact that, of course, if there are medical records that you might want to share in case you have a rare, rare illness or something, but I was thinking about, do you know Henrietta Lacks?

So, she was a woman in the 1900s (correction 1950’s) a black woman, and she was found to have cancer, and the cells in her body. They were taken without her permission at John Hopkins, and they've been used all over the world for all kinds of experiments. And it wasn't until about, 20 or 30 years ago (correction -1975) that her family found out. They've been suing to get compensation. But also, you know, they never asked her and never told her what they were doing. They just took her cells because she was a black woman, and so because of her cells, they've been able to do all kinds of research and create all kinds of different things. And so, I was thinking about this idea of data for the greater good as well. Even when you think about the case, you have us a rare illness. But who determines what the greater good is? So, I'm very curious as to how we look at this idea of greater good, because there's ethical implication, but then there's also informed consent, and then there's privacy. So, I just wanted to know what, how do you frame it, or what would be the context for a greater good?

Ken Katayama 28:56

Again, great question. Kamille, I mean, I guess I would again, go back to, humans at the center. So, I mean this, we should not ask generative AI, what the answer is. I mean, these should be decided by real people. I mean, one could argue that it should be, decided in court. You know whether it's a jury, a judge, a prosecutor and a defendant. I mean, one could say that those parties can find out whether or not, something is used for a greater good. But, I mean, knot everything can be argued in a court, so to speak. So. again, we all have to make the best effort, I mean, going back to the, rare disease example, the doctors have a, responsibility like Hippocratic Oath, to be able to save. People, the persons who are providing the data, want other people not to get sick from it. So, the doctors and the people always have the thinking of the greater good. But who knows, maybe there might be some sort of, bad actor who wants to use that data to sell it. You know, they can sell it. Oh, we can get lots of money by the cells of this rare disease. So, it's, checks and balances. Again, I don't know, maybe I just go back to the court thing, in the end. Do we really bring it to a legal court where there's a judge and a jury and a prosecutor and defendant for deciding the greater good?

Kamille Beye 30:39

Interesting, and I think it's going to take me to the next question. But when you have the ability to go to a judge, and hopefully the judge is fair, you have money to do these things, and of course, you can expect a decent outcome. But that brings me to the idea of wealth, and this idea of how capitalism and means impact, surveillance or not. If you are wealthy, there are ways that you can circumvent and maintain your privacy, but for those of us who are everyday citizens, middle income or anywhere in the world, you are more likely to be surveilled because of the way you purchase items. And so how do we get some equity in this world to ensure our privacy. And how do you know? How does privacy not become something of just the privileged and something we all can enjoy, whether we are poor, well-off , if you're in between?

Ken Katayama 31:34

Maybe it's our role here; Kamille, Stella and me to make sure our users, excuse me, our listeners, respect that their privacy is their fundamental human right, as the GDPR, says, and I think that you know, so again, I live in Japan. Have you ever been to Japan, Kamille?

Kamille Beye 31:56

I have not,

Ken Katayama 31:58

Okay, which is fine. I would be pleased you can come someday, but you'll be surprised. I'm in Japan. It's not that unusual to ask somebody's age. It's because we're a very seniority-based society. So, you know, you let's say we just met for the first time. You know, Kamille, second question is, how old are you? But I used to live in the United States. You never ask somebody's age. Obviously, that's off limits. I totally get that. So, in the United States, your age is, you know, private, whereas in Japan, in because of, the seniority system people generally ask their ages, and if they find out you're older than them, then you would respect them. And if you find out that they're younger than yourself, then they can, brag or something like that. So, I mean, again, in Japan, age is not necessarily considered private, whereas in United States it is considered private. So, I mean, you know the cultures themselves as well, too, are different. And you know it, I think it's interesting, something can be labeled as privacy. Yes, that's an argument, a story that I have in Japan as well too. I mean, what is really private to you in Japan and what is really private to you in the United States?

Kamille Beye 33:10

Yeah, I'm thinking other cultures as well. I was thinking when I travel to Africa. You know, it's not uncommon to want to know what your faith is or what your marital status is. You know, it's just like public knowledge, the things that people talk about, you know, an open space. And so, I get that for the cultural context of how nations decide how they're going to surveil their populations. In regard to the local culture, that will be something that has to be addressed as well. And I just wanted to ask you, for developing nations I'm thinking particularly like Liberia or other poor nations in the world where they don't have the same types of mechanisms in place as Global North countries, there may be governmental systems of surveillance and maybe the population does not have the same type of digital know how to understand what their rights might be, and maybe not even understand that privacy is a human right because of how they're working in tandem. So how do you think, or what can be done to help citizens who are tech savvy in spaces where governments may not inform people of their rights generally. How do we get those people on board, or how do we get those nations on board so that some of these things that we're talking about supersede location? Because, like you said, privacy is a human right regardless of where you are, and so if you're living in a space where you've not known that to be the case, but you're using the internet. How do we get them to I guess, how do we get them to be on board or then, how do we ensure that they also are not surveilled in a way that they don't want to be, even if you know they're online in South Sudan, or, I don't know, in Haiti?.

Ken Katayama 35:00

I meanagain, another great question, Kamille, and then, again, it probably depends upon the country too,. I mean, , if for X country. I mean, I think it also goes into the facial recognition sort of issue too. I mean, I think I sort of like, the Mission Impossible, sort of spy movies, where they have this facial recognition. They recognize if this guy, person is a bad person or not, you know. I mean, , as somebody who wants to be in a safe society, we want to know if these facial recognition things are recognizing terrorists. That kind of surveillance is good, But again, rightly said, it could also be used in a very invasive way. Maybe, in Japan, historically, you know that Japanese people love cameras. I think maybe 20 years ago there were cameras that were put into bookstores. I mean, in the United States, you have that Barnes and Noble, right? And so you have cameras in the bookstore to see if people buy or are shoplifting books. But then, you know, there was a sort of concern that, you know, maybe a couple are hiding away in a dark space in the bookstore showing some affection for one another, and the camera catches, you know, they're showing some affection. Yeah. So, again, the couple should have a reasonable right to privacy. But at the same time, you know, the store itself doesn't want people to steal books. So, I guess maybe I'll just end, Stella and I were recently in the UK. So my understanding of the UK is that when they do have cameras for surveillance because of, national security concerns, but there are a lot of signs, or like, when we go into subway, they say that the cameras are on, I did notice a lot of signs that let you know that this area is under surveillance 24 hours a day So I did feel that the government authorities were making an effort to make sure that people understand that they are cameras being used for their for their safety. So, maybe it goes back to really educating governments to make sure that they're very clear or very transparent on their utilization of cameras.

Kamille Beye 37:32

Yes, yeah, I know London as well, and it is quite surveilled. But I want to get to something else. So in going back to the idea of the library, so in the US, there are gyms that have everyone surveillance, right? But now, with this new way that everyone wanting to post online and become an influencer, they are also recording. And of course, people don't necessarily want to be in their shot, but because of the space that you're in, it’s confined space, you may be an unwitting or unwilling extra. So, in those situations, is there a line that one can draw because you are in a public space, like a gym, but someone else is in this gym recording something, and you might be in that shot. So, when you go to a gym, you've given permission to be recorded while you're in the gym. But does that also trickle down to an individual, you know, also possibly getting you in the shot and then putting you on their Instagram feed or their tick tock, you know what I mean, just for them to say that they were in the gym. So, it's almost like, is there a thin line? That type of surveillance or recording privacy,

Ken Katayama 38:54

I guess so. You know, you're right. That said, Kamille, there's a thin line. But, you just said sort of triggered something in my mind: technology, the way it's advancing, I mean, who would have thought, that you know? So, this generative AI came out, 2022 but, I mean, who would have thought it would 2026 right? Now, right? You know, we type something in, can you tell me about Kamille? And then, you know, the generator comes back. Yes, Kamille is this, you know, lovely person living in the United States. I mean, we have a conversation, with this sort of bot, you know what I mean? And you know, who would imagine this happened would happen three years ago, so, I don't know. Maybe my wish for technology is I don't know, one year from now, two years from now, we can say to the bot, please erase any image of me that you know of. I was at the gym from three to four o'clock in Greenwich Village. If you see any of my images on online, please erase them and then, you know, that technology helps to do that. Maybe counter sort of surveillance, so to speak. Maybe, hopefully, technology can solve it instead of, obviously, we know we want rules in place, but maybe we should also rely on technology to do that as well. Because if you think about, yes, I mean Telegram, or, those communication tools which allow you to be anonymous. You can't track them, you know. So, they were made for communications between, you know, people who want to be hidden from the government. But then you know, unfortunately, those tools are also being used for, by criminals who don't want to be tracked as well So, you know, it's technology can be used both ways. So, again, the hope is that, to your point, we, both you and I, don't want our images everywhere If we pop up in the gym, , maybe you can use the technology, some technology, to raise that, yeah, that would be amazing.

Kamille Beye 41:06

So my final question to you is, what do you see as, some of the positive signs of the future in areas, like, ethics and surveillance? What do you see on the horizon?

Ken Katayama 41:18

Okay, well, maybe it sorts of repeats what I just mentioned. I mean, technology is always going to be advancing, innovating. We should always have a culture that promotes innovation. You know, if this technology can continue to be used, for the greater good. And then, all stakeholders should be, working towards that technology should be used that way. I mean, we all remember back in 2020, 2021, 2022 who would have thought that COVID, would, make the world such a different place? But who knows, if something similar happens again, hopefully with the technology that we have in place now, we'll be able to deal with a sort of a COVID, sort of thing. Well, I mean, we don't want one, of course, we don't want another COVID, but, again, the hope that technology helps(?). Again, this is Zoom, For that matter. I mean, again, I apologize for not turning on my video because, but you know, who would have thought we were able to do this kind of a conversation in real time? You know, with this kind of technology. It's next year, the year after, who knows what kind of technology would be. I mean, one of my hopes, in the future is, , I do a lot of my thinking, when I'm walking to work or walking around the block. But there's a hope for me. Maybe there will be a technology someday that everything I'm thinking about is immediately typed into a paragraph(?), so I don't have to say anything, you know. Thank you for your question.

Kamille Beye 43:10

No worries, and I was doing piggyback on what you said. I hope that the stakeholders who have the power to wield the technology are also thinking about the greater good, not just themselves, and, you know, like notoriety, etc. So, we hope for that as well. Totally. I'd like to close the conversation out. Before I close out our session. Would you like to give us any words of hope or any last words for the session?

Ken Katayama 43:34

Okay, well, again, you know, Kamille, Stella, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate. I think, the three of us ourselves are building trust. You know, trust in the sense that being able to trust each other, to be able to share our views and values. You know, I think trust will continue to be a key word going forward. I mean, trust, you know, building it takes a lot of time, but breaking trust is very easy. So, so that's why trust is so important. And I think that, the trust cannot be done by technology, maybe that's probably the only thing that cannot be done. So I think trust, let's continue to, still, build this trust so we can, utilize the technology in the right way. Thank you.

Kamille Beye 44:20

Oh Lovely, I like that. I really do. If we can just trust each other, and nations can trust each other, oh, my goodness, how much better will we be? And thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. It was a pleasure hearing about your timely research. And I'm closing the episode. So, I'm Kamille. Thanks for listening to conversations for citizenship. We hope you enjoyed this episode. Be sure to subscribe to conversations for citizenship on Apple podcast, Spotify, Amazon music and audible, and look for us on X @c4c_ed and bluesky @c4cpodcast.bsky.social.A transcript of today's conversation with Ken Katayama can be found on www.conversations the number four citizenship. This episode of conversations for citizenship was produced by Stella Cheong, Kamille Bay and Adam Lang, a recorded and sound mixed by Stella Cheong.

EPISODE SUMMARY

Welcome to Conversations4Citizenship Season 5! This season, we explore the theme of the “New World Order” as we reflect on the complexities of our turbulent times. In our kickoff episode, Dr. Stella engages in an in-depth conversation with Ken Katayama, a digital policy evangelist from Japan, on critical issues such as digital sovereignty, privacy, AI governance, and AI ethics.

EPISODE NOTES

Welcome back to Conversations4Citizenship as we kick off Season 5 with our brand-new theme: "The New World Order". To get things started, hosts Stella and Kamille sit down with Ken Katayama, a Digital Policy Evangelist from Japan, for an eye-opening chat about our hyper-connected lives. Throughout the episode, they unpack the hidden dangers of the AI "black box" and explore what data sovereignty truly means when tech giants silently gather our most intimate details. Furthermore, the conversation seamlessly shifts to tackle the ethical implications of mass surveillance, highlighting the stark differences in global privacy laws—from Europe's strict GDPR to the fragmented rules in the US and developing nations. Ultimately, Ken leaves us with a powerful reminder that while technology will inevitably advance, keeping humans at the center and building genuine trust are the true keys to navigating our digital future. Tune in to discover why simply clicking "I Agree" is no longer enough to protect yourself!

Contact Conversations4citizenship