Tech and Democracy Profile: Alana Ford
All Tech Is Human’s Tech & Democracy report addresses key issues and best practices in the field, and highlights a diverse range of individuals working in the field (across civil society, government, industry, academia, and entrepreneurship). Similar to all of our reports, this is assembled by a large global working groups across multiple disciplines, backgrounds, and perspectives.
As part of the Tech & Democracy report our team interviewed more than 40 people working to create a brighter tech future. This week, we’ll be highlighting select interviews.
Today, we hear from Manager, Digital Industry Engagement (Online Harms), Australian Government Alana Ford. To read more profile interviews, click below to download the Tech & Democracy report now.
Q: Tell me about your role
I lead the Australian Government’s engagement with the digital industry on online harms, here in the United States. My position came about as the Australian Government has developed and started implementing the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030. Through this process, we found that one of the biggest challenges in developing and implementing effective policy related to the digital environment was the geographical barriers in our relationship-building with US-based industry and civil society. It was much more difficult to build deep and meaningful relationships across tech without having someone here on the ground, all while trying to address some of the most complex policy challenges of our time. I am working to expand and strengthen the Australian Government’s relationships across industry, civil society, government, and academia, looking at the broad range of online harms.
I have a broad remit, covering emerging technologies that may have consequential impacts on our social cohesion or domestic security; information integrity and democratic resilience; preventing online child exploitation; online terrorism and violent extremism; and many issues in between. I spend most of my time on policy consultation and advice, public diplomacy efforts, horizon scanning, and – most importantly – building connections and partnerships.
Q: How is democracy defined in your line of work? How does it influence your approach to tech and democracy?
As a civil servant representing a nation that enjoys the freedoms of democracy, I work for the federal representatives who are elected by the Australian people, and who are responsible for upholding our democratic values. As such, my very simplified definition of democracy is a model of governance where citizens hold governing power equally through elected representatives.
That being said, there are many different models of democracy, and when looking internationally, we must consider the spatial and temporal context within which a democracy emerges. For example, I was born and raised in Australia, so my engagement with democratic processes does not come from within the United States. Australia remains a Commonwealth nation and we govern with a modified ‘Westminster’ model of democracy. Australia’s constitution was signed on January 1st, 1901, meaning we are a young nation but with a long history – built upon the land of the world’s oldest surviving civilisation, Australia’s Indigenous People. We have a rich culture and unique societal values that are reflected in our governance structures and rule of law.
This influences my approach to technology and democracy in a few ways. I seek opportunities to contribute views that may not have been previously considered in the United States, and to share insights into Australia’s governance and legislative landscape. I also seek opportunities to learn from technologists, practitioners, and policymakers here in the United States and across the globe, and then share those learnings in a way that can inform and shape policy thinking in Australia.
Q: What do you think are the key issues at the intersection of technology and democracy?
Globally, technology has been a facilitator of pro-democracy movements pre-dating the Arab Spring. There is no question that the modern ability to organize large groups of people, communicate safely, and shape the public narrative on complex, localized issues, have been made possible through social media and communications platforms.
Simultaneously, in parts of the world where democracy is long established, those who seek to delegitimize democratic norms and institutions are exploiting technologies to undermine wholesale trust in information and media. In the Australian context, this includes foreign actors’ attempts to influence decision-making in our parliaments and universities, and to spread misinformation and disinformation throughout our communities.
Now with the invasion of Ukraine, we see similar (though more advanced) technologies and platforms weaponized in a style of information warfare where the reach and immediacy of harm is unprecedented. The emergence (and potential misuse) of AI/ML and synthetic media; the prevalence of mis/dis/mal-information, political bias and discrimination, and self-preferencing, driven by algorithmic recommending systems; as well as the convergence of extremist ideologies with adversarial information campaigns, are just a few of the core challenges to information resilience.
Other whole-of-society issues that sit at the intersection of technology and democracy are media literacy, equitable access to the internet and digital services, human rights including privacy and freedom from harm, anticompetitive markets and industry conduct, and robust accountability mechanisms for government, industry, civil society, and academia.
Q: What are the key challenges for democracy that technology can ameliorate?
Through the advancement of technology, the way we seek, consume, and interpret information continues to evolve at an unprecedented rate. It is more important than ever that throughout the full lifecycle of tech development, the potentially nefarious or adversarial ways in which a tool or feature could be used are given meaningful consideration. There are already well established, scalable, and cost-effective ways to do this effectively, such as red team/blue team exercises. The same applies to the way in which governments develop policy – there needs to be rigor in the testing and consultation process in order to anticipate potential unconsidered impacts.
In terms of opportunities, social media and content delivery platforms have an untapped potential for inspiring social cohesion and an engaged citizenry, through designing tools that support greater media literacy and civic intelligence. Similarly, emerging tools and methodologies to detect synthetic media or identify when content has been manipulated are essential. These will be fundamental to how we mitigate the extraordinary (and slightly terrifying) impacts that disinformation and deepfakes are having on our trust in information.
When used in concert with reasonable and proportionate accountability measures, existing and emerging technologies also hold some of the technical solutions to the multi-stakeholder collaboration challenge. Technical solutions that allow for an increase in secure, lawful, and privacy-protecting access to data will allow for greater burden-sharing. It would also provide greater opportunity for ethical technology design, research, and policymaking that is data-led and informed by verifiable evidence.
Q: What are the roles and responsibilities of the key players in the tech & democracy ecosystem - industry, government and/or civil society?
There is no single arbiter of truth, just as there is no fixed, perfect model of governance. Democracy, and the norms and institutions which underpin it, require careful nurture and refinement.
Three of the core principles of democracy are the distribution of power, robust accountability, and the freedom of information. At a very macro level, the foremost responsibilities that are shared by industry, civil society and government should be to hold one another to account through reasonable and proportionate mechanisms; ensure that actions and decision-making do not undermine the principles of democracy or integrity of democratic institutions; and ensure that no single stakeholder group becomes a sole arbiter of information online.
Democratic governments are representatives of the people by whom they are elected, and are responsible for protecting and promoting the interests of the people. They also hold a responsibility to promote democratic values and support the capacity-building efforts of international partners, as well as provide the societal conditions that allow for informed and engaged citizenry. Education, inclusive and equally accessible social and health services, media and civic literacy programs, electoral integrity, and transparency-mechanisms are just some of the options that democratic governments must consider. Industry and civil society both play a role in supporting the delivery of these objectives, and there is always more that we, collectively, can do. It’s often said that a whole-of-society challenge requires a whole-of-society response.
Q: From your perspective, what does a better tech future look like?
When I think about a better tech future, I immediately think of my kids. They are the first generation to experience life with an online presence from birth, meaning their relationship with technology will be fundamentally different. They also live both online and offline simultaneously, and often in an entirely fluid way.
This is very ‘blue-sky’ and ‘in an ideal world’, but I like to keep a healthy level of optimism. My idea of a better tech future is one where we can enjoy the fruits of innovation, and where the digital environment amplifies the best parts of society and human existence, not the worst. Where we have the freedom and accessibility to be online in a safe and secure way, share our unique lives, stories and views, connect with people, and make the world a more enjoyable and equal place. With human rights at the core, but in a way that everyone’s rights are treated equally, and with respect.