We may need a Bretton Woods agreement on data regulation

The experience of living during the 1930s was so disturbing to world leaders that in July 1944, when World War II was at its height, 44 Allies came together in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, officially known as the United Nations. was called monetary. and financial conferences. By the conclusion of the conference, the participating countries had decided that instead of each continuing to use the gold standard, they would make the US dollar the global currency for trade, which in turn would be the benchmark against gold. For this new global order to work, summit participants committed themselves to a fixed exchange rate between their domestic currencies and the dollar, and to avoid trade wars that cheapen their currencies to increase exports. committed himself to This agreement, which became known as the Bretton Woods Agreement, resulted in the establishment of the International Monetary Fund, a multilateral agency from which member countries could borrow to adjust the value of their currency when they did not have the funds to do so themselves. Do.

Although opinion is divided on the success of the Bretton Woods deal (particularly given that US President Richard Nixon permanently detached the US dollar from its gold anchor in 1971), there is no doubt that the way The settlement was responsible for the world’s view of the international flow of money until today. It created a playbook for multilateral policy-making that requires countries to cooperate with each other to achieve global objectives, even if it calls on them to make short-term domestic sacrifices.

In my article last week, I pointed out that currently, there are three different approaches to data governance being adopted by countries around the world. With each passing year, these differences hardened to a point where common ground was becoming increasingly difficult to find. And yet, given our increasing reliance on data for everything we do, I argued that the fragmentation caused by this divergence would create complications we cannot afford. I made a case for finding common ground for countries by agreeing on a base standard framework for governance on which we can layer regional differences as needed.

In a speech given at the Oxford Internet Union in September last year, former UK Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham made a passionate plea for a new Bretton Woods deal for data. “Our current approach to data protection,” she argued, “is considered one nation by nation, can only take us so far. If we are to unlock the full potential of data-driven innovation, the use of data Backed by public confidence in how this is done, we need an international approach to data protection standards. We need an international solution.”

How will this work in practice? First, Denham suggests that we should stop striving to enact a uniform global law for all countries of the world (as the European Union has been doing since its General Data Protection Regulation came into force). Instead, we should create a global coalition whose membership will be open to nations with a demonstrated commitment to data protection backed by independent regulation, which will allow them to transfer low-risk data to fellow member states. To be clear, this sets the bar for subscriptions much lower than the GDPR-adequacy requirement, but still assures individuals that their data will be subject to the same protections around the world.

If we take this idea to its logical conclusion, we will need to create a new multilateral institution for data, tasked with coordinating a regulatory dialogue between nations to achieve an adequate level of regulatory cohesion. Can you Considering the role that such an organization needs to play, it has been suggested that it should be set up on the lines of the Financial Stability Board – to monitor and make recommendations on global data governance and cross-border data flows. With a mandate to

Given the speed of modern data flows and the variety of different digital paths they can traverse, nothing less than a technical solution will ensure compliance with the general regulatory principles that are ultimately agreed upon. This will demand the development of a standards framework that can be embedded directly into the national digital infrastructure – so that we can be assured that the data flowing through these systems meets basic data governance requirements. One of the primary objectives of such a data consistency board may be to develop a common set of technical standards and protocols for all aspects of data governance, which member states can hard-code into their national systems, thus providing Make sure they are interoperable, not just domestically, but between each other.

Rahul Mathan is a participant in Trilegal and also a podcast called Ex Machina. His twitter handle @matthan . Is