On 14 April 2026, I took part in the Seminar on Human Rights and ICT Standardisation, organized by the European Commission, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and ITU, with support from the EU funded StandICT.eu 2029, INSTAR, and InDiCo-Global projects. The event, held in Brussels and online, brought together more than 190 registrants and around 100 live participants from standards bodies, industry, academia, civil society, and the human rights community.
On 22 March 2026, I spoke with Jeffrey Snyder of Broadcast Retirement Network in an interview published on TheStreet. It picks up the thread of the commentary I wrote earlier this year, The Unfinished Fight for Data Protection.
(Originally published on the Harvard Kennedy School website)
On February 26, 2026, the CEO of one of the world’s most powerful AI companies published an open letter refusing a government ultimatum. The Department of War had threatened to designate Anthropic a “supply chain risk”, a label reserved for U.S. adversaries, never before applied to an American company, and to invoke the Defense Production Act to compel the removal of two safeguards: prohibitions on mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. Dario Amodei refused. Within 24 hours, the Pentagon followed through, blacklisting Anthropic as a national security risk and ordering all military contractors to immediately cease commercial activity with the company. Anthropic said it would fight the designation in court.
(Originally published on the Harvard Kennedy School website)
Data is not an abstract resource; it is an extension of who we are.
On December 10, 1948, the international community adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 12 is unequivocal: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy”. Nearly eighty years later, that promise feels increasingly hollow.
In the physical world, the boundaries of privacy are clear and widely accepted. We do not take our neighbor’s car without permission. We do not enter their home, sleep in their bed, or rummage through their drawers in their absence. If we do, the law intervenes. Privacy is understood as a basic condition of dignity and freedom.
So why have we failed to apply these same principles to the digital world?
(Originally published on the Harvard Kennedy School website)
In a plenary statement, the U.S. delegation announced its disengagement from several ad hoc groups, arguing that negotiations had drifted from the ITU’s core mandate into ideological or politicized territory. It called for a “back to basics” approach, limiting the ITU’s work to telecommunications and ICT development, and rejected references it viewed as infringing on national sovereignty, including the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.
The full interview with transcript is here.
Session at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva
In Geneva and beyond, much of the debate on AI governance still revolves around abstraction—principles, ethical frameworks, good intentions. Yet as AI becomes embedded in the machinery of both states and corporations, an urgent question arises: how do we ensure that public procurement and deployment of AI respects human dignity?
This is the focus of a new report from the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Titled Artificial Intelligence Procurement and Deployment: Ensuring Alignment with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, it addresses a critical blind spot: what happens when public institutions and private actors use—but do not develop—AI systems?
I had the opportunity to be consulted during the preparation of this report. I believe it marks a necessary step forward. But it is only a step.
Entrance Sign for the Expert Workshop on AI, Rule of Law, and Human Rights — Geneva, 8 May 2025
I was invited last week to participate in an Expert Meeting on the Rule of Law and Human Rights Aspects of Using Artificial Intelligence for Counter-Terrorism Purposes, organized by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy in partnership with the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate and the Swiss government. The discussions, though focused on legal safeguards, surveillance, and freedom of expression, brought into sharp focus a broader question: who actually governs AI today?
And perhaps more urgently: can public institutions still govern it alone?
This raises a fundamental challenge for the future of democratic governance: are we witnessing the erosion of public control over technologies that increasingly define our societies?
Panel Discussion on Data and AI Governance at the United Nations, CSTD28 Side Event – Geneva, April 2025
On April 9, 2025, I had the honour of moderating the second panel of the OHCHR side event at the 28th session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), held at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The session, titled “Data and AI Governance in Human Rights-Sensitive Contexts”, was part of a broader event exploring frameworks and use cases for responsible AI deployment.
Panel Discussion: Towards a Global Response to AI and Human Rights – Side Event for the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Session 58th – March 21, 2025
In a world increasingly shaped by algorithmic systems, the question of trust in technology has become central. Over the past months in Geneva, I participated in several gatherings of policymakers, experts, and diplomats focused on aligning artificial intelligence with human rights.
As part of the UN’s standardization community, I see daily how complex it is to shape global standards for emerging technologies. Yet we also have a responsibility to ensure that these standards do not harm anyone.
