 Privacy impacts in particular on members of indigenous communities, individuals of different genders, religious minorities, racial and ethnic groups, they're all experiencing these increased privacy impacts. You also see these groups being harassed, being trolled, being doxxed online. We're asking the Human Rights Committee to issue a new general comment under Article 17 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. As more and more data is generated about us as we go about our daily lives, it's essential that data protection is seen as a human rights issue and not just as a compliance issue. It is a state-in-prison security interest, usually most agencies find it hard to do a thing like in other words they end up complying citizens' rights in the noble of our security. The best practice is that states should adhere to human rights principles as far as intelligence is concerned. We need to have evidence-based public policies. So if the government is implementing a database, so for example for immigration purposes, we actually want to know what's the data behind that sustains that policy and the need to implement that technology in the first place. Artificial intelligence really functions off of using vast amounts of data and it has to be accurate data and that can find tension with the principle of data minimization where you're supposed to only use as much data as is necessary for a specific purpose. It also raises tensions around transparency, often these algorithms are opaque and it's hard to understand what data went into the system, how that data was curated, and then how was the process and the decision made. Unfortunately, the concerns around transparency feeds into concerns around redress and remedy. One of the big things that we've seen is that there's a real balance between making sure that we regulate data and data protection for privacy, but we also have to make sure that we don't overreach and stop speech and free expression.