The coronavirus projected all decision-makers on sharp ridgelines. The fierce debates on tracing apps and the use of data illustrate the delicate trade-offs to be made in terms of efficiency, privacy and social acceptability, but also digital sovereignty, in order to secure populations and economies as quickly as possible. The covid19 reaches us in a world that is much more digitalized than it was during previous pandemics, and less so than it will be in the next ones. It is one of our assets. But any solution will carry its share of risk, which must be minimized and then managed within the overall ethical framework that we want for our society. This situation invites us to accelerate the implementation of new modes of governance of algorithmic devices and data, especially in the field of health, both nationally and internationally. This is the spirit of this forum co-signed with Eric Salobir in Le Figaro, and one of the works we are carrying out with the Human Technology Foundation and its partners.

This time of confinement highlights the urgency of considering neuroscience as a discipline that can help everyone to live it. Understanding and studying human behaviour will make it possible to measure the impact of such confinement on each one of us and to identify those who need help. Neurotechnologies, which are intended to be at the interface between the brain and the machine, can be very interesting tools for understanding these behaviours. On the other hand, it is becoming clear that the boundaries between the medical and non-medical uses of these neurotechnologies are becoming very porous, inviting us to reflect on neuroethical issues in order to put safeguards in place for these uses. 

By dint of wanting to accumulate data before making a decision, governments are becoming colossi with feet of silicon. They are at the mercy of the reliability and of the precision of these mega data on the one hand, and at the mercy of the interpretations that are made of them on the other.

An overview by anthropologist Claire Somerville, Executive Director of the Institute of Gender Studies in Geneva.

The trust crisis that is hitting the Internet today is mainly due to the multiple scandals involving the use of data.  Restoring this indispensable trust, says Lionel Maurel, a lawyer and co-founder of "La Quadrature du Net", means putting the notion of the Common Good back at the heart of thinking. And this requires the social portability of data.

In a media ecosystem dominated by Facebook - half of the population only gets information through social networks - it is not the democracy but the French Republic that is in crisis. And with it a constitution that is no longer in line with the citizens' expectations. Behind this crisis, observes Fabrice Epelboin, an entrepreneur, social media specialist and teacher at Sciences-Po Paris, there is the question of dignity in the digital age.

By Bogomil Kohlbrenner

How can you do better with less? This is the proposal of the so-called "frugal" technologies initiated by French-American academic Navi Rajavi. It is an opportunity for Swiss anthropologist Bogomil Kohlbrenner to take stock of a low-tech industry that does more and more, but more importantly, is increasingly competitive with high tech....

In the digital age, where trust is attached to blockchain," notes Damien de Chillaz, Vice President B2B Platforms at Capgemini, "this technology makes it possible to guarantee trust within a business ecosystem that has become virtuous because it guarantees, among other things, the identities of the people involved in exchanges. Demonstration.

Over the last few decades, neurology and computer science have been constantly exploring common territories and the ethical questions raised by this alliance are becoming explosive: on the one hand, the possibility of acting through thought on digital devices and, on the other, the possibility of "brainjacking" and of hacking a connected brain... This is enough to feed the worst Orwellian nightmare unless we practice "responsible neuroengineering", say the neuroscientist Laure Tabouy and the Dominican Bernardas Verbickas.

If 2019 was the year of the "citizen data scientist", according to the Dice.com website 2020 will be the year of the "citizen data engineers", but why does the idea of citizenship arise in the big data? The point of view of Lauriane Gorce, Scientific Director of the Institute of Technology for the Human Being in Montreal.

Watch the presentation of our report "Artificial intelligence, solidarity and insurance in Europe and Canada" in front of the European Commission.

Artificial intelligence is an incomparable tool for personalizing offers, products and prices accordingly to the customers. In the frame of the mandate of the newly created International Panel on Artificial Intelligence (IPAI), and in the context of of the 100 days deadline set by the European Commission to regulate AI, it is important to check that this customization does not turn into individualism and that it is not likely to harm society as a whole.

Here is the new interview of the president of OPTIC in Fortune Magazine. In this piece are described the activities of our think tank, the unique research we are conducting and our latest collaboration with the OPTIC office in Canada

GAFAs are no longer just trying to capture and monetize our data, but to predict and influence our behaviour: by clicking on an ad or liking content, we feed Google or Facebook's algorithms that transform them into marketable behavioural predictions. As a result, society is divided into two classes: those who watch, the minority, and those who are watched, the majority of us. This is what the American academic Shoshana Zuboff, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, defends in a scathing essay entitled The Age of Surveillance Capitalism to be published  by Zulma.

Interview with Dominique Lambert, by Romina Rebois

What is the correct and legal definition of an algorithmic state of war?  

For Dominique Lambert, Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Namur, it is necessary to get used to the idea that war is no longer fought only in geographical theatres of operation but also in cyberspace. In other words, war occurs in a much more intimate and accessible individual and social space than ever before. Nevertheless, in this virtual universe, as on the battlefield, the effects of war are real.

The seizure of power by megalomaniacal AIs does not seem likely to threaten our far future. Algorithms have such vulnerabilities that man cannot disappear from the decision-making loop. On the other hand, human-machine hybridization suggests a cyborgisation of the battlefield in which AIs could play the role of shepherd dogs: autonomous, faithful, enduring and on the alert.

By Romina REBOIS and Pierre GUEYDIER

Interview with Mariarosaria Taddeo, by Marylaure Bloch

War has its rules, laws and rights. These rules are sometimes broken, laws are circumvented and rights are violated. However, war is part of a legal order that expresses ethical considerations. Should cyber aggression be considered as an act of war? For the Deputy Director of the Digital Ethics Lab in Oxford, there is an urgent need to define a legal framework for cyber space conflicts.     

It is not known whether "quantum supremacy" over conventional computers was achieved during the summer as Google has announced. IBM asserts that no, Google maintains (link) Let's say, for lack of certainty, that the announcement was quantum, in a superposition of half-true and half-untrue state... Nevertheless, the question that arises for cryptography specialists becomes burning. This is reflected in a lecture given by Victoria de Quehen (ISARA) on October 15, 2019 in Montreal. Our correspondent attended.