In her interview, Catherine Wanner discusses the role of anthropological approach in studying religion, the difference between religion and faith, atheists campaigns in communist countries, religiosity and religious life of post-communist societies, and religious lessons of the communist era.
This blog series explores some threats that digital technologies can create to freedom of religion or belief and other human rights. It starts with Neville Rochow’s elaboration on the potential harmfulness of algorithm-based decision-making if the program does not take account of religious beliefs. Rochow emphasizes that the predictable and (in many ways) helpful expansion of AI’s role in everyday life must be accompanied by companies’ greater corporate accountability and obedience to the law.
Yulia Razmetaeva explains why AI technology may be non-neutral and have a significant influence on freedom of thought pointing at it as a source of fake information that calls for violence.
Neville Rochow QC is an Australian Barrister, Associate Professor (Adjunct) at the University of Adelaide Law School, and a member of Anthony Mason Chambers in Adelaid
Corporations are notorious for their bad behavior in the pursuit of profits [1] and the need for laws to regulate them [2]. In relation to religious and other freedoms, where corporations have any influence upon their exercise, laws and regulatory regimes could work to enhance the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. But there are legal and regulatory measures that just should not be undertaken since they diminish that enjoyment. The distinctions between what can be done and what should not be done, what is and what should never be, have become all the more important as our lives are increasingly ruled by corporate powers and now their digital servants.
As to potential impact, consider the instance of what happens to religious freedom when an algorithm in the emergency room computer decides whether or not to administer a blood transfusion. If nothing in the program asks a question whether the patient is a faithful Jehovah’s Witness, the machine will decide the question without consultation on religious faith. Religious freedom is rendered irrelevant.