The collaborative report by the Council of Europe and the IEEE Standards Association, aims at aiding Council of Europe member states in understanding the metaverse's potential, applications and associated risks concerning human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. It emphasises the importance of a human rights, rule of law and democracy driven approach to technology development, acknowledging the uncertainty of the metaverse's future evolution.

The expert study on the human rights dimensions of automated data processing techniques (in particular algorithms) and possible regulatory implications (DGI(2017)12) of December 2017 maps out the main concerns from the Council of Europe’s human rights perspective. While listing the possible implications for various rights enshrined in the European Convention, it concludes that all rights are potentially impacted, as the growing use of automation and algorithmic decision-making in all spheres of life is threatening to disrupt traditional power structures, as operators of algorithms (who may be public or private) gain unprecedented advantages. The study further seeks to identify possible regulatory options that member states may consider to minimise adverse effects or to promote good practices. 

Advanced  digital  technologies  and  services,  including  AI  tools,  come  with  extraordinary  promise,  particularly  in  the  form of enhanced efficiency, accuracy, timeliness and conve-nience across a wide range of services. Yet the emergence of these technologies is also accompanied by rising public anxi-ety regarding their potentially damaging effects for individu-als, for vulnerable groups and for society more generally.

Given  their  pervasiveness  in  daily  life,  we  must  acquire  a  deeper  understanding  of  their  impact  on  the  exercise  of  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms,  and  we  should  carefully  consider  how  to  allocate  responsibility  in  case  of  adverse  consequences.  If  we  are  to  take  human  rights  seri-ously  in  a  globally  connected  digital  age,  we  cannot  allow  the power of our advanced digital technologies and systems, and  those  who  wield  and  derive  benefits  from  them,  to  be  accrued and exercised without responsibility.

Effective and democratically legitimised governance arrange-ments  and  enforcement  mechanisms  must  be  put  in  place  to ensure that responsibility for the risks, harms and wrongs arising  from  the  operation  of  advanced  digital  technologies  are duly allocated.

A study of the implications of advanced digital technologies (including AI systems)forthe concept of responsibility within ahuman rights framework prepared by the Expert Committee on human rights dimensions of automated data processing and different forms of artificial intelligence (MSI-AUT)

Public entities and non-state actors should initiate research to better understand and respond to the human rights related legal and ethical implications of algorithmic decision-making. Technological developments should be monitored and reviewed for potential negative impacts, with particular attention paid to the use of algorithmic processing techniques during elections and election campaigns. 

Human rights impact assessments should be conducted before making use of algorithmic decision-making in public administration. Certification and auditing mechanisms for automated data processing techniques should be developed to ensure their compliance with human rights. Effective responses to identified negative impacts could include experimental regulation with the aim to protect individual rights and guarantee regulatory goals, provided they are accompanied by systematic monitoring of their effects. Public entities and non-state actors should encourage and promote the development of human rights by design and ethics-by-design approaches as well as the adoption of stronger risk-assessment tools to enhance the development of software that upholds and protects fundamental values or basic ethical and societal principles. 

Public entities should be held accountable for the decisions they take based on algorithmic processes, whether these are used to prepare their decisions or to actually take them. Effective mechanisms should be adopted that enable redress for individuals that are negatively impacted by algorithmically informed decisions. 

Algorithms are often viewed as black boxes by both consumers and regulators alike. Demands for more algorithmic transparency have therefore been growing in public and political debate and have included requests that algorithms should be reviewed prior to their use by independent auditors, regulators and the public. In this context, the key is not the provision of all data imaginable, but rather the notion of “effective transparency”.

Institutions that use algorithmic processes should be encouraged to provide easily accessible explanations with respect to the data that is used by the algorithm, the procedures followed and the criteria based on which decisions are proposed. Moreover, industries that develop the analytical systems used in algorithmic decision-making and data collection processes should create awareness and understanding regarding the possible biases that may be embedded in the design of algorithms. 

Enhanced public awareness and discourse are crucially important. All available means should be used to inform the general public so that users are empowered to critically understand and deal with the logic and operation of algorithms. This can include, but is not limited to, information and media literacy campaigns.

Considering the complexity of the field, however, there is also a need for additional institutions, networks and spaces where different forms of algorithmic decision-making are analysed and assessed in a trans-disciplinary, problem-oriented and evidence-based approach.