Denmark had decided to implement legislation, given the ubiquity of the digital age, to expressly state the right to one’s image, voice and body for each person in Denmark. While in my little heart went pitter, patter for joy, there is a not so subtle corollary perhaps. https://thegoodlobby.eu/denmark-gives-everybody-the-right-to-their-own-body-facial-features-and-voice-to-counter-deepfakes/.
While no doubt, its is an enhancement of a commercial right, given misuses even abuse of AI towards a person online, perhaps it also demotes the basis of humanity further towards a being defined as a commercial resource at the same time. This is similar in my mind to when human rights were diluted in may ways to consumer rights and human beings were relegated to the status of being consumers. So while on a commercial tort basis, this might be sold as a good thing, in natural law and common law, a human with the concomitant natural and inalienable rights and standing has been diluted also. Ramifications for say the future patenting of a “new or post human” being, following transmutation of human DNA into commercially created DNA have concerns regarding sovereignty and ownership and inalienable rights to statutory. The latter being malleable at a future point in time within a future statute once the precedent has been set and bedded in . So just one more leg kicked out from under the table of inalienable and natural rights ?
When is the last time you heard a politician mention inalienable rights?
Also, isn’t it curious nobody ever debates individuals’ rights to their own data (data being one of the most valuable things on earth today)? Yeah, we may technically have those rights, but try using the internet without implicitly or explicitly giving them away to some search engine or social media platform.
I think you’re on to something there…
Oh I think it’s a very politically oily way to look good, while putting the proverbial knife in. We have been nudged for decades away, with our silent consent as humanity, off our innate right and inalienable rights which arise from the fact of our creation and birth into this life.
The article says the law will grant three rights. I suspect what the author meant to say (it was originally written in another language) is that the law will grant three remedies. But if the Danish wording is to grant “rights,” I would find that odd with my American understanding that governments don’t grant rights; they protect pre-existing rights. The bible is sometimes consulted on questions of natural rights, and it’s troubling that 1 Corinthians 6:19 states that we do not own ourselves… “ye are not your own.” I’ve lived in Denmark for 8 months and my husband is a caretaker for a 12th century church here. Very few people in Denmark attend church and I don’t fully understand the denomination of all the identical white churches that dot the Danish countryside. I need to look into this if only to answer some of these questions this post raises, but my impression is that this is not a religious country. You’ve given me a lot to think about and research.