A/HRC/36/48 technology entails the risk of dehumanizing care practices. That includes the risk of losing one’s sense of identity, self-esteem and control over one’s life, and overall raises concerns about human dignity. Views diverge on the extent to which robots can compensate for human contact,5 also taking into account that loneliness is a common source of distress and suffering for older persons and impairs their quality of life. User acceptance depends on a variety of factors, including the characteristics of the technology itself, and also on the availability of alternatives, personal preferences and social and cultural determinants. 48. Assistive technology cannot substitute for human care. The extent to which it is appropriate to rely on a machine instead of a human will, however vary, depending on the context, task and individual. Based on a human rights-based approach, support should be available as a means to expand opportunities and not as a method of maintenance. Assistive technology should enable human capabilities and enhance human dignity. This aim should be integrated from the conception to the application of assistive devices and robotics. 3. Informational self-determination 49. The use of assistive technology and robotics will have an impact on the right to privacy, namely the protection of personal data, and informational self-determination (see para. 54 below) in a significant and unparalleled manner. Information gathered through the use of assistive technology and robotics by older persons will be particularly sensitive as it pertains to the health of individuals, their life choices, political, philosophical and religious beliefs, sexual habits, etc.6 This may concern the older persons themselves, and also their caregivers, family and friends. 50. For robots to function effectively and properly and to maximize the opportunities for their use and benefits, they will generate, centralize and share vast and unprecedented amounts of data on health and other sensitive information. As the devices become more autonomous, data collection will further expand, since these systems function on the basis of data collection and analysis, and concerns over data protection will therefore be magnified. Challenges for privacy will further increase with the devices communicating with each other and having access to remote servers where information from other robots is stored in order to learn from their experiences. Particularly in home care, assisted technology and care robots will intersect with the assisted-living technologies and other electronic devices, such as smartphones or tablets. The “glass human being” is therefore no longer just a literary metaphor.7 51. The right to privacy under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covers arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s personal privacy, family, home or correspondence. Data gathering and other forms of invasion of personal and domestic privacy must only take place after obtaining the informed consent of the individuals concerned (i.e. older persons and others whose information may be collected). Users should be able to understand fully the extent of monitoring, including how data are gathered and processed, by whom, for what purpose, for how long and where they are stored and with whom they are or can be shared. 52. Monitoring technologies could result in unwanted supervision and could even take place without an older person’s conscious knowledge. Older persons may be discouraged 5 6 7 10 For instance, according to John Hudson, Marta Orviska and Jan Hunady, “People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly”, International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 9, No. 2 (2017), pp. 199-210. A European study found that most pensioners living in cities supported the use of robots in care. However, another study found that 60 per cent of European Union citizens want to ban robots in care. Tom Sorell and Heather Draper, “Robot carers, ethics, and older people”, Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 16, No. 3 (2014), pp. 183-195; cf. Niklas Luhmann, Grundrechte als Institution, Schriften zum öffentlichen Recht, 5th ed., vol. 24 (Berlin, Dunker and Humblot 2009). Cf. Friedrich Graf von Westphalen, “Auf dem Weg zum gläsernen Bürger? Das Volkszählungsgesetz 1982”, Die neue Ordnung, vol. 37, No. 2, 1983, pp. 136-142; Hans Ulrich Buhl and Günter Müller, “The ‘transparent citizen’ in Web 2.0”, Business and Information Systems Engineering, vol. 2, No. 4, (2010), pp. 203-206; and Joel R., Reidenberg, “The transparent citizen”, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, vol. 47 (2015), pp. 437-463, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2674313. Available from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2674313.