Videos

Context

The panel of experts discussed a few key questions related to the future of data governance in Non-Personal Data (NPD). NPD has taken center stage in current discourse around data governance. The latest development of the release of the Report by the Committee of Experts on a Non-Personal Data Governance Framework is part of a larger trend across the globe on efforts to understand the nature of the need to regulate data, apart from the basic protections to individuals over their personal data.

Some of the fundamental questions center around the basis for regulating NPD – there are privacy concerns, with claims of complete anonymization being impossible, but also questions of value and its accumulation, and how the interests of end-users are best served.

The challenge with NPD is that a beneficiary or clearly identifiable set of interests to protect may present a challenge. Being non-personal, it is the interest of the community and not only of an individual at stake. A challenge in framing a good regulatory approach lies in identifying the community(ies) that may be impacted and how regulation can protect their interests. Clear identification of interests as a problem statement is essential to framing regulation to protect it.

Related to the identification of interests to be protected is also the identification of community harm. Community rights and their protection still lack clear articulation, and preventing collective harm requires further definition and precision.

Lastly, a cognizance of power structures and existing successes (and failures) of regulatory approaches are required in order to frame a policy capable of achieving its objectives. Any policy tools for this would need to take into account the existing infrastructure for lessons as well as create compatible governance structures. The Indian draft policy, for instance, has used a form of data stewards to try to address this issue – though the formulation leaves questions of accountability and grievance redressal mechanisms.

Speakers

Share this Resource

Context

There is a general and growing consensus that individual rights in data are critical, and that people must have a greater say in how their data is collected, used, and managed. Innovations such as personal data stores facilitate greater individual control over data for a number of purposes, including sharing and monetizing one’s personal data. Monetization of personal data is also being considered in the form of monetary dividends. This focus on individual entitlements in the data economy ignores that people, in their atomized online existence, cannot negotiate with technology companies for their data rights. For instance, expecting people to navigate privacy policies, irrespective of design, puts an undue burden of consent on individual users. Individual consent is broken, and remedies for isolated grievances do not lead to systemic changes in the data economy.


To remedy this, community rights and collective bargaining are being considered by scholars and thinkers. This makes sense as data is only valuable as a large collected resource – the value of the network is critical. Insights about individuals are drawn through networks and communities we inhabit. Digital exhaust or data about us from ambient environment – CCTV, satellite imagery, IoT machines is also representative of the community. Further, in some interpretations datasets of value are a result of labor performed by a number of groups of people online – therefore decisions on data should be made by representatives of these groups. It is also apparent that exercising individual data rights in some cases might compromise those of the community. Viewing community data as a public resource can help unlock data for the benefit of the community itself.

The idea of community ownership and governance of data and decisions around it needs to be reworked to bring offline support systems and voice to online action can help restructure some of the injustices of the data economy, and lead more decentralized ideas of power and control. There is some scattered activity on this, for instance in indigenous data sovereignty – the rights of Indigenous peoples and tribes to govern the collection, ownership, and application of their own data”. More recently, movements like BlackLivesMatter, aim to use data to empower communities of color.

In this panel, we discuss, decentralized systems of data governance through community action, and draw lessons for a reimagination and renegotiation of data rights.

Speakers

Share this Resource

Context

In the wake of the COVID-19 lockdown, the Indian government, and civil society organizations have been unable to fully assist migrant laborers in their need for aid, trains or housing. These institutional failures, coupled with a lack of data, have made it challenging to provide support for migrants during this time. Robust data sharing processes are critical to driving responses to enhance the livelihoods of migrant workers, not just in a state of emergency. As existing data has been plagued with conflicting accounts of the exact number of stranded migrants, this gap has had to be filled by an ad-hoc collection of data by both Government and civil society organizations.

In addition, the increased penetration of digital technologies has greatly impacted the migrant experience – many of whom now heavily rely upon media communications for safety, communication, and access to public resources. From top-down governmental structures that rely on biometrics to bottom-up resource and information access through social media channels, it is increasingly challenging to manage surveillance and privacy controls in a digitized world. Users of digital technologies, especially migrant workers in the gig economy, are in unequal relationships with platforms, with little space to negotiate how data is collected, accessed, and shared. Their existing vulnerabilities are accentuated online, as they do not have the knowledge about harms and risks to privacy but are also in data-extractive relationships with the state, which seeks to collect information in return for service delivery and the private sector on which they are dependent on for communication, payments, and information.

We especially believe there is a case for data stewardship here, in which interoperability of datasets, consent mechanisms, and ownership can be entrusted to an intermediary that facilitates the use and flow of data on migrant movements. In this roundtable, we hope to explore how we can re-imagine data governance frameworks for migrant workers in India, that protect individual rights and enable better service delivery.

Speakers

Share this Resource

Context

Across the world, cities and public transport systems have not been designed to be gender-neutral. This disproportionately affects women, who face unique challenges in navigating these spaces and are frequently subjected to forms of harassment or violence. As some of the most vulnerable populations of cities, the lack of inclusive policies further inhibits women’s mobility and access to essential services. This is exacerbated by the limited representation of women in urban planning, and gaps in data which further render women and their experiences, invisible.

Acknowledging these concerns, international Institutions encourage the collection of gender-disaggregated and gender-specific data in order to drive responsive policies and channel investment towards necessary infrastructure. Data for ‘women’s safety’ tends to be collected through public-private partnerships, by civil society or private companies. This often includes non-personal crowdsourced data or personal data from wearable devices or location-based apps. Aggregate data is typically shared in open formats with communities, planning or transport authorities, and in some cases law enforcement.

However, governance of data - how it is stored, used, and shared - often lacks transparency and accountability. Particularly for the collection of personal data, it becomes critical to address issues of privacy, so as not to impose additional surveillance or coercive control over women’s mobility or agency. Considering that data collection efforts will expand, it becomes increasingly relevant to address how this can be more securely enabled and governed.

At Aapti, we have been exploring how a framework of data stewardship could effectively facilitate trust between stakeholders and protect the privacy of its users if built on pillars of transparency, accountability, and representation. During this roundtable, we discussed what it will take to bridge the gender data gap, drew learnings from existing models of data sharing, and envisaged what a good steward for Women's Safety would look like.

Speakers

Share this Resource