One way of working out if the data you’re gathering is particularly sensitive is to do a thought experiment: what would happen if this data got into the hands of a malicious actor? Who would be keen to get their hands on it? What are the worst things that they could do with this data?
Sometimes, though, it can be hard to put yourself in the shoes of your enemies, or to envision potential future actions. As a result, practising data minimisation is a keystone of a rights-based, responsible data approach. And sadly, it’s the opposite of the approach we’re seeing governments around the world take.
Last week, the UK Government passed what has been described by Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group, as the “most extreme mass surveillance law ever passed in a democracy”. The law, known officially as the Investigatory Powers Act, forces UK internet providers to store browsing histories — including domains visited — for one year, in case of police investigations. Unofficially, and in reference to its invasive powers, it has been nicknamed the Snooper’s Charter.
At the same time, the new President-elect of the United States is “not ruling out” their campaign idea of gathering a ‘registry’ of Muslims, refusing to answer questions on how it would differ from Nazi-era Germany policies around registering Jews.
Data gathering around sensitive topics has a long history of being used in malicious and dangerous ways.
There have even been multiple occasions when mass surveillance and data collection have played key roles in facilitating humanitarian crises, including genocides.
To make really clear the link between surveillance and mass human rights’ abuses, and to highlight some of humanity’s worst examples of what can happen with mass surveillance, lack of freedom of expression, and abuse of data, here are a just a few examples.
Copied: The Engine Room
Comments
Post a Comment