DATA WITHOUT DAMAGE - SAFEGUARDING CITIZENS’ RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE
By Ania Karzek, Manager Strategy & Governance, City of Holdfast Bay
In a world that is increasingly shaped by technology, data has become the currency of power.
All sectors – whether government, private or between – collect vast amounts of data and use it in various ways.
While data can unlock innovation and efficiency, it also brings risks, particularly when governments treat citizens’ rights as an afterthought, rather than in the foundational designs of the technologies they implement.
While it may feel like the proverbial horse has bolted, the right to privacy remains a democratic necessity. Without it, freedom of expression and association, and protection from discrimination are all at risk of irredeemable compromise. Furthermore, without ethical design, accountability and rights-based underpinnings, data collected by governments can be used to erode, or even ultimately undo, democracy itself.
So, what can we do to safeguard citizens’ rights?
In an ideal world, all technologies would be subject to ethical development standards, but we don’t live in an ideal world. In most cases, governments are at the mercy of technology vendors who use proprietary algorithms that they either can’t or won’t release for scrutiny. The reality is that in purchasing technologies and pumping our data stores into them, much rests on good faith.
Therefore, the first and most practical thing we can do to safeguard citizens’ rights is, wherever practical, LIMIT the amount of data we collect. Often, the data we collect is purely habitual – it’s not required to accomplish whatever it is someone wants to do. There is a lot of data that is harvested because it might be interesting, or because we might like to report on it, or because that’s how we’ve always built our forms. Once you have harvested data, you have to manage it and its risks; it’s much safer and more efficient to design services from the outset to function on the least possible amount of data. Limiting access and use is also worth considering – the act of collecting data doesn’t inherently make it ours to do with as we please.
Another practical step is to consider CONSENT. Too often, governments take for granted their social license to harvest and use data – we do it because we can. Sometimes we do it because we must, for example, where legislation requires certain data points to be collected, but often we rely on implied consent because there is nothing to stop us. Is consent even meaningful when someone has no choice? We should therefore consider seeking informed and expressed consent whenever possible. This consent should also be nuanced (that is, not be in an ‘all or nothing’ form) and revocable (that is, able to be withdrawn by the citizen). Giving citizens genuine choice and involving them in decisions about how their data is used is respectful, builds trust and prevents governments from setting up conditions for nefarious over-reach, either by accident or with intent.
Being able to effectively evaluate what data and which uses are safe now and into the future requires high levels of data literacy and intentional, deep ethical consideration. Commonly, the data we harvest is guided by the technologies we implement. However, it is critical to remember that if things go wrong and data gets misused, we will not escape responsibility. We must therefore be savvy technology purchasers and firmly keep in mind that WE CANNOT OUTSOURCE OUR THINKING. While trusted technology partners are important, the trust we put in them does not absolve us of the need to make informed decisions. And remember, their goals and drivers are not the same as ours.
Striving for excellence in user experience and maximising value for money by minimising the costs of service are worthy goals. However, the art of good public governance is to deliver such improvements while not undermining or compromising the fundamental rights of citizens.
