Data Extraction, Refugees and Human Rights Violations
Data extraction that leads to the direct violation of privacy rights is a critical issue of technosolutionism. Data extraction in this context is defined as "the process of removing something, especially by force" (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Whilst data collection is a neutral, mutual accumulation of data (Sadowski, 2019).
In this circumstance, several companies are posing as saviours to the issues facing states concerning refugees. One of these companies is Cellebrite, which markets its ability to audit a "person's journey to identify suspicious activity prior to arrival", track their route, run a keyword and image search through their device to identify "traces of illicit activity", and review their online browsing and social media activity (Privacy International, 2019).
The threat of data extraction in this context fails to respect the intersection of gender, sexuality, disability, and home state laws in asylum applications. For example, if a homosexual man applies for asylum with home state laws criminalizing homosexuality, and his phone data is extracted, not only has his right to privacy been violated, but if his application is denied, his life is at severe risk on returning home.
Although one could argue that privacy is difficult to define in a legal context due to roots in cultural traditions and fluctuating social and political norms (Klitou, 2014). The UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (UN General Assembly, 1969) are two mechanisms that reinforce the right to privacy. Article 12 of the UDHR defines privacy as individual autonomy and identifies the right to demand protection of the law against arbitrary interference of privacy. Article 17 of the ICCPR builds on this UDHR language and comprises a broader concept of obligations to protect privacy against interference and attacks from the government and others, without a limitation clause. (Kaurin, 2019).
There are therefore solid international documents reinforcing the need to maintain privacy in a humanitarian context. These instruments have been created following substantial deliberation to protect these exact rights abuses with vulnerable individuals applying for asylum. Data extraction must never be allowed to occur for technology to help, not hinder the human rights discourse.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
