Data Management for Platform-Mediated Public Services: Challenges and Best Practices
The following blog post, written by Agnieszka Rychwalska, Geoffrey Goodell, Magdalena Roszczynska-Kurasinska, explores their article “Data Management for Platform-Mediated Public Services: Challenges and Best Practices,” which appeared in a recent issue of Surveillance & Society.
///
By now, most digital technology users have heard of the risks they face by exposing their personal information when using new media. Thanks to extensive coverage in the press as well as popular documentaries such as Netflix’s The Social Dilemma, surveillance by Big Tech companies is now on the minds of not only tech pundits but many regular persons as well. The risks to personal autonomy posed by the growing data aggregation activities of private, global companies are becoming more apparent to both decision makers and citizens. And yet, as we argue in our article in Surveillance & Society, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
But businesses are not the only perpetrators. Public sector institutions are increasingly enabling pervasive surveillance by adopting new technology and solutions without proper analysis of the costs and risks. The drive to innovate, to create “smart” solutions within public services, or to catch up on the massive opportunities and cost savings afforded by Big Data sometimes results in the adoption of technologies and practices that further endanger the agency of citizens within democratic societies. Moreover, public services differ from those offered by private actors in that citizens might have no choice but to use the service and might not be able to choose the service provider when they do. Whether that service is motivated by public safety, for example smart traffic lights, or e-government, for example a digital form for applying for a passport, the citizen has no recourse but to entrust their data to the government institutions and the private contractors that offer services to those institutions. In our analysis, we pinpoint three risky, data related practices that should be avoided in the process of digitization of public services.
Public sector institutions are increasingly enabling pervasive surveillance by adopting new technology and solutions without proper analysis of the costs and risks.
First, when a public service gathers data that exceed what is necessary to provide the service, it creates the risk of statistical “boxing,” a form of classifying individuals that can be used as a tool to profile their behavior or to limit the accountability of the service providers. Second, the data amassed by public services can be employed to imperceptibly nudge citizens towards behaviors that are most beneficial to those in power rather than the public at large. Finally, aggregating and linking records into a single database transfers the power of administration from local or devolved institutions to centralized ones. All of these practices may upset the balance between the values that define modern democracies and which are usually established with the participation of citizens: control vs. accountability, security vs. freedom, and pluralism vs. efficiency.
Single-use credentials may help citizens remain in charge of data linkages and in limit the aggregation of their data.
Identifying and characterizing these practices leads us to propose specific design principles for digitized public services that can help mitigate the risks. For example, single-use credentials may help citizens remain in charge of data linkages and in limit the aggregation of their data. Similarly, if the infrastructure that enables citizen authentication is decentralized, then the risk of data aggregation will be mitigated. At this critical juncture, whilst the public sector in many democratic societies is still in the process of implementing digital services, the choices about technology solutions offers a chance to consciously steer the process of digitization to support democratic values.
