Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Feminist Surveillance Studies and Data Feminisms
References
All Topics
Political Science
Public Policy

Feminist data protection: an introduction

Profile image of Andreas BaurAndreas Baur

Internet Policy Review

https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1609
visibility

…

description

26 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Feminist data protection' is not an established term or field of study: data protection discourse is dominated by doctrinal legal and economic positions, and feminist perspectives are few and far between. This editorial introduction summarises a number of recent interventions in the broader fields of data sciences and surveillance studies, then turns to data protection itself and considers how it might be understood, critiqued and possibly reimagined in feminist terms. Finally, the authors return to 'feminist data protection' and the different directions in which it might be further developed-as a feminist approach to data protection, as the protection of feminist data, and as a feminist way of protecting data-and provide an overview of the papers included in the present special issue. Issue 4

Related papers

Data Stories for/from All: Why Data Feminism is for Everyone
Yasamin Rezai

Digital Humanities Quarterly, 2022

Looking through the intersectional feminist lens, Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein introduce data as a tool of power in the past and present world in their book Data Feminism (MIT Press, 2020) and reveal how authorities have used data as a weapon to maintain a hierarchy of power in favor of their position in the unequal status quo. By calling data a part of the problem, they also conceive of it as a part of the solution by analyzing how “data justice” can and ought to be redeployed to challenge power.

View PDFchevron_right
Rachel E. Dubrofsky and Shoshana Amielle Magnet (Eds.), Feminist Surveillance Studies
Fernanda R. Rosa

International Journal of Communication (IJOC), 2018

Feminist Surveillance Studies is a welcomed contribution to the field of surveillance research. Founded in a critical feminist epistemology, the book encompasses eleven chapters covering a broad range of subjects and perspectives. Together, the various authors provide sound theoretical foundations to think of the values embedded in the design of surveillance infrastructures in general, by no means circumscribed to digital technologies. The authors in this volume are predominantly women and come from a range of disciplines, including Africana studies, communication and media studies, criminology, cultural studies, law, literature, medicine, political science, and sociology. Its multidisciplinary scope makes the book appealing for a large audience, from surveillance and gender scholars to public policy practitioners and citizens in general, whom might be interested in understanding the unfolding of surveillance practices through the perspectives of one of the genders that have been historically most affected by them. The chapters are theoretically and conceptually grounded, concise, and informed by empirical research, which provides, without exception, an enjoyable reading despite the apparent grimness of the topic.

View PDFchevron_right
BELLANOVA, ROCCO. (2014) Data Protection, with Love. International Political Sociology 8 (1): 112-15.
Rocco Bellanova

Contribution to the IPS forum on The Politics of Privacy in the Age of Preemptive Security.

View PDFchevron_right
Feminism, Democracy and the Right to Privacy
Annabelle Lever

Minerva 9. Nov. 2005, 2005

This article argues that people have legitimate interests in privacy that deserve legal protection on democratic principles. It describes the right to privacy as a bundle of rights of solitude, intimacy and confidentiality and shows that, so described, people have legitimate interests in privacy. These interests are both personal and political, and provide the grounds for two different justifications of privacy rights. Though both are based on democratic concerns for the freedom and equality of individuals, these two justifications for privacy can be distinguished because the one is principally concerned with protecting the personal freedom and equality of individuals, while the other is principally concerned with their political equivalents. Feminists have often been ambivalent about legal protection for privacy, because privacy rights have, so often, protected the coercion and exploitation of women, and made it difficult to politicise personal forms of injustice. However, interpreting the content and justification of privacy rights in light of the differences between democratic and undemocratic forms of politics can enable us to meet these concerns, and to distinguish a democratic justification of privacy rights from the alternatives.

View PDFchevron_right
Feminicide Data Activism
Helena Suárez Val, Ivonne Ramirez, Savia Hasanova, Dawn Wilcox

The Routledge International Handbook on Femicide and Feminicide, 2023

Collectif Féminicides Par Compagnons ou Ex, Feminizidmap, Kathomi Gatwiri, Savia Hasanova, Anna Kapushenko, Lyubava Malysheva, Saide Mobayed Vega, Audrey Mugeni, Rosalind Page, Ivonne Ramírez, Helena Suárez Val, Dawn Wilcox, and Aimee Zambrano Ortiz This chapter weaves together, as nodes in a network of care, the experiences of activists collecting feminicide data in France, Germany, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Russia, the United States, and Venezuela. In our work, we draw from a long genealogy of feminist research and activism on femicide/feminicide and gender-related violence. To contextualise our practices, we draw on data activism and data feminism as theoretical lenses. Methodologically, we inhabited each other’s experiences through an iterative conversation and co-writing session where we reflected on questions related to the context of our work, our data-making process, the mental and emotional toll, and the challenges and opportunities of generating feminicide data. The experiences of producing feminicide data we share here, together with others around the world, are valuable because they show how women organise to fight against the inequalities that affect us every day.

View PDFchevron_right
Data protection legislation: What is at stake for our society and democracy?
Yves Poullet

Computer Law & Security Review, 2009

Privacy Data protection Social networks Web 2.0 Profiling Terminal equipment Proportionality Opacity Informational self-determination Semantic Web Digital identities Ubiquitous computing Ambient intelligence Data Protection Authority a b s t r a c t

View PDFchevron_right
Data protection in the area of freedom, security and justice. A short introduction and many questions left unanswered
paul de hert

ERA Forum, 2010

Data protection is one of the main issues of the development of the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). Indeed, the introduction of measures that touch upon data protection is coupled with growing dilemmas on how to best ensure individuals' fundamental rights. Is the current legislation on data protection adequate to the challenges posed by specific technologies and specific policies? Do the main actors have the adequate powers to shape legislation and enforce controls? Do the Data Protection Framework Decision and the Lisbon Treaty offer satisfactory means to cope with present loopholes? This study was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE).

View PDFchevron_right
Big Data and Sexual Surveillance
Nicole Shephard

2016

Issue Paper, Association for Progressive Communications (APC). Surveillance has historically functioned as an oppressive tool to control women's bodies and is closely related to colonial modes of managing populations. Big data, metadata and the technologies used to collect, store and analyse them are by no means neutral, but come with their own exclusions and biases. This paper highlights the gendered and racialised effects of data practices; outlines the overlapping nature of state, commercial and peer surveillance; and maps the challenges and opportunities women and queers encounter on the nexus between data, surveillance, gender and sexuality. Vulnerable communities as well as sexual rights activists are at heightened risk of data-driven modes Dr Nicole Shephard is an independent researcher and writer working on the intersections between gender, sexuality and technology. She holds a PhD in Gender (LSE) and an MSc in International Development (University of Bristol). of surveillance. In addition to exposing and addressing algorithmic discriminations, feminist data practices oppose the non-consensual collection of data, amplify participatory data projects that empower women and sexual minorities, and protect the data, privacy and anonymity of activists and the communities they work with.

View PDFchevron_right
Mapping Data Justice as a Multidimensional Concept Through Feminist and Legal Perspectives
Claude Draude

Transforming Communications, 2022

Data justice" is a broad paradigm that encompasses and supersedes legal issues of data ownership and privacy regulations to account for complex power imbalances and injustices that are brought about by big data collection and use (Taylor, 2017). The concept is multifaceted in its applications. Data justice can aim towards "just decisions" and "just procedures" in administrative, legal, contractual, and other situations, where these decisions and procedures are made based on increasingly larger amounts of data. It can also mean aiming towards just decisions in sociotechnical systems' design when it relies on and pertains to data. Broader understandings of data justice can refer to justice on the level of policies, institutions, and societal structures pertaining to (big) data collection and use.

View PDFchevron_right
Data feminism and border ethics: power, invisibility and indeterminacy
Georgiana Turculet

Data feminism and border ethics: power, invisibility and indeterminacy, 2023

Human activities are being increasingly regulated by means of technologies. Smart borders regulating human movement are no exception. I argue that the process of digitizationincluding through AI, Big Data and algorithmic processingfalls short of respecting (fundamental) rights to the extent to which it ignores what I term to be the problem of indeterminacy. While adopting a data feminist approach in this paper, assuming that data is the 'new oil', that is power, I begin theorizing indeterminacy from the imminent risks of datafication as a new instrument of oppression perpetuating injustice and widening inequality gaps. I conclude that technologies regulating human activities must stand ethical scrutiny, especially if they can and do result in (human) rights violations. Unlike the oil being extracted from the ground, data is de facto extracted from people endowed with agency, autonomy, rights and contextsall which ought to be respected and protected.

View PDFchevron_right

References (159)

  1. Abu-Laban, Y. (2014). Gendering Surveillance Studies: The Empirical and Normative Promise of Feminist Methodology. Surveillance & Society, 13(1), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v13i1.5163
  2. Adair, C. (2019). Licensing Citizenship: Anti-Blackness, Identification Documents, and Transgender Studies. American Quarterly, 71(2), 569-594. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2019.0043
  3. Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822395324
  4. Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Duke University Press.
  5. Allen, A. L. (1988). Uneasy access: Privacy for women in a free society. Rowman & Littlefield.
  6. Allen, A. L. (2011). Unpopular privacy: What must we hide? Oxford University Press.
  7. Allen, A. L., & Mack, E. (1990). How privacy got its gender. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 10(3), 441-478.
  8. Andrejevic, M. (2014). The Big Data Divide. International Journal of Communication, 8, 17.
  9. Arora, P. (2019). General data protection regulation -A global standard?: Privacy futures, digital activism, and surveillance cultures in the Global South. Surveillance & Society, 17(5), 717-725. http s://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i5.13307
  10. Ball, K. S., Phillips, D. J., Green, N., & Koskela, H. (2009). Surveillance Studies needs Gender and Sexuality. Surveillance & Society, 6(4), 352-355. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v6i4.3266
  11. Beauchamp, T. (2019). Going Stealth: Transgender Politics and U.S. Surveillance Practices. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw8g8
  12. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity.
  13. Bergemann, B. (2018). The Consent Paradox: Accounting for the Prominent Role of Consent in Data Protection. In M. Hansen, E. Kosta, I. Nai-Fovino, & S. Fischer-Hübner (Eds.), Privacy and Identity Management. The Smart Revolution (Vol. 526, pp. 111-131). Springer International Publishing. http s://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92925-5_8
  14. Bhattacharjee, A. (1996). The public/private mirage: Mapping homes and undomesticating violence work in the South Asian Immigrant Community. In M. J. Alexander & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Feminist genealogies, colonial legacies, democratic futures (pp. 308-329). Routledge.
  15. Bieker, F. (2022). The right to data protection -Individual and structural dimensions of data protection in EU law. T.M.C. Asser Press.
  16. Bietti, E. (2020). Consent as a Free Pass: Platform Power and the Limits of the Informational Turn. Pace Law Review, 40(1), 310-398.
  17. Bigo, D. (2012). Security, surveillance and democracy. In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814949.ch3_3_b
  18. Bigo, D., Diez, T., Fanoulis, E., Rosamond, B., & Stivachtis, Y. A. (2021). The Routledge handbook of critical European studies. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nleb k&db=nlabk&AN=2666914
  19. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press.
  20. Birhane, A. (2020). Algorithmic Colonization of Africa. SCRIPT-Ed, 17(2), 389-409. https://doi.org/1
  21. 2966/scrip.170220.389
  22. Birhane, A., & Guest, O. (2021). Towards Decolonising Computational Sciences. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 2, 60-73. https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v29i2.124899
  23. Bivens, R. (2017). The gender binary will not be deprogrammed: Ten years of coding gender on Facebook. New Media & Society, 19(6), 880-898. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815621527
  24. boyd, danah, & Crawford, K. (2012). CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
  25. Browne, S. (2015). Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness (p. dup;9780822375302/1). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822375302
  26. Buolamwini, J. (2016). The Algorithmic Justice League [Medium Post].
  27. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-15. http://procee dings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
  28. Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
  29. Chair, C. (2020). My data rights: Feminist reading of the right to privacy and data protection in the age of AI [Report]. My Data Rights. https://mydatarights.africa/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/mydatarigh ts_policy-paper-2020.pdf
  30. Charlesworth, H. (2011). Talking to ourselves?: Feminist scholarship in international law. In S. Kouva & Z. Pearson (Eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Contemporary International Law: Between Resistance and Compliance? (pp. 17-32). Hart Publishing.
  31. Charlesworth, H., Chinkin, C., & Wright, S. (1991). Feminist Approaches to International Law. American Journal of International Law, 85(4), 613-645. https://doi.org/10.2307/2203269
  32. Cifor, M., Garcia, P., Cowan, T. L., Rault, J., Sutherland, T., Chan, A., Rode, J., Hoffmann, A. L., Salehi, N., & Nakamura, L. (2019). Feminist Data Manifest-No. https://www.manifestno.com/.
  33. Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/ex ternal/AbstractView/S9780674735613
  34. Cohen, J. E. (2018). The Biopolitical Public Domain: The Legal Construction of the Surveillance Economy. Philosophy & Technology, 31(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0258-2
  35. Cohen, J. E. (2019). Turning Privacy Inside Out. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 20(1), 1-31. https://doi.or g/10.1515/til-2019-0002
  36. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Unwin Hyman.
  37. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality. Wiley.
  38. Combahee River Collective. (1977). The Combahee River Collective Statement.
  39. Conrad, K. (2009). Surveillance, Gender, and the Virtual Body in the Information Age. Surveillance & Society, 6(4), 380-387. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v6i4.3269
  40. Corones, A., & Hardy, S. (2009). En-Gendered Surveillance: Women on the Edge of a Watched Cervix. Surveillance & Society, 6(4), 388-397. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v6i4.3270
  41. Costanza-Chock, S. (2018). Design Justice, A.I., and Escape from the Matrix of Domination. Journal of Design and Science. https://doi.org/10.21428/96c8d426
  42. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.
  43. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
  44. Currah, P., & Mulqueen, T. (2011). Securitizing gender: Identity, biometrics, and transgender bodies at the airport. Social Research, 78(2), 557-582.
  45. Daly, A. (In press). Neo-Liberal Business-As-Usual or Post-Surveillance Capitalism With European Characteristics? The EU's General Data Protection Regulation in a Multi-Polar Internet. In R. Hoyng & G. P. L. Chong (Eds.), Communication Innovation and Infrastructure: A Critique of the New in a Multipolar World. Michigan State University Press.
  46. Davis, A. Y. (1983). Women, race & class (1st Vintage Books ed). Vintage Books.
  47. Davis, A. Y. (2016). Freedom is a constant struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement. Haymarket Books.
  48. De Hert, P., & Gutwirth, S. (2006). Privacy, data protection and law enforcement: Opacity of the individual and transparency of power. In E. Claes, A. Duff, & S. Gutwirth (Eds.), Privacy and the Criminal Law (pp. 61-104). Intersentia. https://works.bepress.com/serge_gutwirth/5/
  49. de Hingh, A. (2018). Some Reflections on Dignity as an Alternative Legal Concept in Data Protection Regulation. German Law Journal, 19(5), 1269-1290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200023038
  50. Decew, J. W. (2015). The feminist critique of privacy: Past arguments and new social understandings.
  51. In B. Roessler & D. Mokrosinska (Eds.), Social Dimensions of Privacy (pp. 85-103). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107280557.006
  52. D'Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. The MIT Press.
  53. Docksey, C. (2015). Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter: Two distinct fundamental rights. In A. Grosjean, Enjeux européens et mondiaux de la protection des données personnelles. Larcier.
  54. Drakopoulou, M. (2007). Feminism and consent: A genealogical inquiry. In R. Hunter & S. Cowan (Eds.), Choice and consent: Feminist engagements with law and subjectivity (pp. 9-38). Routledge Cavendish.
  55. Engster, D. (2005). Rethinking Care Theory: The Practice of Caring and the Obligation to Care. Hypatia, 20(3), 50-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2005.tb00486.x European Commission. (2021a). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain union legislative acts. Proposal for a regulation: COM/2021/206 final. https://ec.europa.eu/tra nsparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2021)206&lang=en
  56. European Commission. (2021b). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain union legislative acts, COM(2021)206 final. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-regis ter/detail?ref=COM(2021)206&lang=enor: European Court of Justice. (2010). ECLI:EU:C:2010:662. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/docu ment.jsf?text=&docid=79001&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&ci d=39754304
  57. European Court of Justice. (2014). ECLI:EU:C:2014:238. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/docu ment.jsf?text=&docid=150642&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&ci d=39755021
  58. European Court of Justice. (2020). ECLI:EU:C:2020:791. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/docu ment.jsf?text=&docid=232084&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&ci d=39755374
  59. Fanon, F. (1952). Black skin, white masks (1st ed., new ed). Grove Press ; Distributed by Publishers Group West.
  60. Fosch-Villaronga, E., Poulsen, A., Søraa, R. A., & Custers, B. H. M. (2021). A little bird told me your gender: Gender inferences in social media. Information Processing & Management, 58(3), 102541. htt ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102541
  61. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (1st American ed). Pantheon Books.
  62. Fourcade, M., & Johns, F. (2020). Loops, ladders and links: The recursivity of social and machine learning. Theory and Society, 49(5-6), 803-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09409-x Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. University of Minnesota Press.
  63. Gandy, O. H. (2010). Engaging rational discrimination: Exploring reasons for placing regulatory constraints on decision support systems. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(1), 29-42. https://do i.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9198-6
  64. Garavini, G. (2012). After empires: European integration, decolonization, and the challenge from the global South 1957-1986 (R. R. Nybakken, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
  65. Gilliom, J. (2001). Overseers of the poor: Surveillance, resistance, and the limits of privacy. University of Chicago Press.
  66. Gitelman, L. (2013). "Raw data" is an oxymoron. The MIT Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.as px?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=2517806
  67. Goldberg, C. (2019). Nobody's victim: Fighting psychos, stalkers, pervs and trolls.
  68. González-Fuster, G. (2014a). Fighting for Your Right to What Exactly -The Convoluted Case Law of the EU Court of Justice on Privacy and/Or Personal Data Protection. Birkbeck Law Review, 2(2), 263-278.
  69. González-Fuster, G. (2014b). The emergence of personal data protection as a fundamental right of the EU. Springer.
  70. Graham, H. (1991). The Concept of Caring in Feminist Research: The Case of Domestic Service. Sociology, 25(1), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038591025001004
  71. Gurumurthy, A., & Chami, N. (2016). Data: The new four-letter word for feminism. GenderIT.org. http s://doi.org/https://www.genderit.org/node/4738
  72. Guzik, K. (2009). Discrimination by design: Predictive data mining as security practice in the United States' 'War on Terror. ' Surveillance & Society, 7(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v7i1.3304
  73. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280
  74. Hansen, P., & Jonsson, S. (2015). Eurafrica: The untold history of European integration and colonialism (First published in paperback). Bloomsbury Academic.
  75. Hassan, A. (2018). Different stories are possible: On data, feminism and inclusion [Medium Post].
  76. Digital Society School. https://medium.com/digitalsocietyschool/different-stories-are-possible-on-d ata-feminism-and-inclusion-99ee126bff90
  77. Hassein, N. (2017, August 15). Against Black Inclusion in Facial Recognition. Digital Talking Drum. htt ps://digitaltalkingdrum.com/2017/08/15/against-black-inclusion-in-facial-recognition/
  78. Hicks, M. (2019). Hacking the Cis-tem. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 41(1), 20-33. http s://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2019.2897667
  79. Hicks, M. (2021). Sexism Is a Feature, Not a Bug. In T. S. Mullaney, B. Peters, M. Hicks, & K. Philip (Eds.), Your Computer Is on Fire (pp. 135-158). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1099
  80. 003.0011
  81. Hirschmann, N. J. (1992). Rethinking obligation: A feminist method for political theory. Cornell University Press.
  82. hooks, bell. (1981). Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism (20. print). South End Press. hooks, bell. (2015). Black looks: Race and representation. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10953136
  83. Hull, G. (2015). Successful Failure: What Foucault Can Teach Us about Privacy Self-Management in a World of Facebook and Big Data. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(2), 89-101. https://doi.org/1
  84. 1007/s10676-015-9363-z Human Rights Council. (2020). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. UN General Assembly. https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/43/52
  85. Hurtado, A. (1989). Relating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordination of White Women and Women of Color. Signs, 14(4), 833-855. https://doi.org/10.1086/494546
  86. Hustinx, P. (2017). EU data protection law: The review of directive 95/46/EC and the general data protection regulation. In M. Cremona, New technologies and EU law (First edition). Oxford University Press.
  87. Igo, S. E. (2018). The known citizen: A history of privacy in modern America. Harvard University Press.
  88. Kalluri, P. (2020). Don't ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power. Nature, 583(7815), 169-169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02003-2
  89. Kelly, K. A. (2003). Domestic violence and the politics of privacy. Cornell University Press.
  90. Kennedy, D. (1997). A critique of adjudication: Fin de siècle. Harvard University Press.
  91. Keyes, O. (2019). The body instrumental. Logic, 9. https://logicmag.io/nature/the-body-instrumenta l/ Khan, S. (2017, November 21). Surveillance as a feminist issue. Privacy International. https://privacyin ternational.org/news-analysis/3376/surveillance-feminist-issue
  92. Klaus, E., & Drüeke, R. (2008). Öffentlichkeit und Privatheit: Frauenöffentlichkeiten und feministische Öffentlichkeiten. In R. Becker & B. Kortendiek (Eds.), Handbuch Frauen-und Geschlechterforschung (pp. 237-244). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/9 78-3-531-91972-0_27
  93. Kokott, J., & Sobotta, C. (2013). The distinction between privacy and data protection in the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR. International Data Privacy Law, 3(4), 222-228. https://doi.o rg/10.1093/idpl/ipt017
  94. Koskela, H. (2012). "You shouldn't wear that body. " In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814949.ch1_2_a
  95. Kotliar, D. M. (2020). Data orientalism: On the algorithmic construction of the non-Western other. Theory and Society, 49(5-6), 919-939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09404-2
  96. Kovacs, A. (2020, May 28). When our bodies become data, where does that leave us? Deep Dives. http s://deepdives.in/when-our-bodies-become-data-where-does-that-leave-us-906674f6a969
  97. Kranenborg, H. (2014). Article 8. In S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner, & A. Ward (Eds.), The EU charter of fundamental rights -A commentary. Hart Publishing.
  98. Lacey, N. (1998). Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory. Hart Publishing. ht tps://doi.org/10.5040/9781472561916
  99. Lake, J. (2016). The face that launched a thousand lawsuits. Yale University Press.
  100. Larrabee, M. J. (Ed.). (1993). An Ethic of care: Feminist and interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge.
  101. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
  102. Loick, D. (2020). "… as if it were a thing. " A feminist critique of consent. Constellations, 27(3), 412-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12421
  103. Lorde, A. (2007). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Crossing Press.
  104. Lynskey, O. (2015). The foundations of EU data protection law. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1108829
  105. Lyon, D. (Ed.). (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. Routledge.
  106. MacKinnon, C. A. (1983). Feminism, marxism, method, and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs, 8(4), 635-658. https://doi.org/10.1086/494000
  107. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University Press.
  108. Magnet, S. A. (2011). Introduction: Imagining Biometric Security. In When Biometrics Fail (pp. 1-18). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394822-001
  109. Malgieri, G., & González Fuster, G. (2021). The Vulnerable Data Subject: A Gendered Data Subject? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3913249
  110. Malgieri, G., & Niklas, J. (2020). Vulnerable data subjects. Computer Law & Security Review, 37, 105415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105415
  111. Mantelero, A. (2016). Personal Data for Decisional Purposes in the Age of Analytics: From an Individual to a Collective Dimension of Data Protection. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(2), 238-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2016.01.014
  112. Marks, S. (2009). False Contingency. Current Legal Problems, 62(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/cl p/62.1.1
  113. Mason, C. L., & Magnet, S. (2012). Surveillance Studies and Violence Against Women. Surveillance & Society, 10(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v10i2.4094
  114. Matzner, T. (2014). Why privacy is not enough privacy in the context of "Ubiquitous Computing" and "Big Data. " Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(2), 93-106. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JICES-08-2013-0030
  115. Maxwell, W. J. (2015). Principles-based regulation of personal data: The case of "fair processing. " International Data Privacy Law, 5, 205-216. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipv013
  116. McEwen, K. D. (2018). Self-Tracking Practices and Digital (Re)productive Labour. Philosophy & Technology, 31(2), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0282-2
  117. Mejias, U. A., & Couldry, N. (2019). Datafication. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1476 3/2019.4.1428
  118. Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2019). Big Data from the South(s): Beyond Data Universalism. Television & New Media, 20(4), 319-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419837739
  119. Mohanty, C. T. (2006). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity (Reprint).
  120. Zubaan. Nkonde, M. (2019). Automated Anit-Blackness: Facial recognition in Brooklyn, New York. Harvard Kennedy School Journal of African American Policy, 30-36.
  121. O'Connell, P. (2019). The constitutional architecture of injustice. In T. Ahmed & E. Fahey, On Brexit (pp. 55-63). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789903010.00011
  122. Olufemi, L. (2020). Feminism, interrupted: Disrupting power. Pluto Press.
  123. Padden, M., & Öjehag-Pettersson, A. (2021). Protected how? Problem representations of risk in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Critical Policy Studies, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19 460171.2021.1927776
  124. Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Stanford University Press.
  125. Peña, P., & Varon, J. (2019). Consent to our data bodies: Lessons from feminist theories to enforce data protection. Association for Progressive Communications. https://codingrights.org/docs/ConsentToOu rDataBodies.pdf
  126. Pendergrast, K. (2019, November 25). The next big cheap: Calling data "the new oil" takes its explotation for granted. Real Life Magazin. https://reallifemag.com/the-next-big-cheap/
  127. Ploeg, I. van der. (2012). The body as data in the age of information. In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814949.ch2_2_d
  128. Podlech, A. (1982). Individualdatenschutz -Systemdatenschutz. In K. Brückner & G. Dalichau (Eds.), Beiträge zum Sozialrecht -Festgabe für Grüner (pp. 451-462). R. S. Schulz.
  129. Powles, J., & Nissenbaum, H. (2018). The seductive diversion of "Solving" bias in Artificial Intelligence [Medium Post].
  130. OneZero. https://onezero.medium.com/the-seductive-diversion-of-solving-bias-in-ar tificial-intelligence-890df5e5ef53
  131. Privacy International. (2018). From oppression to liberation: Reclaiming the right to privacy (Gender and Privacy) [Report]. https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/From%20oppressi on%20to%20liberation-reclaiming%20the%20right%20to%20privacy.pdf
  132. Purtova, N. (2012). Property rights in personal data: A European perspective. Kluwer Law International ; Sold and distributed in North, Central, and South America by Aspen Publishers.
  133. Rouvroy, A., & Poullet, Y. (2009). The Right to Informational Self-Determination and the Value of Self-Development: Reassessing the Importance of Privacy for Democracy. In S. Gutwirth, Y. Poullet, P. De Hert, C. de Terwangne, & S. Nouwt (Eds.), Reinventing Data Protection? (pp. 45-76). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9498-9_2
  134. Rule, J. B. (2012). "Needs" for surveillance and the movement to protect privacy. In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814949.ch1_2_c
  135. Scott, J. W., & Keates, D. (Eds.). (2004). Going public: Feminism and the shifting boundaries of the private sphere. University of Illinois Press.
  136. Shephard, N. (2016). Big Data and Sexual Surveillance [APC Issue Papers]. Association for Progressive Communications. https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/BigDataSexualSurveillance_0_0.pdf
  137. Sinders, C. (2020). Feminist data set. Clinic for Open Source Arts. https://carolinesinders.com/wp-con tent/uploads/2020/05/Feminist-Data-Set-Final-Draft-2020-0517.pdf
  138. Skinner-Thompson, S. (2020). Privacy at the margins. Cambridge University Press.
  139. Solove, D. J. (2002). Conceptualizing Privacy. California Law Review, 90(4), 1087-1155. https://doi.or g/10.2307/3481326
  140. Squires, J. (2018). Public and private. In R. Bellamy & A. Mason (Eds.), Political concepts. Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137562.00015
  141. Stachowitsch, S., & Sachseder, J. (2019). The gendered and racialized politics of risk analysis. The case of Frontex. Critical Studies on Security, 7(2), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2019.1
  142. Steinmüller, W., Lutterbeck, B., Mallmann, C., Harborth, U., Gerhard, K., & Schneider, J. (1971). Grundfragen des Datenschutzes [Fundamental Questions of Data Protection]: Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums des Innern [BT-Drs. VI/3816 Anlage 1]. https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/06/038/0 603826.pdf
  143. Stolton, S. (2020, October 26). Poland rejects presidency conclusions on Artificial Intelligence, rights. EURACTIV. https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/poland-rejects-presidency-conclus ions-on-artificial-intelligence-rights/
  144. Suárez-Gonzalo, S. (2019). Personal data are political. A feminist view on privacy and big data. Recerca.Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi., 24(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.6035/Recerca.2019.24.2.9
  145. Supreme Court of India. (2017). Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) ... Vs Union Of India (D. Y. Chandrachud, Trans.). Union of India on. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/
  146. Taylor, L. (2017). Safety in numbers? Group privacy and Big Data analytics in the Developing World. In L. Taylor, F. Floridi, & B. Sloot (Eds.), Group privacy -New challenges of data technologies (pp. 13-36). Springer.
  147. Taylor, L., Floridi, L., & van der Sloot, B. (Eds.). (2017). Group Privacy: New Challenges of Data Technologies. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46608-8
  148. Theilen, J. T. (2021). European Consensus between Strategy and Principle: The Uses of Vertically Comparative Legal Reasoning in Regional Human Rights Adjudication. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748925095
  149. Tzanou, M. (2017). The fundamental right to data protection: Normative value in the context of counter- terrorism surveillance. Hart Publishing.
  150. Tzanou, M. (2020). The Future of EU Data Privacy Law: Towards a More Egalitarian Data Privacy. Journal of International and Comparative Law, 7(2), 449.
  151. Vergès, F. (2021). A decolonial feminism (A. J. Bohrer, Trans.). Pluto Press.
  152. Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220. http s://doi.org/10.2307/1321160
  153. Weinberg, L. (2017). Rethinking Privacy: A Feminist Approach to Privacy Rights after Snowden. Westminster Papers in Culture and Communication, 12(3), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.258
  154. Whitman, J. (2003). The two Western cultures of privacy: Dignity versus liberty. Yale Law Journal, 113, 1151-1222. https://doi.org/10.2307/4135723
  155. Wiener, A., Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (Eds.). (2018). European integration theory (Third edition). Oxford University Press.
  156. Williams, P. J. (1995). The alchemy of race and rights (8. printing). Harvard Univ. Press.
  157. Wischermann, U. (2003). Feministische Theorien zur Trennung von privat und öffentlich: Ein Blick zurück und auch nach vorn. Feministische Studien, 21(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1515/fs-2003-01
  158. World Economic Forum. (2018). The Global Gender Gap 2018 [Report]. World Economic Forum. http s://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2018
  159. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5

Related papers

Personal data are political. A feminist view on privacy and big data.
Sara Suárez-Gonzalo

Recerca. Revista de pensament i anàlisi, 2019

The second-wave feminist critique of privacy defies the liberal opposition between the public-political and the private-personal. Feminist thinkers such as Hanisch, Young or Fraser note that, according to this liberal conception, public institutions often keep asymmetric power relations between private agents away from political discussion and action. The resulting subordination of some agents to others tends, therefore, to be naturalised and redefined as a «personal problem». Drawing on these contributions, this article reviews the social and political implications of big data exploitation and questions whether personal data protection must remain a matter of «privacy self-management». It aims to show that feminist political theory can decidedly help to identify and tackle the root causes of what I call «data domination».

View PDFchevron_right
Searching for a Room of One's Own in Cyberspace: Datafication and the Global Feminisation of Privacy
Anja Kovacs

In Swati Punia, Shashank Mohan, Jhalak M. Kakkar, and Vrinda Bhandari (Eds.). Emerging Trends in Data Governance. New Delhi: Centre for Communication Governance., 2022

Since its conceptualisation, the construction of privacy has been deeply gendered, as women and gender and sexual minorities are often at the receiving end of forms of privacy that are subordinating, rather than equalising. In this essay, I argue that, as a result of pervasive datafication, we are now witnessing a generalisation of such problematic interpretations of privacy, to include and affect everybody. Although datafication is fundamentally reconfiguring our bodies and our lives, a comprehensive rethink of what it means to substantially protect privacy in this context remains lacking. As a consequence, the watered-down, inferior version of privacy that women and sexual and gender minorities historically have been faced with is now extended to all: we are effectively witnessing a global feminisation of privacy. This essay first examines in what ways dominant understandings of privacy have been gendered and how such gendering has been reflected in Indian jurisprudence in particular, through a fundamental curtailment of the decisional autonomy of women and gender and sexual minorities and of their ability to engage in self-determination. It then argues that, in the age of datafication, this predicament now presents itself to all of us, as a result of three trends in particular: the specific ways in which consent and anonymity are mobilised by surveillance capitalism (and government) as key tools to drive the datafication of our lives; the resulting reconfiguration of the public and the private; and the portrayal and treatment of data as by default disembodied and deterritorialised. It is these three trends that lie at the heart of the global feminisation of privacy.

View PDFchevron_right
Disembodied Data and Corporeal Violation: Our Gendered Privacy Law Priorities and Preoccupations
Jessica Lake

UNSW Law Journal, 2019

Whether one is more (or less) concerned with issues of image rights or the use of online tracking mechanisms by retailers, the role of CCTV in city streets, the ability to access a safe abortion, the media’s publication of salacious stories, the ability of government agencies to collect personal information, or the abuse and harassment of individuals in the home or online is likely to be influenced by social and historical experience. In this article I argue that such experience and consequent investments in ‘privacy’ are also gendered and should be recognised as such by legal scholars of privacy, legislators and courts. Privacy law relates inextricably to the self and calls into question how we (as individuals and groups) envision, articulate and perform our sense of self. It marks out boundaries between persons and perceived sources of power and oppression. This article examines three periods of heated privacy law debate (mid 19th century, turn of 20th century and 1960s/70s) and demonstrates that whereas men’s privacy priorities primarily focused on controlling and concealing information about themselves; women’s privacy issues mostly centred on protecting against violations of themselves. Masculine privacy focuses on the ways in which disembodied or abstract data – guarded by or as forms of property – poses challenges to professional and public reputations. Feminine constructions of privacy are preoccupied with invasions of the autonomy and dignity of embodied selves. In order to further develop privacy law in Australia, we must first recognize that gender fundamentally influences our paradigms and priorities of privacy protection – as seen in pressing debates about online consumer data protection and ‘revenge pornography’.

View PDFchevron_right
Informed Consent - Said Who? A Feminist Perspective on Principles of Consent in the Age of Embodied Data
Anja Kovacs, Tripti Jain

Data Governance Network Working Paper No. 13, 2020

While consent continues to be a crucial element of data protection regimes around the world, it has also been diagnosed with numerous weaknesses as a tool to promote and protect individuals' autonomy. In this paper, we set out to learn from feminist theory around consent in general and feminist applied thinking around sexual consent in particular how consent regimes in data protection can be strengthened. We argue that such a journey will be promising because of the close entanglements between our bodies and our data. We particularly foreground feminist criticisms of the concept of “property in the person” to understand in more detail the profound harms that current data practices do to our personhood, as well as the ways in which consent is currently deployed to enable and even legitimise such practices, rather than challenge or reject them. Through close engagement with feminist thinking around consent, we then develop a list of feminist principles that will need to be followed if consent is to ever be meaningful in data governance. Finally, we outline three areas of change that the application of these principles immediately points to: changes related to the collection of data; changes related to the uses of data; and changes required to protect people who are especially vulnerable in particular. Making these shifts, we argue, is essential if we are to put into place a data infrastructure that is actually empowering for, rather than exploitative of people.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding citizen data practices from a feminist perspective
Aristea Fotopoulou

Citizen Media and Practice

This chapter traces the relevance of practice theory for understanding datafication from a feminist perspective. The first section shows how the practice paradigm, as developed in the social sciences and in media studies, can be applied in the study of data practices. Here it is argued that the notion of data practice incorporates a range of practices that may not be deemed or intended to be explicitly political, and thus allows us to analyse data politics and power relations in seemingly mundane, everyday settings. The chapter then introduces how the notion of 'care', as developed in feminist science and technology studies (de la Bellacasa, 2011), can be a productive analytical and critical approach when scrutinizing the manifestation of power relations in data practices. Approaching data power in everyday data practices as 'matters of care' allows us to account for their affective, embodied, and material elements, including the habitually devalued human labour of data users, activists, producers, consumers, and citizens. Outlining briefly justice (Dencik et al., 2016; Taylor 2017) and ethics approaches to data power, it is suggested that the notion of care inserts particularity and empathy in social justice frameworks. In this way the chapter maps a theoretical roadmap of feminist data studies and practice theory, which is focused on materiality and embodiment and is committed to unsettling the power relation of race, class, gender, and ability in datafied worlds. Introduction: Understanding data practices The spread of data-driven systems and technologies such as social media and tracking apps has meant that citizen media also become saturated by data. Community organizations learn to use open data for advocacy and to reflect on their own 'data burden' (Darkin et al., 2016). Young unemployed women are algorithmically categorized as NEET (not in education, employment or training) by a digital bureaucratic system that appears as gender free and apolitical (Thornham & Gomez 2017). Open governmental data are used for advocacy and campaigning, or are used otherwise politically for activism and social change, for example in humanitarian aid (Millan & Gutierrez, 2015; Gutierrez, 2018). At the same time, matters of privacy, sharing and access to personal data is a hot matter of legal and cultural negotiations such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). And feminists use hashtags to coordinate street protests, but also to evaluate cultural changes around gender equality at a global scale (Mendes et al., 2018). These are only a few examples of data-saturated citizen media practices in the last decade. These citizen media practices are complemented by data

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Internet Policy
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved