 So our speaker for today Will with Zara Raman and she will be talking to us about communities marginalized communities and their representation in data And more specifically, she will be telling us whether it is preferable for marginalized communities and in which cases to be Reflected to be represented and institutional data and in which cases this could be harmful. So Privacy and anonymity are preferred. So, please let us give Zara a warm round of applause All right. Thank you all for coming on this lovely warm day. And so I'm going to be talking about The representation of marginalized communities in data So this is based on some work that I've been doing with the engine room on the theme of responsible data and Some work with tactical tech on data and discrimination So to start that work, we I started thinking like what is discrimination? It's when groups of people are treated in unfair or biased way based on some arbitrary Category like their skin color or their gender or any number of other things So how can data? facilitate or mitigate discrimination in all its different forms and So I started looking at The people who are living on the margins of society So that's what I mean by marginalized communities people who don't often get their needs seen to people who are excluded from what's considered to be regular Society and I started by doing this by looking at the anti-discrimination movement And what they're pushing for with regards to data and marginalized communities And so one thing that seems to be a theme among many Anti-discrimination movement is the right to be counted So the right for these communities to be reflected in data sets. So why count and so got a couple of examples of Yeah, marginalized communities or communities that should be or need to be reflected in data for their needs to be met so this is a slide a screenshot from UNICEF's annual report about The state of the world's children and in it they really push for better data collection of Around children with disabilities living in developing countries because as they say without this data It's impossible to know how these children are being treated Whether they get access to the services they need whether there are any particularly harmful policies or any particularly beneficial Policies that really help them get what they need And they found for example that children with disabilities are much more likely to drop out school a lot earlier And the data can help Yeah, understand why this happens and try and mitigate this in the future There is a problem with comparability of data in regards to different abilities and Disabilities because the environment that people live in has a huge effect on The effect that their disabilities have on their lives for example Someone with limited sight who has access to a guide dog has much more independence and can lead a much more Yeah, much more fulfilling like one might say life than someone who lives on their own and doesn't have access to a guide dog And doesn't have anything that they need to live their lives So this means that even if you do collect data across different countries It's very difficult to compare what happens in one country like the quality of life from different countries Yeah, without lots of different caveats, but it still might be interesting to see yeah different patterns And this is an example from That you might have come across there was an article about it on the front page of Hacker News a couple of weeks ago Until just over two weeks ago. This messy thing was the border between India and Bangladesh So 51,000 people live in these bits marked in red known as enclaves Which are basically portions of a state that are entirely surrounded by the territory of another state And this also was the home to the world's only third order enclave So this was a piece of Bangladesh. No a piece of India within Bangladesh within India within Bangladesh Which is ridiculous So but for the 51,000 people living within all of those I think 162 different enclaves They didn't have access to any basic human rights. They weren't represented in any administrative data sets They didn't have citizenship. It meant that things like if they wanted to go to a market that was outside of their Enclave they could have lots of problems. They had no Access to water no electricity. They couldn't travel all sorts of things and reportedly more than 75% Of the people living in Bangladeshi enclaves have spent time in prison for invalid travel Because in theory someone who lived in an enclave who wanted to travel outside the enclave Would need a visa to enter the foreign country But to get that visa they would need to travel to a major city in their country which was Impossible for them to do without first going through the foreign country So this is an example of yeah a Population who really really really needed to be represented in some kind of data set and have their needs seen to And actually just on the on the 31st of July Indian Bangladesh exchanged various parcels of land and Hopefully cleaned up the border a little bit which was very momentous for these people and in preparation for that one of the First things that was done was Indian and Bangladeshi officials so a team of like 75 different teams of we each of one Indian official one Bangladeshi official Conducted us a field survey and they went around and collected data on the enclave residence to in the first two weeks of July And each of the enclave residence was allowed to choose Citizenship of either nation so by the time the official swap took place They'd all decided upon what citizenship they could claim and this went into effect on the 1st of August So it's not I mean the problem isn't quite solved as simply as that because obviously if for example families had chosen different Citizenships then now they'll get split up But it is a first step towards getting these people the yeah The access to basic rights that they need like schools hospitals electricity water that kind of thing And this is another example of Really missing data that was very very crucial and this is a campaign or a project from the Guardian called the counted So in the US There's no comprehensive record of people killed by law enforcement. It's up to the states whether they collect this or not And this lack of really basic data has been very glaring among the Black Lives Matter movement for example So at the moment the FBI run a voluntary program So where law enforcement agencies have the choice whether or not to submit Their annual count of what they call justifiable homicides To this centralized database so to to counter this the Guardian together with his readers are Basically collecting the the most comprehensive data set of people killed by law enforcement agencies in the US So they're asking people to submit Reports when someone is killed or if they know of someone who's killed in the past and then they verify it and together They're yeah, they're getting this data set so this is a really really crucial piece of data that's been missing until now of People who've been being killed and there's been no way to put all this data together and thus no no way of knowing if There's any patterns like if it if they happen to be of a certain demographic for example This is another nice one that is also quite new called gender balance So another missing data set is that there's no data set on The gender balance of different Parliaments across the world so you can't answer for example What country has the highest proportion of women in Parliament or do women vote differently on different issues? And when did different when did women come into power in different countries as and you know And did this make a difference in the way that the country is run? So this is a tool called gender balance created by developers at my society And it's aiming to collect a database of the gender balance of every Parliament in the entire world and it's doing this by a kind of tinder like games You can sign up say what language and what what kind of country you're most familiar with and then you swipe right and left If it's a man or a woman and then they're crowd sourcing this data verifying it And then they'll build up this data set and release it as open data So basically the reasons for counting For making sure that communities are represented is so that you can notice different patterns You can see if there's needs or gaps in the services that are being offered So that there's more accurate dissemination of public funds like in lots of countries It depends very much on population as to where money gets given And of course like in our field a lot and the stuff I've been working on it strength is Advocacy hugely to be able to point to kind of concrete numbers and say this many people Can't get access to a certain basic human right But then the other side of it why not count This is an example from World War two and it was quite recently revealed after decades of denial That during World War two the US Census Bureau provided the secret service with data from the 1940 census So that they could identify people of Japanese ancestry And in their words to to assist in the roundup of Japanese and Americans for imprisonment in internment camps in California and six other states during the Second World War So yeah, so this enabled them to collect and to round up and to imprison these people very very quickly and Efficiently so to speak and researchers who studied the way that this happened the relationship between this the Census Bureau and the Secret Service Say that the speed with which the data was released So it was released just seven days after it was requested Leads them to think that this that wasn't the first time that that has happened, but it is the first time that it has been publicly admitted Another example from Bangladesh So the Rohingya people are one of the world's most persecuted minorities in Myanmar or Burma. They're stateless They live in Myanmar where they're regarded as kind of illegal Bengalis, but in Bangladesh. They're regarded as Yeah, people they're not regarded as as Bangladeshi really so they have most of the 1.3 million people have no citizenship and Yeah, they also lack very basic human rights. They live in camps in yeah in all sorts of really terrible situations And so recently a couple of weeks ago the Bangladeshi government announced that they'd be holding a census of the hundreds of thousands of Undocumented Rohingya in Bangladesh who were who entered Bangladesh seeking refuge from persecution in Myanmar But the Rohingya people within Bangladesh are also really really unpopular And lots of groups watching over the human rights of the Rohingya are very Skeptical as to how this data will be used So some officials have said that the people are really reluctant to give their data for fear that they'll be deported So this will be used as Yeah, by the Bangladeshi government to say we can't take any more people We need to send you back and then they'll go back to Myanmar and they'll face the same thing another thing that is Happening among the census when they're collecting the data They've often been asking you have the choice either of identifying yourself as Bengali or not at all So they're completely trying to erase the Rohingya identity in this census data And yeah, I mean they say that that the term implies a lot more than just the ethnicity that it Implies a claim to land and that's their reasoning for raising this data But for the people involved, it's a very important part of their identity obviously This actually isn't the first time that the Rohingya have faced Discrimination within data sets. So from the other side in Myanmar last year They conducted their first census in decades and they included questions on ethnicity in the census and some human rights groups said that this was overly sensitive at that time and they shouldn't be including those questions, but they went ahead anyway And it turns out that there were a few census workers During the census who would go to households ask them their ethnicity and if they said Rohingya They would turn around and go away So this is completely erasing the the population of Rohingya from this data set So clearly the the issue of race and ethnicity can be very problematic when it comes to marginalised communities But it's not just ethnicity data that can cause problems So this is an example from I think 2012 where in the Netherlands there were There was a proposal to make registration of sex workers mandatory and lots of lots of people within the sex worker community Yeah, campaigned against registering because they found that would be really stigmatising for them And it would violate their right to privacy. There's also Very little evidence that points that so yeah, there's very little evidence that shows that Registration actually helps fight human trafficking, which is the reason that it was supposedly being done in the first place Yeah, so there's there's many other examples of why you really shouldn't collect sensitive data But the kind of middle ground that I seem to have come across between the anti-discrimination movement and the privacy movement in a way is A census that's done in a sensitive way But this also as we've mentioned can be a very political process so this is a map I found of Showing countries where ethnicity or race of people was counted or was included or enumerated and at least one sentence Census since 1991 And it's quite interesting to see the countries that really don't collect that data for example in France It's forbidden by law to collect any statistics based on racial or ethnic origin but in contrast there are other things that happen in France that Yeah, kind of go against this though until recently it was very usual to put your photos on your CV So even though you didn't have to state what your race or your what your ethnicity was you could see that and there's lots of research That was done that proved that there were many discriminatory hiring practices based on that And also I mean social scientists have devised kind of ways to get around this data So now if for example, they just you they just look at the names of people to kind of guess their ethnicity So it's not like the the data isn't really being collected It's more that it's being collected in a kind of ad hoc and an inaccurate way Obviously Germany knows the the horrors that can happen with collecting ethnicity data more than many countries The Nazis use census data to help track Jews and other minorities and then obviously in East Germany the stars a secret police Maintained really really comprehensive files on citizens and interestingly in the 1980s attempts at introducing a census in West Germany. I'm sure many of you know this but for those who don't Yes, parked massive protests and people refused to actually answer the census and it led to a boycott It meant the constitutional court stopped the census in 1983 and then required a revision of the process So a more sensitive data collection process. This is where the term information illa selves which they mung or informational self-determination was first used which is kind of similar to the right to privacy But it gives the individual the right to determine in principle the disclosure and use of their own data And the only limitation to this is when it's in an overriding case of of public interest so carrying out a census as we've As we've established is hugely hugely sensitive, but it is kind of crucial when you're Trying to give people the things that they need. So who do we trust to carry out the census in the UK? unfortunately, it's Lockheed Martin, it's America's largest arms manufacturer who carries out the census And this is the same in the UK the US and in Canada. It's It's an arms manufacturer who carries out this really really basic role. So they make trident nuclear missiles cluster bombs fighter jets They're really into aerospace and defense. They get 80% of their work comes from the US Defense Department And obviously when this was so this has been going on for a while and when it happened there was Kind of an outcry justifiably, but actually not surprisingly small In the UK so this is where I come from. So this is like kind of what I've been looking at with my research And the UK government released a privacy impact assessment where they said, you know It's all the data is owned by the office of national statistics statistics in the UK But it but Lockheed Martin were the ones who designed the system and who implemented the system Yeah, and the you know, they said it's a It's a criminal offense to release any of the census data, but then you know if we look to history We see some examples of how that hasn't always stood up So yeah, Lockheed Martin, they've carried out the census in the UK 2000 2010 in the UK in the US 2010 in the UK and these and then in Canada as well So concerned citizens in the UK for example submitted a number of freedom of information requests through the Freedom of Information portal, what do they know and that's been really interesting to read through But there's not actually that much more information that's given And it's quite hard to follow So Looking thinking about choice like what can people what can citizens do if they don't want to be giving their data to this Company that they you know whose morals they might not agree with. I mean, I'm obviously in no No position to make any judgment on what's actually done with the data, but just thinking about what? role this plays So there were some really interesting responses from anti-war campaigners in the UK Because not carrying not filling in the census meant that you faced a fine of a thousand pounds So these campaigners didn't want to give money to the UK government the Green Party also decided not not to support a boycott of the census because The the the results of the census are used to allocate public funds So if you don't submit your data, you don't you might not get your needs met or get represented in a way that means something to you So, yeah, so they they didn't recommend boycotting either So what they planned instead was Making sure that the census process was as expensive as possible for Lockheed Martin So Lockheed Martin received a hundred and fifty million pounds for the census and they estimated, you know They and there was a also an option to Fill your census data in online. So these anti-war campaigners said, you know, don't fill them online because that saves Lockheed Martin a lot of money Make a few mistakes here and there, you know in your telephone number in your address things that don't really matter Yeah, maybe like push it right to the deadline send it by post And they came up with this list of things that you could do to try and make the census as expensive as possible on an individual level Which I thought was really clever But you know the fact remains that you essentially had no choice of what to do you had to fill in the census You had to give your data to this into this company And this is kind of a trend that we're seeing in the UK at least of Increasing numbers of public-private partnerships. So when the government is partnering with a private Corporation to carry out really core government functions And this is what I've been looking at with my work at the moment. So just another really quick example is G4s So they're I think the world's largest or one of the world's largest security companies Making no judgment on what they do with this data But this is just just a selection not even all of the activities that G4s carries out in the UK And if we look at the people who are Affected by most of these things they're people on the edges of society. They're asylum seekers. They're former offenders They're people the survivors of survivors of domestic violence. They're children. They run eight children's homes In the UK as well as I mean G4S also do G4S also do a number of other things like run prisons in the West Bank And all sorts of horrible horrible things So but the point here is that they're doing this as subcontractors of the UK government So if you come into contact with these in any with any of these things It might not you might not even realize you likely don't realize that you're not dealing with the government It looks just like the government, but it's not And there's no opt-out function. So they're providing really core functions Children's homes CCTV at train stations for example So, you know, what does this mean for us? This could have been a really big slide So at least in the UK we seem to be giving up really core functions That should be done by a trusted state entity with accountability and we're giving up that accountability to these companies So as a citizen if one of these companies does something that I don't agree with it's very kind of murky and difficult to know Where the lines of accountability lie like who can I go to to say hey They treated me in a bad way, or I don't agree with what they're doing And there's a complete lack of well not a complete lack of transparency There's a very kind of strategic way that they seem to be doing transparency For example, if you if you know where to look with all these this bureaucracy on the government websites You can find out that it's companies doing all this, but it takes a long time and like most people I mean, I don't think many people assume that you know when you see someone in a government Function to ask hey, are you from an arms company or a security company? At least I hope not because that would be terrible Yeah, so Some of the work I've been doing with tactical tech has been looking at the the questions We should be asking when we come across relationships like the one we've just described like how can we? Reclaim that data and those functions. How can we gain more accountability? How do we kind of try and stop this trend or at least try and hold them accountable for their actions? And Yeah, there aren't any answers yet. I'm sorry So in conclusion there is there are kind of three basic things that I've I've realized are kind of emblematic or very important in all of the relationships I just described transparency choice and trust so transparency about Who is collecting the data who actually has access to it like really? I mean if you're a company designing assistant to collect data and then the government say that company actually have no access to it Do they really like who carried out that privacy impact assessment? Do we trust what they're saying or not? and is there you know, is there any Who owns that data? Do you have access to be able to say actually? I don't want that data to be represented here and then as I mentioned the kind of Accessible levels of transparency. So not just saying oh, you know, it's on a government website somewhere like making it really really Visible who is doing what so that people can have the choice And is there an option to be to not be in the data? So this you know speaks to the the German idea of information self-determination You know, is there is there an actual option to opt out or do you are you then facing more exclusion? Or a fine Is there any pressure put on people to opt in and is it being done by people who hold lots of power? And and then the final one Trusts, I mean this depends a lot on where you live Whether it's a democracy where you expect where there's some kind of social contract where you expect to have that relationship with your government I mean if it's in Sadly many of the world's countries you don't have trust and that's assumed But for example, I mean, I'd hope that at least in Germany in the UK We we try to establish or kind of try to still claim that level of trust to a to an extent Do we believe the answers that they're giving so even if they're they're being transparent are they telling the truth? Can we believe them? Will this change in the future in any way like if you give your data to one entity and they say we're gonna do this And you trust them and you believe them. Is there any chance that could change in the future? And then that same entity might still have the data Yeah, and yeah, I think that's that's just about it from me. Thank you