ECREA16-Abstract

Friday, November 11

1 6 : 0 0 – 1 7 : 3 0

CDE12

Big Data, Privacy and Surveillance

PP 400

Mining Citizen Feedback Data: The Promises and Perils of Big Data Analysis in Transitional Societies

N. Wildermuth

Roskilde University, Dept. of Communication and Arts, Roskilde, Denmark

Big or smart data has become ubiquitous. Sensors and software are digitising and storing all manner of social, economic, political and environmental pat‑

terns and processes. As the size of these datasets has increased exponentially, many have begun to focus on how "big data" harvested from online sources

can, if analysed "smart", allow potentially unprecedented insights into our world that may facilitate efforts to enhance human development. Yet relatively

little is known about how best to harness "big data" in ways that could effectively inform development processes, particularly for the most disadvantaged,

and whether those at the margins who produce the least amount of data risk becoming even more invisible.While new expertise is emerging, it remains un‑

clear whether, and how, ordinary citizens will be able to seize these opportunities, individually and collectively and use them to their advantage.The United

Nations Secretary-General’s Independent Expert Advisory Group's (IEAG) report "A World that Counts: Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable De‑

velopment" (published Dec. 2014) and "The Africa Data Consensus" (March 2015) have spelled out key recommendations regarding the potential of big/

smart data for sustainable development in Africa (and the Global South in general). This policy formation goes hand in hand with a number of pilot projects

and initiatives, including efforts to harness crowdsourced and harvested big data analysis as a tool for local activism, advocacy, empowerment and social

accountability. While the potential usefulness of big data to a broad range of communities and civil society organisations engaged in pushing for positive

social change is uncontested. This paper, based on recent field work in Eastern Africa, reflects meanwhile no less on the perils. Thus, on how data should

flow and to whom, how to protect people who use digital technologies from the misuse of their data and potential related harms, and how to encourage

new uses of large-scale digital data in civil society. Another set of persistent questions is about the power relationships involved in the tools and processes

involved in collecting and processing data. Are we facing an inexorable loop of data maximisation, where "datafication" only generates demands for more

and more data? And in connection with this, the important question of auditing data – understanding what is being emitted, where it is flowing and what

it is being used for.That is, the paper will raise questions regarding the epistemology and underlying social theory constitutive for the ongoing paradigmatic

change of knowing and adressing the impediments of human and sustainable development. In specific, I will do so in relation to initiatives in the realm

of civic participation, monitoring and social accountability.

PP 401

The Conflicting Justifications of Privacy

E. Sirkkunen

University of Tampere, School of Communication- Media and Theatre, Tampere, Finland

Finland is a rarity in Europe in that it lacks internet surveillance via state security organizations such as the GCHQ in Britain or the FRA in Sweden. To date,

there have been no legal means for Finnish security officials to use mass surveillance tools to monitor national or international web traffic. This has caused

a lively discussion among Finnish government officials, business executives and law experts regarding how to react to potential threats of terrorism and

foreign surveillance. The current government is preparing a law on the issue, and there are three committees seeking solutions for potential implemen‑

tation by the end of 2016. This paper discusses the results of the research project “Privacy and Anonymity on the Net (2014–2016)”. In this project, we

conducted a survey (n=1000) to determine how Finns feel about the fate of privacy on the internet. The results of the survey show that privacy is still

valued; the majority of respondents (68%) were concerned that more and more information about internet users is collected for different purposes such as

targeted advertising. Just over half of the respondents (53%) said they would not grant Finnish authorities the right to covertly monitor citizens’ internet

use. Slightly more than one-third (36%) of the respondents stated that they would approve of such monitoring. From interviews (n=17) conducted among

Finnish experts, including lawyers, politicians, business executives, citizen activists and scholars, we charted how the elite frame the issue. We also ana‑

lysed a sample of news to depict how the media is framing the discussion around privacy. Frame analysis (Goffman 1974) and the theory of justification

(Boltanski & Thévenot 2006) were used to distinguish the ways in which various policies and conflicting interests around privacy are justified, especially

amongst experts and/or members of the elite. Preliminary analysis of the discourses of the elite reflected deep conflicts between the ways different regimes

or polities define the situation and justify their arguments. The differences can be constructed into three competing frames: national security, business and

fundamental rights. Security and defence authorities view the need for surveillance from the perspective of national security (the national security frame).

However, a significant part of the Finnish digital service industry is against planned surveillance because it would hurt Finland’s reputation as a surveillance

free country worthy of the investment in and building of data centres (the business frame). The third frame (the fundamental rights frame) stems from con‑

stitutional rights and underlines privacy as a fundamental human right. The conclusion of the paper discusses the results of this project in light of theories

that touch privacy and digital surveillance (for example, Andrejevic 2007, Bauman & Lyon 2013), social trust (Rosanvallon 2011) and democracy. The anal‑

ysis is looking for emergent structures of power resulting from the interplay of various actors and institutions in the fields of policy-making and the market.