The relationship between government and the average citizen is always ripe for ongoing reflection. Even in societies featuring liberal democracies, where there are strong barriers in place to guard against government intrusion, the digitisation and globalisation of our daily work and lives has driven change. Now governments make a case for greater access to information about citizens, arguing that the traditional right to privacy must not supplant the ability to effectively combat threats like terrorism.
We are indeed confronted by new dangers but there are new opportunities as well. Chief among them is the way in which the wheels of government can become more effective and beneficial. But travelling these new pathways requires a revisitation of the right to privacy.
Applying the Information
No government within the international community has as big a challenge in properly managing population data as does India. It’s not the only nation of over a billion people to take a keen interest in using more citizen data but, as the world’s largest democracy, the work of governing from New Delhi a country of 1.3 billion people is truly colossal in scale. This reality underwrites why the Indian government has brought about the Aadhaar system.
First launched in 2009, today the Aadhaar system takes biometric data (fingerprints and eye scans) of an Indian, assigns a unique 12-digit number to them, and issues the individual with an ID card. It’s been projected that over 99% of the adult population is enrolled in the system.
The benefits of this centralised system have provided the Indian government with an ‘all-in-one’ database that does away with the previous confusing system where a jumble of birth certificates and other documents served as proof of identity. Without proof of identity documents, many Indians, especially those from a rural or disadvantaged background, struggled to access social services such as welfare payments but Aadhaar now makes it easy. It’s also given the government an avenue to more effectively tackle waste, fraud and other crimes.
With the Aadhaar system, proof of identity is stored in the database and, if the ID card is lost, it’s possible to get a replacement by filling out a form on an Indian government website, similar to the two-factor authentication commonly used by Google and other tech companies.
Who Watches the Watchers?
Although the Aadhaar system has won praise, critics have noted a sharp difference between concept and application. In 2013 the Indian Supreme Court amplified critics’ voices, ruling that no longer would private companies be able to insist on citizens providing their Aadhaar details as a condition of service.
For those with reservations about India’s Aadhaar system, a look across its border into China will only reinforce concern surrounding greater government use of citizen data. While China’s social credit system is complex in its nature, no matter how the Chinese government may try to market it, the end result is a system of mass monitoring. It is capable of grading a citizen’s daily activities, with downgrades guaranteed for participating in any activity the government deems a threat to it.
As in China, the experience of Venezuela shows that a key challenge with implementing the effective use of citizen data is avoiding politicisation of it. Thanks to the assistance of the Chinese telecom giant ZTE, Venezuela now has a ‘fatherland card’ that already tracks voting. Human rights advocates are fearful that the Maduro regime can use it for broad surveillance of the population and as an avenue to preference loyalists with the provision of the nation’s currently limited resources.
Estonia has shown it doesn’t have to be this way. By utilising a progressive approach to data management. that relies heavily on blockchain technology that offers accessibility with data integrity, an Estonian can navigate regular tasks of civic life, like filing taxes and registering a vehicle online, from the comfort of their own home, doing so with peace of mind surrounding their privacy. The experience of this Eastern European nation shows that it’s ultimately not the technology but those who implement and administrate it that are responsible for its morality.
What the Data Says
When it comes to consideration of utilising more citizen data in future, the Caribbean is well-suited. This is the case for both individual nations and sub-regional blocs like the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States.
Generally speaking, Caribbean nations have comparatively small, homogenous populations when viewed alongside countries throughout the Americas, making them ideal markets to incubate new technologies and solutions. The ongoing threat of natural disasters and the spread of the Caribbean diaspora outside the region – estimated to number almost 8 million in the US alone – mean that if governments were to have deeper, more secure and more easily accessible information regarding citizens, it could bring numerous benefits to those at home and abroad.
If such a road is to be travelled, it first requires recognition of the experience of other nations that have started down this path, for better or worse. Also, that increasing access must be done cautiously. The ideal would be incrementally, within a narrow scope, and subject to purpose-fit regulation designed to ensure that the desired outcomes of collecting and managing citizens’ private data is utilized to the benefit of the population, not to its detriment.
