Data and rights in the digital welfare state: the case of Denmark

Jørgensen, Rikke Frank

doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1934069

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ECtHR practice shows that state surveillance via CSS without safeguards would be in violation of Article 8 30 , but there is one issue with this approach. Getting a case before a national court or the ECtHR requires that the state surveillance is perceived or discovered.…”

Section: State Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Opponents argue that surveillance is necessary and benefits from secrecy [34], while basic cybersecurity engineering practices speak directly against this [54,3]. With the advent of a fully digital society [30], surveillance is conducted on almost all hardware and software, and this increased during the COVID-19 crisis via digital health surveillance [57,50,40].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

YASM (Yet Another Surveillance Mechanism)

Ludvigsen¹,

Nagaraja²,

Daly³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many types of surveillance exist on anything from smartphones to IoT devices, but most of them are not as ubiquitous and intrusive as Client Side Scanning (CSS) for Child Sexual Abuse Material Detection (CSAMD). Apple proposed to scan their software and hardware for such imagery. While CSAMD was since pushed back, the European Union has decided to propose forced CSS to combat and prevent child sexual abuse via a new regulation, and deliberately weaken encryption on all messaging services. CSS represents mass surveillance of personal property, in this case pictures and text, proposed by Apple without proper consideration of privacy, cybersecurity and legal consequences. We first argue why CSS should be limited or not used at all, and briefly discuss some clear issues with the way pictures cryptographically are handled and how the CSAMD claims to preserve privacy. Afterwards, in the second part, we analyse the possible human rights violations which CSS in general can cause within the regime of the European Convention on Human Rights. The focus is the harm which the system may cause to individuals, and we also comment on the proposed European Union Regulation. We find that CSS by itself is problematic because they can rarely fulfil the purposes which they are built for. This comes to down to how software is not "perfect", as seen with antivirus software. Secondarily, the costs for attempting to solve issues such as CSAM far outweigh the benefits, and this is not likely to change regardless of how the technology develops. We furthermore find the CSAMD as proposed is not likely to preserve the privacy or security in the way of which it is described in Apple's own materials. We also find that the CSAMD system and CSS in general would likely violate the Right to a Fair Trial, Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression. This is because the pictures could have been obtained in a way that could make any trial against a legitimate perpetrator inadmissible or violate their right for a fair trial, the lack of any safeguards to protect privacy on national legal level, which would violate the Right for Privacy, and it is unclear if the kind of scanning which would be done here could pass the legal test which Freedom of Expression requires, making it likely violate this as well. Finally, we find significant issues with the proposed Child Abuse Regulation. This is because it relies on techno-solutionist arguments without substance, disregards conventional knowledge on cybersecurity and does not justify the independence and power of a "centre" to help solve the problem.7 22062/07, Layijov v. Azerbaijan, § 64. 8 35394/97, Khan v. the United Kingdom, § 34. 9 59696/00, Khudobin v. Russia, § 128. 10 47074/12, Grba v. Croatia. 11 40495/15, Akbay and Others v. Germany. 12 74420/01, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania. 13 67537/01, Shannon v. the United Kingdom 14 40660/08 and 60641/08, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), § 95.

show abstract

Section: State Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

YASM (Yet Another Surveillance Mechanism)

Ludvigsen¹,

Nagaraja²,

Daly³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another study concerning the use of data and technology in welfare state provision has been conducted by Jørgensen (2021), noting that digitizing services has contributed to addressing social problems that marginalized groups are confronted with. In addition, he also found that unless a critical and human-centered approach is used in its governance, the DWS will use its authority to view the welfare of its citizens as calculative rather than a right.…”

Section: Shifting the Ideas Toward Digital Welfare Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Digital welfare state and problem arising: an exploration and future research agenda

Larasati

Yuda

Syafa'at

2022

IJSSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe penetration of technology and the strengthening of evidence-based policies have paved the way for the automated delivery of social services. This study aims to discuss the inherent risks of this automatization, particularly those associated with the discrimination, exclusion and inequality problem, which the authors package under the theoretical umbrella of a digital welfare state (DWS).Design/methodology/approachThis conceptual article reviews the literature on the welfare DWS, with an empirical focus on the recent experience of selected countries from India, Kenya and Sweden. These countries reflect three different types of welfare regimes but are connected by the same digital social risk. The authors’ exploration also includes questions about what this DWS has in common with and how it differs from the previous era. This article illustrates that there has been a very similar trajectory in regards to the development of the DWS and the associated risks in the examined countries.FindingsDWS has triggered new social risks (e.g. discrimination, exclusion and inequality in welfare access) that are a result of data breaches experienced by citizens. Further, vulnerable groups in the digital age should be viewed not only as those who lack access to welfare services, such as education, health and employment, but also as those without internet access, without digital skills and excluded from the DWS system.Originality/valueThe article calls for the development of scholarly research into the DWS in particular and the contemporary one in general. The authors also predict that a critical aspect of the future regime typology rests in the ability to mobilize resources to address contemporary digital risks, as every country is equally vulnerable to them. Overall, this article can be considered to be one of the initial works that focus on cross-national comparison across different meta-welfare regimes.

show abstract

“…Across science and technology studies, human-computer interaction, and related fields, a growing body of literature is tracing and critically attending to how governments digitalize the provision of welfare services. These studies indicate that public digital infrastructures can create new citizen responsibilities [1], render citizens' needs and affective interactions invisible to the state [2], fail to comply with web accessibility guidelines [3], demand new skills [4,5], reinforce or produce exclusion [6], or undermine citizen's personal autonomy and data rights [7,8]. Also, a crucial concern in these studies, is how digital infrastructures used in welfare provision can constrain the citizen's capacity to enact personal autonomy and have control over data collection, and decisions taken in relation to such datasets [7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies indicate that public digital infrastructures can create new citizen responsibilities [1], render citizens' needs and affective interactions invisible to the state [2], fail to comply with web accessibility guidelines [3], demand new skills [4,5], reinforce or produce exclusion [6], or undermine citizen's personal autonomy and data rights [7,8]. Also, a crucial concern in these studies, is how digital infrastructures used in welfare provision can constrain the citizen's capacity to enact personal autonomy and have control over data collection, and decisions taken in relation to such datasets [7][8][9]. In this vein, Velden et al explore a relational [10] and socio-material understanding of autonomy that articulates how different actors enact, negotiate, and constrain citizens' personal autonomy [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomy Alliances and Data Care Practices

Carreras

Finken

2022

Human Choice and Digital by Default: Autonomy vs Digital Determination

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies focusing on the digitalization of welfare provision draw attention to digital infrastructures that produce new forms of social inequality and disempowerment due to inaccessibility. Against this backdrop, we study the practices of a Danish public library in supporting citizens with digital applications for welfare benefits. Through a grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis, we draw on ethnographic materials and Catriona Mackenzie's multidimensional analysis of autonomy to conceptualize autonomy alliances and data care practices. These are collective efforts that attempt to subvert inaccessible and autonomy-undermining public digital infrastructures. Drawing on a relational view of autonomy, we examine how certain design choices can constrain citizens' personal autonomy and equal access to welfare services. For this reason, we discuss the importance of studying political decisions affecting the design and organization of digital welfare services, as well as the local practices that compensate for discriminatory design choices through social inclusion and a commitment to equity.

show abstract

Data and rights in the digital welfare state: the case of Denmark

Cited by 24 publications

References 31 publications

YASM (Yet Another Surveillance Mechanism)

YASM (Yet Another Surveillance Mechanism)

Digital welfare state and problem arising: an exploration and future research agenda

Autonomy Alliances and Data Care Practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About