IGF 2022 DC-Gender: Who's Watching the Machines? New Tech, Gender, Race & Sexuality

Smita Vanniyar inaugurated the discussion by highlighting the importance of bringing forth the experiences and visions of women and queer people in building a resilient internet and stressed on the need to de-binarise discussions on internet governance. With Governments bringing emerging tech, digital ID systems, and surveillance tech, we need to think about in what contexts these are being pushed and who will be most affected by them. They pointed to how facial recognition technologies and CCTV cameras are pushed for the ‘protection’ of women and children, however, facial recognition technologies have an inherent colour bias. When you use such tech for safety and it is already biased, we need to ask: who are we throwing under the bus? Research shows that non-binary, trans, and black people are significantly misidentified. We need to ask: what determines what kind of policies govern tech? Are these being pushed by civil society or are there other forces at play? A lot of the time, we get policies from the perspective of research and development and they are inevitably connected to state security and the military. Tech policies are often informed by global relations, for example, a lot of privacy conversations came from the EU, often ignoring local contexts.

Liz Orembo reflected on how algorithms contribute to the lack of representation of women in governance or politics in today’s age.  She highlighted how the algorithms and social media’s business models amplify attacks on women seeking political seats. What needs to be done is to discourage such biased and harmful business models, and reimagine these business models in a way that enables other communities. Technologies are biased because they are built on data that ignores the realities of women and gender minorities, especially in the global south, as they have limited access to digital technologies. On the other hand, women and gender minorities in the global south are not using technologies because they are not built for them. It is a continuous loop. Liz also spoke of the many barriers to holding technology companies accountable. Civil society members act out of passion, while companies are always driven by profit-motive. They have strong lobbies with various governments as they have the money and power to do so. Moreover, it is a challenge to mobilise the general public in holding these companies accountable as understanding tech and policies is a slow and difficult process. When people do not understand how tech works, it becomes a challenge to ask for accountability. 

Chenai Chair deliberated on the concerns around surveillance and tech, noting that in many parts of Africa, surveillance cameras are being increasingly deployed for military and state security. Who has the data that is collected by these technologies? How are these technologies being secured? What is the data used for? There are also serious concerns around data surveillance, and there is a need for greater transparency. How does my device know where I am and who is collecting such information? What steps are being taken to ensure privacy? For example, the mental health apps that we share our most intimate thoughts and information with are often quite irresponsible with our data and do not prioritise privacy of data. Chenai also elaborated on the biases that exist in Voice Technologies. Voice technologies respond to European and American accents but misidentify African languages and accents, and even voices of women. These voice technologies are being pushed as solutions that enable greater access to information and engagement with digital technologies, but these biases need to be addressed. There needs to be diversity in datasets that these solutions are built on. 

When speaking of tech accountability, Chenai highlighted that geo-location dynamics play an important role in determining the tech platforms’ response to accountability demands. These companies respond to political representatives where they come from. For example, platforms take the EU more seriously because they will be charged a hefty fine, whereas, fines imposed by African nations are seen as a small cost. The forex rate works against African nations. Community standards that govern these platforms are also used to silence people from many communities. Mass reporting is used to silence feminists, LGBTQIA+ community, and activists, who greatly rely on these social media platforms for their work. Apps like Telegram are used to mobilise such mass reporting.

Chenai also emphasised the need to centre fun and joy in our approach to technology and innovation. People first used the internet to date. When TikTok came, a lot of people thought TikTok would not work because people did not have to sign up to see content. However, TikTok is has reach across classes because it centred joy and entertainment for as many people as possible. A lot of innovations were driven by SDGs, etc. but how do we ensure that there is a greater participation and awareness of technology among people because there is joy and fun in the process?

Srinidhi Raghavan examined conversations on data, surveillance, and privacy at the intersection of technology and disability. In India, there is a strong push toward the systematization and creation of Digital IDs for easier and streamlined access to health services. Some of the few central questions that need to be addressed are: Where is this data being kept? How is the system built to allow people with diverse disabilities to access these systems? Access to these services is often linked to the extremely contested Biometric ID card (in India), Aadhaar card, which was built thinking of non-disabled bodies in mind. People with cerebral palsy, retinal detachment, or other kinds of physical disabilities cannot access the Aadhaar system. Technology is seen as a solution to bridge the gaps in access, but often it is the other way around. Disability needs to be front and centre when we create these technologies and services.

Srinidhi also highlighted how many of the emerging technologies are actively harming people with disabilities. Technologies are being built to detect disabilities, and to look for how disability presents itself, but as we know, these systems of identification are often used to discriminate against people with disabilities. While some might say that these technologies allow for streamlining of access to healthcare, these same technologies are also used to deny disabled people, like those with psychosocial disabilities, access to medical insurance. We also need to think about these technologies from the perspective of privacy – who gets to decide when a person’s disability is disclosed and identified?

Srinidhi also noted that the question of AI helping in increasing accessibility, spaces, and possibilities for persons with disabilities is a complicated one. As activists, we realise we do not have enough data on disability issues. But if data is collected without paying attention to privacy or transparency, it can be weaponised against groups the data is collected about. For example, a study in the US showed that a company was collecting user data on disability, and one of the things it ended up doing was deprioritizing disabled persons' applications in the hiring process. Data collected is often not in the best interest of the community. How do we imagine good use of data? We often do not know what data is being collected. There is a power in play - how do you challenge something when you do not even know what is being collected about you? We would like data to build inclusive systems, but it is used against us. Our relationship to data is a very complicated one. Moreover, the conversations at the intersection of tech and disability are always about fixing disability. It is important to think about where this comes from. We need to think about people and community and care, not just a means to an end. We need to think about the human aspects of engaging with technology - how can it nourish human life and relationships?

Sheena Magenya reminds us to be wary of the narratives that talk about tech as a great equaliser. Tech is seen as a big solution to all our problems, especially in the African context, however these technologies are devoid of any accountability, equity, and representation. In the technology landscape, there is limited agency and choice of community members. As we saw during COVID-19, often, technological ‘solutions’ are imposed on communities, and there is not much to refuse or reject use of tech. Communities that are criminalised in certain contexts and nations are denied access to spaces when these technologies are constantly tracking you or fishing your personal information out of you. If you are a trans person, and your identity is criminalised in a certain region, you can only participate in certain spaces by lying about your identity. 

Sheena also asserted that we need to shift focus away from what is horrible and what we want more of. We need to remember that tech and innovation are not new to the human experience. We have always been developing tech as humans, but now the speed is just really fast. We are always trying to do more and better. But this inherent interest in technology is manipulated by corporates and states. Where is the choice to the extent to which we want to participate? Who gets to take up space? Young women and queer people face an incredible amount of violence for simply existing, for saying things that are not in line with societal, patriarchal standards. They are truly at the battlefront. There is no support, solidarity, or recourse. It is important to recognise that young people are defending not just their freedoms but everyone else’s as well.