Spatial Data Sovereignty and Privacy in Indian Country
Creators: name: Shanley. Lea, A.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2015
Subjects: subject: Indigenous Data Sovereignty
subject: Indigenous
subject: Tribe
subject: Sovereignty
subject: Self-Determination
subject: Indian Country
subject: Data Sovereignty
subject: Data Governance
subject: Privacy
subject: Collective Privacy
subject: Cultural Heritage
subject: Cultural Property
subject: GIS
subject: Spatial
subject: Geospatial
subject: Remote Sensing
subject: Earth Observation
subject: Mapping
subject: Data
subject: Big Data
subject: Data Science
subject: Surveillance
subject: Law
subject: FOS: Law
subject: FOS: Law
subject: Information Policy
subject: Policy
subject: Ethics
subject: Bureau of Indian Affairs
subject: Open Data
subject: Open Government
subject: Data Sharing
subject: Information Sharing
subject: Counter Mapping
subject: Participatory Mapping
subject: PPGIS
subject: PGIS
subject: water
subject: sacred site
subject: parcel data

description: Ownership, control of and access to tribal spatial data are long-standing issues for American Indian tribes in the United States. Federal and state court decisions resulting in the disclosure of tribal information under freedom of information laws, the sophisticated data integration and analysis capacity of GIS, and advances in satellite remote sensing heighten concerns. Fundamental issues are at stake, including tribes’ rights and interests in their knowledge and resources, federal agencies’ authority and decision-making that affect those resources, and the public’s right to know. Within the context of the federal-tribal relationship, this research investigates tribes’ concerns regarding unwanted disclosure of tribal spatial data and the circumstances under which disclosure may occur. This study also evaluated mechanisms to mitigate these risks. Sensitive tribal spatial data include sacred sites and cultural resources, information about land parcel status, water rights, resource leases, and more. Tribes are concerned about the potential for misuse of their spatial data for several reasons: infringement on individual and group privacy; misappropriation of intellectual property and its use for commercial gain; misinterpretation or discrediting of cultural practices; abrogation of treaty rights; and the impact on the federal Trust relationship. Spatial data about tribes potentially may be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act if the federal government creates or maintains the data, or if tribes share their data with the federal government in response to consultation, litigation, or federal funding requirements. Tribes may strengthen their sovereignty by building the internal capacity to understand and use spatial technologies to their advantage, and by keeping abreast of new spatial technologies and their potential implications. Tribes could develop criteria to assess the sensitivity of spatial data, regardless of the technology; use that criteria to identify the most sensitive and valuable information; and enact tribal freedom of information and privacy statutes that balance the need for disclosure with the need to keep some data confidential. Ultimately, controlling access to sensitive spatial data of tribes’ land and resources will require a creative combination of legal, policy, and technical solutions. Cite as: <strong>Shanley, L. A. (2015). Spatial Data Sovereignty and Privacy in Indian Country.<em> </em>Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison. UMI Number 3707906. DOI: 10.5281/Zenodo.4085173 </strong> <strong>Available at: </strong><strong>https://zenodo.org/record/4085173#.X4XBaC2ZPxo</strong> <strong>Available at: </strong><strong>http://ssrn.com/abstract=3710844</strong>
description: My heartfelt appreciation is extended to: • All those who were interviewed for and contributed to this dissertation research for generously offering their expertise, experience, and time. • My advisor, Steve Ventura, and faculty mentors, including Harlan Onsrud, Gary Sandefur, Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Larry Nesper, Kristin Eschenfelder, Tom Lillesand, and Frank Scarpace, for their expertise, encouragement, and patience. • Merv Tano and Renee M. Pulani, whose breadth of knowledge, wisdom, friendship, and thoughtful critique guided my research. • Crystal Bond, Celine Elm, Chris English, Jhon Goes In Center, Stan Lalio, Bryan Marozas, Rosemarie McKeon, Tracy Mofle, Richard Monette, James Rattling Leaf, CloAnn Villegas, Alvin Warren, William Whatley, Holly Youngbear-Tibbits, and many others who generously offered their expertise, guidance, gentle tactfulness, friendship, and time. • Bill Northover, who kindly welcomed me into the Inter-Tribal GIS Council; he is greatly missed. • Jason Kessler, whose empathetic leadership inspires me and who created the space for me to finish this journey.