The Ultimate Trade-Off: Data Privacy Protection and Black Rights
By: Alexa Brooks Major
Tags: BlackLivesMatter, Government, Cybersecurity, Criminal Justice, Data Privacy

According to a CDC study collected by NPR’s Stephanie Adeline, one in three people hospitalized for COVID-19 are Black. Already especially vulnerable to the deadly virus, the Black community is now tasked with another challenge as strategies for combating Covid19 with the use of technology via contact tracing ensue: protecting their right to digital privacy and freedom.

Companies are racing to lend their services to the essential policies being put forth to end the virus’ threat; however, they are doing so without regard for long-term racial and constitutional implications. The uneven messaging Biden’s campaign plans for strengthening criminal justice (more lax) and combating Covid19 (more strict) does not help matters. It only reinforces the precedence that tackling the virus has over protecting civilians’ rights — especially those of the Black community given their position as the perpetually-targeted victims of the American criminal justice system.

American legislation protecting civilian privacy is new. New York Times journalist, Natasha Singer, shares that “[T]he United States is virtually the only developed nation without a comprehensive consumer data protection law and an independent agency to enforce it.” With weak cybersecurity for civilians at the nation’s foundation, it is almost certain that the anticipated racial consequences of policies adopted to combat Covid19 will be dire if not promptly and proactively properly mitigated.

It is probable that “The Biden Plan for Strengthening America’s Commitment to Justice”, used in conjunction with his plan for combating the COVID-19 pandemic as a moral rationale, will be used as veil to usher in advanced governmental opportunities for digital privacy obstruction that targets vulnerable communities, especially those of the Black minority. The plan for criminal justice includes the creation of “a new $20 billion competitive grant program to spur states to shift from incarceration to prevention…[They] will receive funding to invest in efforts proven to reduce crime and incarceration….” The wording for this plan is passive. It does not properly align with the important subject matter. Thus, it paves the way for loose legal scapegoats to be nationally ratified… potentially upending civil rights.

The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy writes that “CCTV is intended to deter crime by increasing the risk of detection for criminal behavior. [It] can also be used to identify suspects in offenses that are committed within view of the camera.” What, then, of the case for states to employ the use of surveillance mediums as a form of “invest[ment] in efforts proven to reduce crime and incarceration”?

A similar case can be made for facial recognition software. In January of this year, Robert Williams, a Black man and father of two young children, was arrested in front of his family on suspicion of having stolen $4,000 worth of watches from a retail store. Matched to the crime by his driver’s license photo ID and surveillance cameras from the store, the Detroit Police Department had “enough” evidence to arrest this man and keep him in custody for 30 hours before finally dropping the charges. Facial recognition technology is known for being less accurate on darker skin tones.

If not the use of CCTV cameras and facial recognition tech, then what is to stop state leaders from investing in digital tracking systems via the use of data collection from apps? It isn’t far off.

Every country that is home to a minority population that must constantly assert its rightful citizenship is ripe for consideration as a new surveillance state. They have a stronger motive for adopting strategies, policies, and systems that will lead to social control against these minorities. This is especially so when these countries are faced with a threat as large as a pandemic. It becomes easier to hide true motivations for passing legislation that, on the surface, will indiscriminately fight the public health threat but will also advance insidious discriminatory agendas. The use of surveillance spurred by the motivation for social control is an existential threat against every minority community and political dissident.

China’s abuse of surveillance systems, to stand guard over its citizens is well-documented. The authoritarian state’s smackdown against Uyghurs, a Muslim minority, is a human rights violation that continues to intensify as the country relies more and more on its high-tech, all-reaching surveillance systems which, in some cases, are provided by private companies.

For a political policy to be viable in the long-term and of benefit to the constituents it stands to affect, it must be considerate of how policies set to be jointly implemented and/or are already in existence will either support or hinder its own impact. It must also scrutinize the potential that seemingly non-relevant factors may have to derail its initiatives. Biden’s campaign plans for combating Covid19 and strengthening America’s commitment to justice does not do this. The plan for the former leaves too much up for interpretation — dangerously so. It is a political risk in the making if his cabinet does not address it immediately.

To deter this enormous political risk from occurring, the Biden campaign must, within its first 100 days, announce their plans for the creation of an independent agency to enforce consumer data protection. The Federal Trade Commission, as overwhelmed as it is, should not be the agency charged with this enormous task.

Data protection failures at giants like Google, Facebook and with services like virtual assistants, including: Siri and Alexa, act as a foreshadowing for what is to come if the American government does not pay heed to the digital security breaches that have happened, are happening, and will only continue to happen.