If Roe v. Wade falls, personal data could be used against people seeking abortions
If abortion becomes illegal, digital surveillance could take an even darker turn
Who is tracked and how
People who are most vulnerable to online privacy encroachment and to the use or abuse of their data have traditionally been those society deems less worthy of protection:people without means, power, or social standing. Surveillance directed at marginalized people reflects not only a lack of interest in protecting them but also a presumption that, by virtue of their social identity, they are more likely to commit crimes or to transgress in ways that might justifypreemptive policing.
Many marginalized people happen to be women, includinglow-income mothers, for whom the mere act of applying for public assistance can subject them to presumptions of criminal intent. These presumptions are often used to justifyinvasions of their privacy. Now, with anti-abortion legislation sweeping Republican-controlled states and poised to go into effect if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, all women of reproductive age in those states are likely to be subject to those same presumptions.
Before, women had to worry only thatTargetor Amazon might learn of their pregnancies. Based on what’s already known aboutprivacy incursions by law enforcement against marginalized people, it’s likely that in a post-Roe world women will be more squarely in the crosshairs ofdigital forensics. For example, law enforcement agencies routinely useforensic tools to search people’s cellphoneswhen investigating a wide range of crimes, sometimes without a search warrant.
Imagine a scenario in which a co-worker or neighbor reports someone to the authorities, which gives law enforcement officials grounds to pursue digital evidence. That evidence could include, for example, internet searches about abortion providers and period app data showing missed periods.
The risk is especially acute in places that fosterbounty-hunting. In a state like Texas where there is a potential for citizens to have standing to sue people who help others access abortion services, everything you say or do in any context becomes relevant because there’s noprobable causehurdle toaccessing your data.
Outside of that case, it’s difficult to do full justice to all the risks because context matters and different combinations of circumstances can conspire to elevate harm. Here are risks to keep in mind:
Heeding alarms
Scholars, including my colleagues and me, have been raising alarms for years, arguing that surveillance activities and lack of privacy threateningthose most vulnerable are ultimately a threat to all. That’s because the number of people at risk can rise when political forces identify a broader population as posing threats justifying surveillance.
The lack of action on privacy vulnerability is due in part to a failure of imagination, which frequentlyblinkers people who see their own position as largely safein a social and political system.
There is, however, another reason for inattention. When considering mainstream privacy obligations and requirements, the privacy and security community has, for decades, been caught up in a debate about whether people really care about their privacy in practice, even if they value it in principle.
I’d argue that theprivacy paradox– the belief that people are less motivated to protect their privacy than they claim to be – remains conventional wisdom today. This view diverts attention from taking action, including giving people tools to fully evaluate their risks. The privacy paradox is arguably more a commentary on how little people understand the implications of what’s been calledsurveillance capitalismor feel empowered to defend against it.
With the general public cast as indifferent, it is easy to assume that people generally don’t want or need protection and that all groups are at equal risk. Neither is true.
All in it together?
It’s hard to talk about silver linings, but as these online risks spread to a broader population, the importance of online safety will become a mainstream concern. Online safety includes being careful aboutdigital footprintsand using anonymous browsers.
Maybe the general population, at least in states that are poised totrigger or validateabortion bans, will come to recognize thatGoogle datacan be incriminating.
Article byNora McDonald, Assistant Professor of Information Technology,University of Cincinnati
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
