See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/392409237

The Erosion of the Right to Anonymity for Marginalized Groups in the Age of
Digital Identity and Surveillance Introduction and Background

Research · June 2025

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14183.97445

CITATIONS READS

0 23

6 authors, including:

Anshul Nishit Mehta Tanmayi Kondapalli

O. P. Jindal Global University O. P. Jindal Global University
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anshul Nishit Mehta on 05 June 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Erosion of the Right to Anonymity for Marginalized Groups in the Age

of Digital Identity and Surveillance

Anshul Mehta, Aman Sanghvi, Lisa Thomas, Tanmayi Kondapalli, Aarav Modha, Sachleen Kaur

Introduction and Background

“they made me scan my name and codified my sufferings into a machine that never learned to

say it right​

said the system was for safety​

but I’ve never felt more decoded, opened up on a stretcher ​

every click a confession​

every login a leash, with cable ties around my wrist

they call it inclusion, belonging and, acceptance​

but I can’t eat unless I prove my very own existence​

and even then, I glitch through the seams, duplicate when I have nothing, and fraud those

who refuse to untie the ties.​

they mapped my iris, scanned my fingertips,

But not my grief which slips through my fingernails.​

coded me without asking who I loved, if i even had someone to love,​

watched me vanish in a room full of data, unknown in a room I bled to be known.

but I’m still here,

quiet, breathing, perhaps untracked just for now.”

Stemming from this poem the emergence of digital technologies has had a significant
transformation of social, economic, and political spaces. At the apex of this issue is the
growing focus on digital identity systems and advanced surveillance capabilities. Although
experts tend to glaze these developments for their promise of improving efficiency, security,
and inclusivity. Critical analysis draws attention to its ability to worsen the prevailing
conditions, especially for marginalized communities. This research paper will examine the
consequences of this digital revolution on the right to anonymity, an integral part of privacy
and freedom. With a focus on marginalised communities.

Marginalized groups, by their nature, suffer disproportionate harm when their privacy is
invaded. These can include anything from risks of discrimination and exclusion to the
removal of their agency and safety. When it comes to digital identity and surveillance, the
need for individuals to be identifiable and traceable can have a traumatising effect on their
day to day activities in different aspects of life.

The motivation for research into this avenue comes from a number of primary observations
within the sources provided. One is the increasing awareness among the research community
about the necessity of addressing the problem of privacy in terms of marginalized contexts.
This is reflected in the pervasiveness of academic engagement with, as well as the formation
of workshops and panels specifically on inclusive privacy and security. Secondly, the
construction and deployment of national digital identity schemes. For example, Aadhaar in
India, provokes serious questions about their effects on marginalized groups, including
exclusion, datafication, and surveillance. Third, more general debates about digital
surveillance in the wake of crises like the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the risk of these
technologies which are more likely targeted towards marginalized communities through
profiling, policing, and criminalization.

This study is increasingly relevant since it reflects the existing third wave of privacy studies,
which is focused on “inclusive privacy” and aims to cover all the varied needs and identities
of everyone. Comprehending the erosion of anonymity for marginalized populations is
crucial in creating more equitable institutions, technologies and policies that protect the
privacy and dignity of not only the privileged class but the entire society in general. In
addition, the absence of a clear consensus on common understanding of problems and
solutions in current literature calls for further research on the difficulties marginalized
communities face in navigating the digital identity and surveillance environment. This
research will borrow from the sources mentioned below to set the background of the problem,
delve into the main trends in research, and point out specific vulnerabilities of the
marginalized. It will also strive to relate these observations to general sociological and
political theories of power, inequality, rights, and social justice, as learned in this course.

Research Question/s

This research aims to address the following primary research question:

“In what ways does the growing priority of digital identity systems and surveillance

technologies undermine the right to anonymity for marginalized groups, and what are the

social, economic, and political implications of this undermining?”

To further explore this overarching question, the research will also address the following

sub-questions:

1.​ How do current digital identity systems and surveillance practices

disproportionately affect the privacy and anonymity of particular marginalized

groups (e.g., based on race, socioeconomic status, disability, immigration status,

sexual orientation)?

2.​ What are the potential risks and harms associated with the loss of anonymity for

marginalized communities and individuals in the digital world, taking into

account issues of discrimination, exclusion, and security?

3.​ In what ways do the design and deployment of digital identity and surveillance

technologies meet or not meet the specific privacy needs and concerns of

marginalized groups?
4.​ What are the sociological and political ideas that will assist in understanding the

processes whereby the right to anonymity is being undermined and with what

consequences for marginalized groups?

5.​ What are the suggestions for future research, technology design, and policy to

more effectively safeguard the right to anonymity of marginalized groups in the

digital era?

These research questions will guide the investigation and analysis presented in this

document, drawing upon the information available in the sources cited and relevant

sociological and political frameworks.

1.​ How do current digital identity systems and surveillance practices

disproportionately affect the privacy and anonymity of particular marginalized

groups (e.g., based on race, socioeconomic status, disability, immigration status,

sexual orientation)?

Existing digital identity systems and surveillance mechanisms have the potential to

disproportionately impact the privacy and anonymity of different marginalized groups

by perpetuating existing inequalities and generating new vulnerabilities. For example,

those of lower socioeconomic status are likely to suffer from a “surveillance gap”

whereby they are excluded from digital inclusion, making them absent from important

services and policy issues, but subjected to more surveillance when they interact with

digital mechanisms, typically on the condition for receiving benefits. As Krishna

points out in the case of India’s Aadhaar, the application of digital identities can
concretize existing cultural inequalities suffered by marginalized laborers. In the same

way, racialized subpopulations fear that pandemic technologies of surveillance may

result in uneven profiling, policing, and criminalization. Error risks in facial

recognition are greater for women and people with darker skin, potentially resulting in

wrong identification and wrongful accusation.

For people with disabilities, technologies are usually created without considering their

needs, creating special privacy issues. For instance, authentication processes can be

problematic for visually impaired individuals. Undocumented immigrants can avoid

interacting with technologies or sharing sensitive information because they fear being

deported or exposed. LGBTQ+ users can also suffer stigma and discrimination if their

identities are accidentally disclosed by data breaches or secondary data usage on

online spaces utilized for connection and exploration of identity. As Sannon and Forte

present, marginalized groups tend to incur higher risks for privacy because they have

to use technology for identity-related purposes while having access to fewer resources

for privacy protection. This is consistent with Hickson’s research on the extent to

which digital platforms within the gig economy undermine worker autonomy and

enable surveillance, and to which broader digital systems can reinforce such effects

within marginalized groups’ control of their data and anonymity. Schroeder’s

examination of the ways in which digital media may be utilized to target and

marginalize specific groups also offers a framework for analyzing how the

information gathered by these systems might be used against them.

2.​ What are the potential risks and harms associated with the loss of anonymity for

marginalized communities and individuals in the digital world, taking into

account issues of discrimination, exclusion, and security?

The erosion of anonymity with regards to privacy triggers major issues for

marginalised communities specifically. While digital identity systems and surveillance

technologies promise inclusion and efficiency, they simultaneously create new

avenues for discrimination, exclusion, and insecurity. Due to these digital identity

systems the ability to participate freely and safely in public discourse is severely

compromised for certain sections of society. Foucault’s theory of the panopticon,

where individuals are subject to surveillance and self-censor definitely causes several

heads to be raised. For Dalits, Adivasis, queer individuals, and others at the margins,

digital traceability often means suppressing dissenting views or concealing identities.

Bama’s Karukku and Sukirtharani’s poetry identify how someones identity is their

source of pride however through state sponsored surveillance produces vulnerability.​

Certainly this surveillance in forms of Biofacial recognition acts as a hammer to

suppress political dissent by scaring citizens who are willing to participate in protests

or political movements. Similarly Nancy Fraser’s emphasis on participation as a

dimension of social justice is especially true, inclusion requires not just access, but the

freedom to express without fear. An Indian Article termed “A Call for Algorithmic

Justice for SC/ST’s” signifies how certain systems can replace and further exacerbate

caste based bias. Via these mediums the chasms that certain groups face vis-a-vis

employment, housing and education amongst other gets deepened. Similarly,

intersectionality analysing Dolly Kikons work on food,caste and cultural

marginalisation shows how these systems reinforce historical stigmas. This new
digital age imposes different forms of social evils that worsen the situation of certain

communities under the disguise of certain hegemonic ideologies.

Such forms of surveillance align with what Gopal Guru refers to as the "graded

inequality" of Indian society. Digital technologies, rather than leveling the field, risk

becoming new instruments for reinforcing social hierarchy. The very visibility that

digital systems demand can strip away the protection that anonymity once provided.

Safety now becomes a major concern especially for example for sex workers who

thrive on their anonymity. Schroeder’s work on digital platforms how they’ve become

a breeding ground for hate speech especially targetted towards dalit writers,

progressive feminists, and dissenters through trolls, threats and instances of hacking.

For example Dalit writer Kancha Ilaiah received threats over his Arya Vysya book.

The loss of anonymity also affects how marginalized groups are treated in digital

labor platforms. As Hickson argues in his study of the gig economy, platform workers

are monitored, rated, and profiled in ways that concentrate power in the hands of

corporations. Workers who might once have maintained anonymity are now subject to

algorithmic oversight and surveillance. This system disproportionately affects Dalit,

migrant, and low-caste workers who take up online app-based jobs like call centre

services or delivery partners for food delivering apps. Their identities are no longer

theirs to manage but are instead shaped by data systems that determine their

employability, reliability, and even credibility. The insights on political economy help

us understand this as a neoliberal mode of governance where individuals are rendered

visible only to be disciplined and exploited.​

​
 Ultimately through either caste-based sensus’ or state surveillance the loss of control

over personal identity in digital systems reinforces pre-existing inequalities. Ranging

from intersectionality and political economy to ideology and rights we see that

anonymity is not merely a technical feature. It is a political shield, and a means of

resisting domination. Therefore, any attempt to reform digital identity and

surveillance systems must begin by recognizing the value of anonymity.

3.​ In what ways do the design and deployment of digital identity and surveillance

technologies meet or not meet the specific privacy needs and concerns of

marginalized groups?

Privacy is dead ! for those who economically make an impact in the government’s

eyes. With the technological boom in the 20th century, these institutions and methods

come with their own promises and perils. While the government and private actors

stitch a narrative around efficiency, safety and inclusivity a deeper analysis of this

subject reveals a rather nasty picture. With reinforcing certain social hierarchies, it

exacerbates inequalities, violates privacy and further exposes the vulnerable

marginalised communities.

One of the pangs of this beast is the notion of technological neutrality. Srinivasan

highlights in his work on identity infrastructures in India, technologies like Aadhaar,

while designed to streamline welfare access, have instead intensified the

marginalization of low-income populations. By accessing biometric information of its

citizens under the guise of providing them with certain benefits it instead subjects

them to stigma, exclusions and surveillance. This is an issue world wide, the
"one-size-fits-all" design of digital identity systems ignores the complex realities of

marginalized lives.

Xaxa’s declaration, “I am not your data” highlights the dehumanization performed by

these surveillance institutions where the regime ignores complex realities of

marginalised lives simply reducing their identities to mere codes.

The concept of creating an “inclusive privacy” by Shruti Sannon and Andrea Forte

seems to be extremely theoretical due to the gaps that we currently face in society.

While this notion aims to tailor data protection frameworks to account for diverse

needs across ability, gender, class, and race it reveals a lack in the research regarding

the race and systemic marginalisation while creating such frameworks. As

Sambasivam argues that the privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) like Incognito

Modes or phone locking mechanisms can backfire in certain cultures. For example,

women using privacy features might face suspicion or accusations of impropriety,

reinforcing patriarchal control. Ahmed’s work is concerned by showing that in

intimate partner violence scenarios, efforts to secure personal data can trigger

coercion and threats, especially on shared devices. These insights affirm what Gopal

Guru and Shailaja Paik argue about social science’s failure to fully engage with lived

realities of oppression.

Surveillance at this point is not about watching, it's a move of governance. Gilman

and Green’s concept of the “Surveillance Gap” shows how marginalised populations

are both hyper visible and invisible. This notion aligns with Foucalts notion of

biopolitics where control is exercised through the regulations of bodies and

populations. For example the Aadhar and CCTV typify this notion converting a tool

of inclusion into a weapon of exclusion. These algorithmic systems encode bias

through surveillance. In the Indian context, caste-based inequalities become

embedded into databases, perpetuating structural violence under the guise of

objectivity.

The implications of mass surveillance extend beyond personal privacy. Gellman and

Adler Bell explore how surveillance technologies exert a chilling effect on free speech

and democratic participation. When individuals know they are being watched, they

may self-censor, avoid protests, or refrain from accessing sensitive services, fears that

are especially pronounced among communities already stigmatized. For example the

documentary on 2002 Gujarat Riots was banned in India exemplifying the

aforementioned notion. Suppressing the multiple voices of Muslims that perished

during these riots and preventing exposure of the current political regime. David

Harvey and Antonio Gramsci, help contextualize this issue. Surveillance technologies

serve hegemonic interests by producing compliant subjects. In this context,

participation is not merely suppressed, it is reshaped to fit acceptable norms.

One of the root causes lies in the failure to address the inclusion of marginalised

communities in designing these technological surveillance meetings. Reichel critiques

the concept of privacy as one that reflects the ideas of the privileged hegemonies. This

resonates with Hickson’s work on the gig economy, where workers are governed by

opaque algorithms that dictate their labor conditions without any participatory

oversight. To understand this concept we can take the Maruti - Manesar case where

the privileged class exploited the labourers through surveillance and forced their

hands to comply with poor working conditions. To add another layer to this analysis

Schroeders analysis shows how platforms prioritize engagement and monetization

over user safety, deepening risks for already vulnerable users.

 A concept that hasn't been researched much into has been the psychological and

emotional dimensions of surveillance. Marginalised communities through this lens

can be affected via emotions of paranoia, shame, censorship or internalised

surveillance. Tying this Foucalts concept of panopticon where individuals regulate

their behavior due to the possibility of being watched, we can understand surveillance

as a form of psychological control. For example in marginalised communities when a

Dalit woman must authenticate her biometric identity at a public ration center, or a

Muslim youth is routinely stopped and questioned under predictive policing, the

resulting stress is not merely procedural it is existential.

4.​ What are the sociological and political ideas that will assist in understanding the

processes whereby the right to anonymity is being undermined and with what

consequences for marginalized groups?

In a world increasingly dependent on digital infrastructures, the right to anonymity

has shifted from a philosophical ideal into a contested site of power struggles

affecting privacy protest and identity exploration especially for marginalized

communities. Late one evening, Meena, a Mahar dalit mother of two, faced the

indignity of her ration card being rejected at the local fair price shop. As her children

watched hungry, the shopkeeper scrolled through her digital record with a look of

suspicion. That moment captures how state, issued IDs like Aadhaar and ration cards,

meant to provide basic entitlements, can become instruments of surveillance that

expose and shame the vulnerable.

The notion of the panopticon, first articulated by Michel Foucault, describes how the

possibility of constant observation disciplines conduct through self surveillance and

creates a chilling effect on dissent. In data driven societies this principle extends

beyond physical institutions into online platforms where user behavior is continuously

tracked and stored. Marginalized groups such as Dalits, the disabled, economically

backward individuals and LGBTQ+ individuals face amplified scrutiny because data

categorization often encodes existing social biases, turning visibility into vulnerability

rather than empowerment.

Shoshana Zuboff’s theory of surveillance capitalism offers an economic angle: data is

commodified and sold for profit, transforming personal identities into sources of

capital. The logic of this system is simple but devastating, those most vulnerable are

often the most surveilled. As Abhay Xaxa declares in “I Am Not Your Data”, the very

idea that the lives of Adivasis and other marginalized groups are reduced to

quantitative profiles is both dehumanizing and politically violent. It is not just a

matter of privacy lost, it is identity co-opted and sold in a marketplace that these

individuals neither consent to nor benefit from. The theory of surveillance capitalism

reveals how personal information becomes a commodity in markets that operate with

little transparency. As Shoshana Zuboff explains, corporations harvest user data to

predict and influence behavior for profit. Those without digital literacy or resources to

opt out end up over surveilled and financially marginalized when targeted advertising

and dynamic pricing inflate costs for basic services.

Structural domination underpins these economic and political processes. In a

Darjeeling tea garden, workers, many from the Adivasi community, talk in private

about avoiding the camp manager’s gaze. Anonymity, they say, is the only protection
from arbitrary fines and forced overtime. When that shield is torn away by CCTV and

biometric check‑ins, they lose their last refuge. Anonymity here functions as a fragile

shield allowing individuals to evade normative expectations such as caste religious or

gender norms. When this shield dissolves people lose the freedom to present

themselves selectively and may face social ostracism or legal [Link] the tea

gardens, as in Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon prison, people discipline themselves.

They move less freely. They speak less openly.

The performance of self in everyday life also depends on controlled visibility. Erving

Goffman shows how individuals manage impressions by choosing what to reveal or

conceal. For marginalized individuals identity navigation often means masking

aspects of caste gender or political affiliation to avoid discrimination. Removing

anonymity removes choice and exposes them to punitive action or social exclusion.

Intersectionality reveals that anonymity loss has compounded consequences.

Kimberlé Crenshaw’s framework clarifies how overlapping identities shape distinct

experiences of surveillance. A queer Dalit woman for example can encounter

misogyny, casteism, domestic violence and homophobia simultaneously. Surveillance

systems may flag her, community membership activists may receive targeted spyware

and state agencies may deny her welfare benefits based on algorithmic profiling. In

these cases anonymity is a matter of survival not privilege.

Historical perspectives on grief and resistance also resonate. In 1855 a young Dalit

writer Mukta Salve described the collective suffering of Mahar and Mang

communities. Were her voice digitized today automated content filters might label her

testimony as inflammatory or sensitive content and algorithms could suppress her

account limiting reach. Her grief would become both hyper visible to hostile actors

and invisible to platforms that shape public discourse.

Justice demands move beyond redistribution recognition and participation. Nancy

Fraser argues redistribution addresses economic inequality, recognition affirms

cultural identities and participation ensures political voice. The loss of anonymity

undermines all three pillars. Surveillance driven policing deprives the poor of fair

treatment, recognition erodes when cultural practices are exposed to stigma and

political activism falters when fear of exposure silences dissent.

Proposed safeguards include the concept of information fiduciaries where digital

platforms bear professional obligations to protect user data much like lawyers or

doctors. Yet without enforceable accountability structures this idea risks remaining

theoretical. Platforms continue data sharing across subsidiaries and with government

contractors often without user consent.

Emerging scholarship also examines new domains of domination. In the gig economy

workers trade autonomy for platform mediated tasks. James Hickson’s recent work on

the gig economy highlights a new frontier of domination. On a quiet rainy morning,

Raju accepts a delivery order from his ride‑sharing app. Unseen to him, the platform

tracks his speed, his route choices, his break times, and posts that data on a public

dashboard. Raju’s autonomy evaporates under algorithmic management, his identity

reduced to performance metrics. The loss of anonymity intensifies precarity forcing

marginalized communities into high surveillance low security work.

State issued digital identity systems such as Aadhaar and ration cards further entrench

surveillance. Requiring the collection of personal and biometric data to access welfare

services transforms basic citizenship into an audit trail that authorities can monitor
and control. Marginalized groups who depend on subsidized rations may face

exclusion if authentication fails or their data is contested. At the same time

governments can track movements and consumption patterns. These ID regimes

operate as biopower in practice they categorize and discipline populations making

anonymity impossible and turning access to essential rights into a mechanism of

compliance and exclusion.

Everyday practices of survival illustrate the political stakes. Narratives in Shekhar H

Sowvendra’s The Adivasi Will Not Dance portray tribal protagonists resisting

exploitative forces by refusing to perform expected cultural acts. Anonymity in these

stories becomes a form of agency. Losing the ability to remain unseen means being

coerced to comply with dominant political and cultural demands.

Global modernity further complicates identity construction. Anthony Giddens argues

that in disembedded social systems individuals reflexively craft life narratives.

Anonymity provides the space for experimentation and transition. Without it life

trajectories become transparent and traceable across contexts limiting possibilities for

reinvention particularly for those escaping intergenerational oppression.

Collective action sometimes requires anonymity as a strategic resource. During

India’s farmers protests participants embraced uniform dress symbols and collective

leadership letting individual identities recede. As Natasha Behl documents this

anonymity helped focus attention on demands rather than individual profiles and

prevented targeted reprisals.

The erosion of anonymity thus emerges from intersecting forces of surveillance

capitalism, state regulation and entrenched social hierarchies. For marginalized

communities the consequences are existential intensification of monitoring leads to

 greater discrimination restricted self expression and curtailed political participation.

Theoretical lenses from panopticism biopower structural domination, intersectionality

and gig economy analysis reveal anonymity as a contested terrain of power.

Protecting it demands legal technical and cultural strategies to rebalance control and

restore dignity in digital and physical spaces.

5.​ What are the suggestions for future research, technology design, and policy to

more effectively safeguard the right to anonymity of marginalized groups in the

digital era?

In order to better protect the right to anonymity of marginalised groups in the digital

era, an interdisciplinary approach cutting across research, design, and policy is

essential. The literature highlights that the existing body of research on privacy and

marginalisation—albeit increasing—is still inadequate, especially in not engaging

with systemic and structural inequalities (Sharma et al.). Subsequent research needs to

transcend individualised concepts of harm to encompass critical approaches that

situate privacy invasions within wider socio-political and racial hierarchies,

particularly in the context of surveillance technologies that disproportionately affect

racialised groups (Gangadharan; Dencik et al.).

Interestingly, privacy scholarship especially in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)

and surveillance studies has tended to neglect race as an analytic category (Benjamin).

Researchers advocate for bringing race, caste, class, and gender as intersecting vectors

of vulnerability into the privacy discussion (Couldry and Mejias). Interdisciplinary

partnerships between technologists and policy scholars are also important to engage

with the policy silences on the structural production of marginality (Saxena and Sen).

Methodologically, the next research needs to embrace mixed methods, blending

qualitative understanding with quantitative information to chart privacy disparities

(Eubanks). Experimental studies should test privacy-preserving prototypes, while

participatory approaches must engage marginalised users in co-designing such tools.

There is a strong need for empirical research examining how digital identification

schemes like Aadhaar impact voter disenfranchisement, access to welfare, and

informal workers' rights in the Global South (Dey and Sircar). Longitudinal studies

could also examine how the normalization of electronic governance reshapes concepts

of consent and redress, and assess the cumulative effect of surveillance on

marginalised communities over time (Singh and Aggarwal).

In terms of tech design, autonomy and dignity must be core values. Designers have to

prioritise harm reduction via flexible context-sensitive designs—for instance, opt-outs

on automatised gender recognition and fine-grained privacy controls in order to avoid

context collapse (Obar and Oeldorf-Hirsch). Most importantly, privacy has to be

redefined as communal and networked, not simply individual (Zuboff). Tools must

enable shared management of privacy, particularly within close-knit marginalised

communities where surveillance may not be felt individually but collectively suffered.

Privacy-facilitating technologies (PETs), such as anonymization technology and

context-sensitive algorithms, have to be so designed that they do not draw suspicion

or notice in risky contexts. For example, PETs used for queer or caste-oppressed

individuals need to be non-obtrusive so that their safety is assured (Rahul and

Sandvik). Likewise, digital ID system design needs to engage heavily with

marginalized communities to pre-empt exclusion risks and ground systems in

democratic values such as inclusion, transparency, and security (UN Special

Rapporteur).

At the policy level, academics and rights activists call for an interdisciplinary and

effective tech-policy framework that involves ethical safeguards against

discriminatory AI, most notably caste-based algorithmic bias in India (Tisné). Prompt

passage of robust data protection legislation with provisions for redress, inclusion,

and consent is imperative. States need to ensure that any data collection meets

principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination in

international human rights law (UN General Assembly).

When creating digital IDs, it is imperative to incorporate privacy safeguards from the

outset like data minimisation and proportionality, backed up by robust institutional

regulation. Blanket biometric surveillance, particularly in public spaces, must be

prohibited. It disproportionately hurts already marginalised communities the most

(AlgorithmWatch).

There is also a genuine need to bring under control the way private corporations

function in this sector. They cannot be permitted to conceal behind amorphous

policies human rights due diligence has to be made obligatory, and they have to report

publicly the results of any consultations or surveillance activities (European Data

Protection Supervisor).

For digital ID systems, careful system design with privacy features such as data

minimisation and proportionality, coupled with well-managed processes and strong

governance under the rule of law, are necessary. Data protection and privacy law must

evolve to respond to the expanding reach of digital ID. In terms of surveillance, it is

important to include procedural protections required by the highest courts to

safeguard the right to privacy in the interception of communications, and to proceed

with caution on exemptions for state data processing to avoid breaches of fundamental

rights. Data processing of children must also take into account the possible negative

effects on anonymity.

More generally, there needs to be more robust regulatory mechanisms to safeguard

privacy and human rights in the digital technology context. Any state interference

with privacy has to be consistent with international human rights law, subject to

principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination. In particular,

with regard to biometric technologies, biometric mass surveillance needs to be

prohibited in public places. Design, development, and application of the technologies

must be limited to use that passes tests of legitimacy, proportionality, and necessity.

States must adopt sufficient legislative structures for biometric technologies,

including binding codes of practice and anti-dual-use provisions.

Transparency demands on the sector must be laid down and vigorously enforced, such

as public publication of activities and human rights impact consultations. Policies

should also ensure accountability and access to redress for victims of violations of

their rights by biometric technologies, and make private sector engagement contingent

on human rights due diligence.

Last but not least, stronger reactions and regulation are needed to push back against

the possible harms of the confluence between the business models of technology firms

and state datafication initiatives, as well as consent mechanisms that will integrate

fairness principles, particularly with respect to marginalised groups in the Global

South. The EU, for instance, could establish distinct red lines against damaging AI,
 prohibit dangerous technologies, and recommend ethical AI deployment to

governments.

Works Cited

●​ American College Health Association. National College Health Assessment III:

Spring 2019 reference group executive summary. 2019.

●​ Abbott, Jacob, et al. “Local standards for anonymization.”, 2019.

●​ Brandeis, Louis, and Samuel Warren. "The right to privacy." Harvard Law Review,

vol. 4, no. 5, 1890, pp. 193–220.

●​ Bruckman, Amy. “Research ethics and HCI.” Ways of Knowing in HCI, edited by

Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg, Springer, 2014, pp. 449–68.

●​ Cabañas, José González, et al. “Unveiling and quantifying Facebook exploitation of

sensitive personal data for advertising purposes.” 27th USENIX Security Symposium,

2018, pp. 479–95.

●​ Caine, Kelly. “Local standards for sample size at CHI.” Proceedings of the 2016 CHI

conference on human factors in computing systems, 2016.

●​ Dienlin, Tobias, and Miriam J Metzger. “An extended privacy calculus model for

SNSs: Analyzing self-disclosure and self-withdrawal in a representative US sample.”

●​ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 21, no. 5, 2016, pp. 368–83.

●​ Dillahunt, Tawanna R., et al. “The sharing economy in computing: A systematic

literature review.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1,

CSCW, 2017, pp. 1–26.

●​ DiSalvo, Carl, et al. “Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI.” Proceedings of the

SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2010, pp. 1975–84.

●​ Haimson, Oliver L., et al. “Trans Time: Safety, Privacy, and Content Warnings on a

Transgender-Specific Social Media Site.” Proceedings of the ACM on

Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, CSCW2, 2020, pp. 1–27.

●​ Hall, Joanne M., et al. “Marginalization: A guiding concept for valuing diversity in

nursing knowledge development.” Advances in Nursing Science, 1994.

●​ Hamby, Sherry, et al. “Technology in rural Appalachia: Cultural strategies of

resistance and navigation.” International Journal of Communication, vol. 12, 2018, p.

21.

●​ Karusala, Naveena, et al. “Privacy, patriarchy, and participation on social media.”

Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 2019, pp.

511–26.

●​ Kasket, Elaine. “Protocol for Responding to Participant Distress.” Adapted Version

for Telephone/Skype, 2009.

●​ Katsini, Christina, et al. “The role of eye gaze in security and privacy applications:

Survey and future HCI research directions.” Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference

on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020, pp. 1–21.

●​ Khan, Khalid S., et al. “Five steps to conducting a systematic review.” Journal of the

Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 96, no. 3, 2003, pp. 118–21.

●​ Klitzman, Robert, et al. “The reporting of monetary compensation in research

articles.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, vol. 2, no. 4,

2007, pp. 61–67.

●​ Knijnenburg, Bart P., et al. “Modern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy.”, 2022.

●​ Mentis, Helena M., et al. “Upside and downside risk in online security for older adults

with mild cognitive impairment.” Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems, 2019, pp. 1–13.

●​ Moher, David, et al. “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and

meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, 2009,

e1000097.

●​ Müller, Claudia, et al. “Dealing with wandering: a case study on caregivers’ attitudes

towards privacy and autonomy when reflecting the use of LBS.” Proceedings of the

16th ACM international conference on Supporting group work, 2010, pp. 75–84.

●​ Nelson, Boel, and Tomas Olovsson. “Security and privacy for big data: A systematic

literature review.” 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, IEEE, 2016, pp.

3693–702.

●​ The United States Department of Justice. Fair Housing Act. 2021, [URL provided].

●​ Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Ihudiya Finda, et al. “Critical race theory for HCI.” Proceedings

of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020, pp.

1–16.

●​ Parson, Laura. “Considering positionality: the ethics of conducting research with

marginalized groups.”, 2019.

●​ Petelka, Justin, et al. “Being (In)Visible: Privacy, Transparency, and Disclosure in the

Self-Management of Bipolar Disorder.” Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2020, pp. 1–14.

●​ Ramirez, Fanny A., and Jefrey Lane. “Communication privacy management and

digital evidence in an intimate partner violence case.” International Journal of

Communication, vol. 13, 2019, p. 18.

●​ Rankin, Yolanda A., and Jakita O Thomas. “Straighten up and fly right: Rethinking

intersectionality in HCI research.” Interactions, vol. 26, no. 6, 2019, pp. 64–68.

●​ Reichel, Matt. “Race, Class, and Privacy: A Critical Historical Review.” International

Journal of Communication, vol. 11, 2017, pp. 4757–768.

●​ Rennie, Ellie, et al. “Privacy at the margins| privacy versus relatedness: managing

device use in Australia’s remote aboriginal communities.” International Journal of

Communication, vol. 12, 2018, p. 19.

●​ Rezaeibagha, Fatemeh, et al. “A systematic literature review on security and privacy

of electronic health record systems: technical perspectives.” Health Information

Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, 2015, pp. 23–38.

●​ Weerasinghe, Janith, et al. “Because... I was told... so much”: Linguistic Indicators of

Mental Health Status on Twitter." Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies,

vol. 2019, no. 4, 2019, pp. 152–71.

●​ Westin, Alan F. Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review, vol. 25, no.

1, 1968, pp. 166.

●​ Wong, Richmond Y., and Deirdre K Mulligan. “Bringing design to the privacy table:

Broadening “design” in “privacy by design” through the lens of HCI.” Proceedings of

the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2019, pp. 1–17.

●​ McCarthy, Matthew. “Toward a Free Information Movement.” Sociological Forum,

vol. 30, no. 2, 2015, pp. 439–58.

●​ McDonald, Kevin. “From Indymedia to Anonymous: Rethinking Action and Identity

in Digital Cultures.” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 18, no. 8, 2015, pp.

968–82.

●​ Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government.

Oxford, Blackwell, 1946.

●​ Moore, Alfred. “Anonymity, Pseudonymity, and Deliberation: Why Not Everything

Should Be Connected.” The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 0, no. 0, 2017, pp.

1–24.
●​ Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. “On the responsible use of digital data to tackle the

COVID‐19 pandemic.” Nature Medicine, vol. 26, no. 4, 2020, pp. 463–64.

●​ Rogers, W., et al. “Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability.” International

Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, vol. 5, no. 2, 2012, pp. 11–38.

●​ Simpson, A. “The ruse of consent and the anatomy of “refusal”: Cases from

indigenous North America and Australia.” Postcolonial Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 2017,

pp. 18–33.

●​ Benjamin, R. “Informed refusal: Toward a justice‐based bioethics.” Science,

Technology & Human Values, vol. 41, no. 6, 2016, pp. 967–90.

●​ Venkatapuram, S., & Fierlbeck, K. “Overview of COVID‐19: Old and new

vulnerabilities.” Vulnerable: The law, policy and ethics of COVID‐19, edited by C. M.

Flood et al., University of Ottawa Press, 2020, pp. 1–31.

●​ Community‐led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.

●​ Hendl, T., & Roxanne, T. “Digital surveillance in a pandemic response: What

bioethics ought to learn from Indigenous perspectives.” Bioethics, vol. 36, 2022, pp.

305–12.

●​ “COVID-19 pandemic and big data.” Big Data & Society, vol. 7, no. 2, 2020,

doi:10.1177/2053951720966781.

●​ Mahapatra, Sangeeta. “Digital Surveillance and the Threat to Civil Liberties in India.”

GIGA Focus Asia, no. 3, 2021.

●​ Digital Surveillance and the Threat to Civil Liberties in India. GIGA German Institute

of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), 2021.

●​ GIGA Focus Asia, no. 3, German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA),

2021, pp.
●​ The Cambridge Handbook of Race and Surveillance, Cambridge University Press,

2023, pp. 76-96.

●​ Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994.

●​ Henley, Patricia. The Hummingbird House. MacMurray, 1999.

●​ Bagchi, Alaknanda. “Conflicting Nationalisms: The Voice of the Subaltern in

Mahasweta Devi's Bashai Tudu.” Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature , vol. 15, no. 1,

1996, pp. 41-50.

●​ Beyoncé. “Pray You Catch Me” Lemonade, Parkwood Entertainment, 2016.

●​ “94 Meetings.” Parks and Recreation , season 2, episode 21, NBC, 29 Apr. 2010.

Netflix.

●​ Langhamer, Claire. “Love and Courtship in Mid-Twentieth-Century England.”

Historical Journal , vol. 50, no. 1, 2007, pp. 173-96. ProQuest,

doi:10.1017/S0018246X06005966. Accessed 27 May 2009.

●​ Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of

Reason. Translated by Richard Howard, Vintage-Random House, 1988.

●​ Woolf, Virginia. Jacob’s Room . Annotated and with an introduction by Vara

Neverow, Harcourt, Inc., 2008.

●​ The Bible . Authorized King James Version, Oxford UP, 1998.

●​ Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students.

3rd ed., Pearson, 2004.

●​ Daniels, Greg and Michael Schur, creators. Parks and Recreation . Deedle-Dee

Productions and Universal Media Studios, 2015.

●​ “Hush.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, created by Joss Whedon, performance by Sarah

Michelle Gellar, season 4, episode 10, WB Television Network, 14 Dec. 1999.

●​ Matisse, Henri. The Swimming Pool. 1952, Museum of Modern Art, New York.

●​ Erdrich, Louise. Love Medicine. 1984. Perennial-Harper, 1993.

●​ Thoreau, Henry David. Excursions . Boston, 1863.

●​ The Purdue OWL . Purdue U Writing Lab, 2019.

●​ Wordsworth, William. Lyrical Ballads . Oxford UP, 1967.

●​ Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and

Method . University of California Press, 1966.

●​ Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto.

●​ Best, David, and Sharon Marcus. “Surface Reading: An Introduction.”

Representations , vol. 108, no. 1, Fall 2009, pp. 1-21. JSTOR ,

doi:10.1525/rep.2009.108.1.1

●​ Elkins, James. “Visual Studies.”p. 63.

●​ Ravitch, Diane. qtd. in Weisman, p. 259.

●​ Taylor, Rumsey. “Fitzcarraldo.” Slant , 13 Jun. 2003, [URL provided]. Accessed 29

Sep. 2009.

●​ Herzog, Werner, dir. Fitzcarraldo . Perf. Klaus Kinski. Filmverlag der Autoren, 1982.

●​ Yates, Jane. “Invention in Rhetoric and Composition.” Gaps Addressed: Future Work

in Rhetoric and Composition, CCCC, Palmer House Hilton, 2002. Address.

●​ Violanti, John M. “Cellular Phones and Fatal Traffic Collisions.” Accident Analysis

and Prevention 30 (1998): 519-24.

●​ Stockwell, Jamie. “Phone Use Faulted in Collision.” Washington Post 6 Dec. 2000:

B1+.

●​ Sundeen, Matt. “Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2000 State Legislative Update.”

National Conference of State Legislatures, Dec. 2000, pp. 9, [URL provided].

Accessed 27 Feb. 2001.

●​ New England Journal of Medicine 336 (1997): 453-58.

●​ Hankvinksy, O., & Cormier, R. “Intersectionality and public policy: Some lessons

from existing models.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 1, 2011, pp. 217-29.

●​ Hermida, A., & Hernandez-Santaolalla, V. “Twitter and video activism as tools for

counter-surveillance”

●​ Mason, M. “Foucault and His Panopticon.” 2010.

●​ Mitchell, W. J. City of Bits: Space, Place and the Infobaun. MIT Press, 1995.

●​ Myrick, R. “AIDS discourse: A critical reading of mainstream press surveillance of

marginal identity.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 35, no. 1, 1998, pp. 75-93.

●​ Nix, J., & Pickett, J. “Third-person perceptions, hostile media effects and policing:

Developing a theoretical framework for assessing the Ferguson Effect.” Journal of

Criminal Justice, vol. 51, 2017, p. 21.

●​ D’Ignazio, Catherine, and Lauren F. Klein. Data Feminism. MIT Press, 2020.

●​ Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. "Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come." Educational Researcher, vol. 33, no. 7, 2004, pp.

14–26.

●​ Kaushik, M. “Configuring the UID.” Business Today, vol. 19, no. 22, 2010, p. 12.

●​ Khaira, R. “Rs 500, 10 minutes, and you have access to billion Aadhaar details.” The

Tribune, 3 Jan. 2018.

●​ Khera, R. Dissent on Aadhaar: Big data meets Big Brother. Orient BlackSwan, 2019.

●​ McLeod, J. Beginning postcolonialism. Manchester University Press, 2000.

●​ McPhee-Knowles, S., & Kanar, L. Review of Decolonizing data: Unsettling

conversations about social research methods by J. M. Quinless. University of Toronto

Press, 2022, p. 151.

●​ Means, A. J. “Foucault, biopolitics, and the critique of state reason.” Educational

Philosophy and Theory, vol. 54, no. 12.

●​ Meloni, M. “An unproblematized truth: Foucault, biopolitics, and the making of a

sociological canon.” Social Theory & Health, vol. 21, no. 1, 2023, pp. 99–118.

●​ Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Digital personal data protection,

2023.

●​ Moosavinia, S. R., et al. "Edward Said’s Orientalism and the study of the self and the

other in Orwell’s Burmese Days." Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 2, no. 1,

2011, pp. 103–13.

●​ Mukherjee, A., & Nayar, L. "Aadhar—A few basic issues." Outlook India, 5 Dec.

2011.

●​ Murphy, L., & Maguire, W. "Applying mixed methods research in evaluating clinical

trials." Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, vol. 8, no. 1, 2011, pp.

72–90.

●​ Soja, E. W. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places.

Blackwell, 1996.

●​ Spivak, G. C. "Can the subaltern speak?" Marxism and the interpretation of culture,

edited by C. Nelson and L. Grossberg, Macmillan Education, 1988, pp. 271–313.

●​ Strange, S. States and markets. Pinter, 1998.

●​ Sundquist, M. The Age of Surveillance: Global Trends in Biometric Identification

Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2023.

●​ Supreme Court Observer. “Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act: Judgment summary.” 26

Sep. 2018.

●​ Rathod, Jayesh M. "Danger and Dignity: Immigrant Day Laborers and Occupational

Risk." Seton Hall Law Review, vol. 46, 2016, pp. 813–52.
●​ Lucas v. Jerusalem Cafe, LLC, 721 F.3d 927, 933 (8th Cir. 2013).

●​ Lee, Jennifer J. "Outsiders Looking In: Advancing the Immigrant Worker Movement

Through Strategic Mainstreaming." Utah Law Review, 2014, p. 1075.

●​ Eubanks, Virginia. Digital Dead End. [Publisher Not Provided], 2011, pp. 25–34.

●​ Madden, Kirsten, et al, p. 58.

●​ Trattner, Walter I. From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in

America. 6th ed., 1999, p. 9.

●​ Katz, Michael B. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in

America. 10th ed., 1996, pp. 27–28.

●​ Yang, F. “The tale of deep packet inspection in China: Mind the gap.” 2015 3rd

International Conference on Information and Communication Technology, IEEE,

2015, pp. 348-351.

●​ Sun, R., et al. “An improved method in deep packet inspection based on regular

expression.” The Journal of Supercomputing, vol. 75, 2019, pp. 3317-3333.

●​ Martin, F. “Overseas study as zone of suspension: Chinese students re-negotiating

youth, gender, and intimacy.” Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 39, no. 6, 2018,

pp. 688-703.

●​ Chan, K., and C. Alden. “ the diaspora: China's united front work and the hyperlink

networks of diasporic Chinese websites in cyberspace.” Political Research Exchange,

vol. 5, no. 1, 2023.

●​ Hillman, J., et al. China's Belt and Road: Implications for the United States. New

York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2021.

●​ Moyakine, E., and A. Tabachnik. “Struggling to strike the right balance between

interests at stake: The ‘Yarovaya’,‘Fake news’ and ‘Disrespect Laws' as examples of

 ill-conceived legislation in the age of modern technology.” Computer Law & Security

Review, vol. 40, 2021.

●​ Harris, E. J., et al. “A survey of human gait-based artificial intelligence applications.”

Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, 2022.

●​ Moulouodi, S., et al. “What can artificial intelligence and machine learning tell us? A

review of applications to equine biomechanical research.” Journal of the Mechanical

Behavior of Biomedical Materials, vol. 123, 2021.

●​ Powell, B., et al. “Threat Recognition from Gait Analysis.” IEEE 10th Annual

Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference, 2019,

pp. 1005-9999.

●​ Gee, H. “Almost Gone: The Vanishing Fourth Amendment's Allowance of Stingray

Surveillance in a Post-Carpenter Age.” S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just., vol. 28, 2019, p.

409.

●​ Andrejevic, M., et al. “From pre-emption to slowness: Assessing the contrasting

temporalities of data-driven predictive policing.” New Media & Society, vol. 22, no. 9,

2020, pp. 1528-1544.

●​ Curtis, M. “Aclu Challenges Use Of "Stingray" Surveillance Technology By

Baltimore Police.” ACLU Maryland, 26 Nov. 2014.

●​ Cameron, D. “Docs Show FBI Pressures Cops to Keep Phone Surveillance Secrets.”

Wired, 22 June 2023.

●​ Brantingham, P. J., et al. “Does predictive policing lead to biased arrests? Results

from a randomized controlled trial.” Statistics and Public Policy, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018.

●​ Brophy, P., and E. Halpin. “Through the net to freedom: information, the Internet and

human rights.” Journal of Information Science, vol. 25, no. 5, 1999.

●​ Brown, D. K. “Police violence and protests: Digital media maintenance of racism,

protest repression, and the status quo.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

vol. 65, no. 1, 2021.

●​ Maréchal, N. “Networked authoritarianism and the geopolitics of information:

Understanding Russian Internet policy.” Media and Communication, vol. 5, no. 1,

2017.

●​ Marelli, M. “The SolarWinds hack: Lessons for international humanitarian

organizations.” International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 104, no. 919, 2022.

●​ Margolis, M., and R. Muggah. “Brazil’s fake-news problem won’t be solved before

Sunday’s vote.” 27 Oct. 2022.

●​ Jamil, S. “Automated journalism and the freedom of media: Understanding legal and

ethical implications in competitive authoritarian regime.” Journalism Practice, vol.

17, no. 6, 2023, pp. 1115-1138.

●​ Rauchfleisch, A., and J. Kaiser. “The false positive problem of automatic bot

detection in social science research.” PloS one, vol. 15, no. 10, 2020.

●​ Nechushtai, E., et al. “More of the Same? Homogenization in News

Recommendations When Users Search on Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.”

Mass Communication and Society, 2023, pp. 1-27.

●​ Bozdag, E. “Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization.” Ethics and Information

Technology, vol. 15, 2013, pp. 209-227.

●​ Binns, R., et al. “Like trainer, like bot? Inheritance of bias in algorithmic content

moderation.” Social Informatics: 9th International Conference, Proceedings, Part II

9, 2017, pp. 405-415.

●​ Gidron, N., & Bonikowski, B. “Varieties of populism: Literature review and research

agenda” (Weatherhead Working Paper Series, No. 13-0004), 2013.

●​ Gidron, N., & Hall, P. “The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of

the populist right.” British Journal of Sociology, vol. 68, Suppl. 1, 2017, pp. 57–84.

●​ Groeling, T. “Media bias by the numbers: Challenges and opportunities in the

empirical study of partisan news.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 16, 2013,

pp. 129–151.

●​ Groeling, T., et al. “Visualizing presidential elections.”, Philadelphia, PA, 1-4 Sep.

2016.

●​ Guess, A., et al. “Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the

consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.”, 2018.

●​ Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. Comparing media systems: Three models of media and

politics. Cambridge UP, 2004.

●​ Progress report of Mr. Yozo Yokota and Ms. Chin-Sung Chung, Special Rapporteurs

on the topic of discrimination based on work and descent, A/HRC/Sub.1/58/CRP.2,

para. 16.

●​ AlgorithmWatch. Automated Decision-Making Systems in the COVID-19 Pandemic:

A European Perspective. 2022. [Link]

●​ Benjamin, Ruha. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code.

Polity, 2019.

●​ Couldry, Nick, and Ulises A. Mejias. The Costs of Connection: How Data Is

Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford UP, 2019.

●​ Dencik, Lina, et al. “Data Justice and COVID-19: Global Perspectives.” Data Justice

Lab, 2021.

●​ Dey, Ishita, and Oishik Sircar. "Aadhaar and Its Discontents: Rights, Exclusion and

Data Justice." Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 57, no. 20, 2022.
●​ European Data Protection Supervisor. EDPS Opinion 2/2020 on the European

Commission’s White Paper on Artificial Intelligence – A European Approach to

Excellence and Trust. 2020.

●​ Eubanks, Virginia. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and

Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press, 2018.

●​ Gangadharan, Seeta Peña. Privacy at the Margins. MIT Press, 2020.

●​ Obar, Jonathan A., and Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch. “The Clickwrap: A Political Economy

of Internet Privacy.” Social Media + Society, vol. 6, no. 2, 2020.

●​ Rahul, A., and Kristin Bergtora Sandvik. "Caste, Code and Discrimination in India’s

AI Ecosystem." Technology and Regulation Journal, 2023.

●​ Saxena, Arushi, and Amba Salelkar Sen. “Digital Welfare and the Invisibility of

Disability.” The Centre for Internet and Society, 2021.

●​ Sharma, Divya, et al. “Reframing Privacy for Marginalised Communities.” Digital

Asia Hub, 2022.

●​ Singh, Paramita, and Sarthak Aggarwal. “Recalibrating Privacy in the Age of Digital

Governance.” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 17, no. 1, 2021.

●​ Tisné, Martin. “The Data Delusion: Protecting Individual Data Isn’t Enough When the

Harm Is Collective.” MIT Technology Review, 2021.

●​ UN General Assembly. “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: Report of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” A/HRC/48/31, 2021.

●​ UN Special Rapporteur. “Report on Digital Identification and Human Rights.”

A/HRC/48/31, 2021.

●​ Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future

at the New Frontier of Power. Profile Books, 2019.

Declaration and Signatures

Lisa Thomas

●​ Research Work: Worked on Research Question No. 4

●​ Meetings Attended: 3 in-person meetings, 2 online meetings

●​ Interviews Conducted: Interviewed three queer individuals to substantiate arguments

for the presentation

●​ Participated in formatting the entire research paper

Aman Sanghvi

●​ Research Work:

○​ Worked on Research Question No. 2 with Aarav

○​ Worked on Research Question No. 3 with Tanmayi

●​ Meetings Attended: 3 in-person meetings, 2 online meetings

●​ Participated in formatting the entire research paper

●​ Interviews Conducted: Interviewed 2 disabled individuals to substantiate argument.

Tanmayi

●​ Research Work: Worked on Research Question No. 3

●​ Meetings Attended: 3 in-person meetings, 2 online meetings

 ●​ Interviews Conducted: Interviewed person from minority religion to substantiate

argument

●​ Participated in formatting the entire research paper

Sachleen

●​ Research Work: Worked on Research Question No. 5

●​ Meetings Attended: 3 in-person meetings, 2 online meetings

●​ Interviews Conducted: Interviewed one person from the gig working community to

substantiate argument

●​ Participated in formatting the entire research paper ​

Aarav

●​ Research Work: Worked on Research Question No. 2 with Aman

●​ Meetings Attended: 3 in-person meetings, 2 online meetings

●​ Interviews Conducted: Interviewed two people from the economically backward

class to substantiate argument

●​ Participated in formatting the entire research paper ​

View publication stats

Anshul

●​ Research Work:

○​ Worked on Research Question No. 1

○​ Drafted the Introduction and Conclusion with citations

○​ Drafted Research Questions

●​ Meetings Attended: 3 in-person meetings, 2 online meetings

●​ Participated in formatting the entire research paper