Statement on access to digital technologies as a human right
We are a collective that has been researching topics related to the appropriation of interactive digital technologies in different national territories for several years. Many of our findings have been significantly revisited, given the decisions made by several of our countries to restrict movement in public spaces in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The spread of interactive digital technology—already intense in recent years—has accelerated even further in recent weeks, occupying a central place in various aspects of daily life, thus confirming the clearly strategic nature of policies related to its development. This realization compels us to continue reflecting on its potential and its risks. It is worth noting that in this context of rapid expansion of digital consumption, the profits of those countries and transnational corporations that produce these technologies are increasing exponentially. In other words, a new stage of capital accumulation is underway, based on the production and use of digital technologies, including the extraction of local knowledge.
Along with this observation, and based on existing data on connectivity and infrastructure, a significant disparity is evident among Latin American countries themselves, and—comparing the region—with nations that have historically produced technologies. Indeed, within countries and in almost all areas where ICTs play an active role, disparities of various kinds are also apparent, for example, those affecting populations living in poverty, rural populations, or indigenous peoples, but particularly the pervasive and persistent gender inequalities. It is also clear that Latin American countries that have implemented digital inclusion and/or technological development policies are better positioned to face the challenges posed by the health emergency. Thus, the need to virtualize work, interpersonal connections, studies, bureaucratic and administrative procedures, government management, etc., has exposed these existing gaps in our territories like never before. Many people have access to ICTs, but lack the necessary skills for their specific and contextualized use; Access devices are not uniform in their capabilities; data availability or bandwidth are disparate, among other issues.
In addition, household conditions reveal a lack of suitable spaces for work or study, shared devices, precarious housing situations, and problems stemming from the inability to virtualize work (people who work informally and are now prevented or limited in their ability to earn a living). Conversely, there are those who possess the necessary infrastructure, access, and skills, and/or can virtualize their activities. This allows them to regulate their daily lives, maintaining routines and basic living conditions within the context of confinement.
All of the above reveals that public policies still fall short in terms of digital inclusion in various countries—with a few exceptions—and that sustained effort is needed to guarantee the availability of technologies and connectivity, skills for their use, access to free software, and so on. If we add to this the inadequacy of policies aimed at improving the living conditions of citizens, the situation becomes even more concerning: in Latin America, 4 out of 10 people are currently living in poverty. Therefore, it is essential to work to address inequalities in material conditions, living standards, access to technologies, and skills, and not to further widen existing gaps.
In this new context of the pandemic—and focusing specifically on the internet—recognizing that the network is a public service and that universal access is a fundamental human right is urgent. The internet is a common good, and this necessitates a renewed focus on the debate surrounding cost, open access to data of public interest, open source, transparency in data use, and citizen-led internet access, as key elements of the regulations essential for its greater democratization. These and many other issues justify the need for public policies at various levels within the context of the digital society, in order to guarantee access, reduce inequalities, and develop technologies geared toward the collective good, all within a framework of environmental responsibility.
Therefore, alongside the undeniable advantages of adopting technologies, it is also essential to identify risks that require action, not only by demanding public policies but also by promoting citizen-led and/or organized initiatives through social movements. The encroachment of the most powerful upon the rights of individuals takes on new forms in this stage of digital capitalism. For this reason, we mention below some of the situations that warrant further reflection in order to propose paths for transforming our societies, adopting digital technologies while mitigating their risks:
● Virtualization of education
● Teleworking
● Digital surveillance
● Use of personal data
● Interpersonal relationships
● New forms and horizons of art and entertainment
● Political participation in the digital sphere and the challenges for democracies
● Information, misinformation, and digital media
● Environmental impact of digital technologies
● Open knowledge and protection of local knowledge
● The development of another technology
● Virtualization of education
In these times of social isolation, the transition from in-person to online education has presented a challenge for most primary, secondary, and higher education institutions, not only in terms of the teaching and learning process itself, but also due to the gaps in accessibility and technological opportunities that students face in connecting to the educational process. Teachers have limited experience with online strategies. Adapting resources, materials, content, and activities, both synchronous and asynchronous, requires significantly more time and effort, which is generally insufficiently compensated by the corresponding salaries. Furthermore, governments are demanding continuity in online learning without considering the lack of internet access for a significant portion of the student population, or even the unavailability of the necessary devices.
In another aspect, roles in this new scenario are changing, as students are becoming more proactive. In addition to the differences in learning at the level of skills, self-regulation, time management, and metacognition—challenges that still persist in face-to-face education—there are the unequal experiences of access and production among students, which conditions critical and reflective learning within the context of the particularities imposed on education during the pandemic. Other emerging questions relate to the teaching profession itself, such as whether the conditions for teaching in a virtual environment are adequate, or whether the virtualization of some courses or programs will lead to a reduction in the number of professors.
● Teleworking
The shift of work from a shared physical space to workers' homes has led to increased job insecurity and the emergence of new, potentially precarious, forms of employment. In this context, several questions arise as possible starting points for addressing this issue: What are unions planning to do to protect workers' rights? Who bears the material cost of shifting work to the domestic sphere? What regulatory and control mechanisms are being activated, and what implications will these have for daily life and the guarantee of workers' rights? How are social, racial, and gender inequalities manifested in these new work arrangements? How will the psychological impact be addressed on workers who, in addition to performing their contracted duties, must also assist other professionals, such as teachers, by supporting their children's online education?
● Digital surveillance
The mass tracking methods for political espionage exposed by Edward Snowden and the use of Facebook data by Cambridge Analytica are two paradigmatic episodes because they caused a true cataclysm in the common ways of understanding and evaluating the importance of our digital data and the privacy it deserves. Perhaps today we are facing a third digital cataclysm, brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries have developed surveillance strategies based on the use of drones, surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology, and applications designed to monitor the coronavirus, which use geolocation and sensors to obtain epidemiological data on the spread of the virus.
Governments and companies have also been developing and promoting the use of smartphone apps about the coronavirus that promise remote diagnosis, monitoring, and medical support. Most of these apps request personal data such as full name, address, tax information, and inquire about symptoms and health history—that is, the user's medical history. In some countries, this information is submitted under oath, which presupposes an immediate and undeniable link between possession of the phone, use of the app, and the person's identity. But these apps not only aid in diagnosis but, in some countries, also monitor whether people violate quarantines, whether infected individuals move around, and where they come into contact with others—proximity tracking. In other words, the cell phone has become a device for control, and not just metaphorically.
All these practices have been criticized for being invasive, opaque, unfair, and some—like facial recognition—racist and highly unreliable. The lack of algorithmic transparency jeopardizes privacy and anonymity, which for many means life itself. Furthermore, the criminalization of poverty serves to justify making certain poor and racialized territories and populations prime targets of violence, surveillance, and state control, while women's bodies and lives continue to be subject to surveillance in both traditional and new forms. Surveillance is intertwined with gender, race, class, ethnicity, religion, and territory. Therefore, the scale and reach of surveillance technologies—which no one can predict, but which have been expanded and justified by the pandemic—will not affect everyone equally. It is worth asking whether the advantages of this surveillance (whose effectiveness in stopping the pandemic has not been demonstrated) will outweigh the losses in privacy, freedom, and rights.
● Use of personal data
It will be argued that the benefits of big data in healthcare for disease control are undeniable. Collecting and analyzing population data correctly and ethically can enable the formulation of effective public policies. The problem is that in many Latin American countries, there is a lack of specific legislation on the protection of personal data, on how this information can be used and by whom, what algorithms are used, who uses them, how, for how long, and where this information is stored. The accumulation of data is not only expanding to save lives from viruses. Besides being useful for governments, data is a fundamental input for commerce, the pharmaceutical and medical industries, health insurance, and companies that need to hire staff. The digital ecosystem is fueled by a business model where data is the currency, not only for understanding but also for predicting behaviors and preferences, and the advertising industry has been the driving force behind this capitalist insatiable appetite for data. Therefore, personal data in general, but particularly data related to people's health, should be protected for a specific period, not shared with other organizations (such as security agencies or financial institutions, for example), its purpose should be justified, and it should be isolated (and not combined with other data, such as criminal, employment, or financial records). A similar criterion should be applied to all types of data collected by governments and companies.
● Relationships
The extraordinary situation created by the pandemic is stimulating the use of social media, messaging apps, and other less common options for most people, who are beginning to learn how to use, for example, video conferencing platforms. The ability to see each other face-to-face and share everyday situations through technology is emerging as a way to feel less isolated and more connected (especially with family and friends) in this context. In the long term, it can broaden people's scope of action. A digital inclusion policy could support these uses, helping those who lack connectivity or don't know how to take advantage of these possibilities. It could also provide guidance regarding the limitations of technology, offering resources to overcome these limitations and creating conditions for people to explore, learn, and use it critically.
Over time, it will be necessary to assess how and to what extent the digital technological mediation that is growing and consolidating in this exceptional situation becomes entrenched in everyday interactions, and what its consequences are. Several aspects related to the changing boundaries between private and public spheres, the generation of misunderstandings, and the intrusion of corporations and public authorities into communication flows, among others, are being studied. We understand that research will need to focus on characterizing interpersonal interactions in general, and that the issue of technology will be viewed within the context of the analyzed framework.
What will happen to physical contact between people, with and beyond technology? What consequences will the habits we are creating have on nonverbal communication? What shifts will we see in the use of the body and practices related to sexuality? How are the regulations and rituals of communicative interactions affected? What differences might arise between people from different social groups? These are some of the questions we are asking ourselves.
● New forms and horizons of art and entertainment
Artistic productions are an undeniable expression of the cultural dimension of peoples. The incorporation of technologies into the field of art and entertainment has brought about changes in their production, distribution, and consumption, from the initial forms of technical reproduction that enabled the different variations of broadcasting to our times—with the integration of digital technologies—of net art or on-demand platforms. In the domestic sphere, mandatory preventive social isolation has led to a more widespread consumption of cultural products: television, audiovisual platforms, radio, and digital newspapers have become increasingly important among the activities many people are engaging in these days.
In the case of digital media, this implies, on the one hand, an increase in the value of their financial shares in the market, as well as a more effective way to map their audiences. The availability of consumer profiles allows for feedback on the offering and thus fosters audience loyalty, as audiences are not always aware of the digital footprint their consumption leaves. From a positive perspective, art in its broadest sense has an unprecedented opportunity to reach diverse audiences, but it is also worth asking whether consuming entertainment and/or art from home might be contributing to forms of control that, in the future, could deepen a certain privatization of life, a confinement to domestic spaces. On the other hand, the current situation of mandatory isolation highlights the precarious situation in which many artists and performing arts technicians have worked and continue to work in ordinary contexts.
Furthermore, the ban on holding large-scale artistic performances places artists and art producers at a critical juncture regarding their ability to make a living, forcing them to offer virtual alternatives to their work. This creates a tension: virtualization allows them to survive, while simultaneously imposing a more radical transformation of production methods and a shift of production costs to the domestic sphere, as is the case for so many other workers. What will be the impact of this on our future consumption? Will the possibility of disease transmission lead to a different arrangement of concerts, plays, museums, and cinemas? What alternative will emerge in cities to allow for the mass consumption of art and entertainment? Will consumption from the domestic sphere—individualistic and atomized—be the answer to this crisis?
● Political participation in the digital sphere and the challenges for democracies
In this new pandemic context, while the legitimate use of force and surveillance by physical and digital means is justified to prevent greater health-related harm, we should also consider the consequences for our guarantees to exercise our citizenship, beyond the pandemic. One such issue, for example, is related to mass mobilizations of protest and citizen demonstrations.
Certain digital applications have already been developed and are being used experimentally, offering possibilities for expression "from home," allowing a person to be placed in a virtual environment, emulating their presence at a face-to-face political event.
Furthermore, if technology companies are the new public utilities of our time, then who obtains and manages the information we produce online, and what they use it for, becomes a fundamental question in combating unrestricted data extraction. Focusing on a freer, more accessible internet with less surveillance and greater privacy, and a state that safeguards equity while providing frameworks to control the improper and illegitimate appropriation by private corporations, is therefore essential.
● Information, misinformation, and digital media
While this issue is part of a broader debate involving the right to freedom of expression, it is clear that the public has the right to information circulating online through networks and portals that is sufficiently truthful and timely to allow them to form an informed opinion or make a well-founded decision. The opposite—the intentional dissemination of fake news—carries the risk of manipulation, as was the case with Cambridge Analytica. The tension between these two rights—in the form of a controversy—is already present in many countries. One aspect that should be considered in this matter is determining who is best positioned to verify information.
It is clear that the media not only have more opportunities, but also greater responsibilities when it comes to disseminating properly verified information. Unless, of course, the mass media themselves are complicit in these manipulation operations, which is happening in many places. Regardless of how this tension is resolved, life in any society that claims to be democratic, anywhere in the world, is impossible without guarantees that those who are supposed to inform the public do so truthfully.
● Environmental impact of digital technologies
The digital technology sector is currently one of the most significant contributors to the climate crisis. Its contribution to global warming now surpasses that of aviation, for example. In this global health emergency, digital technologies have been relied upon more than ever to maintain our shared lives. Undoubtedly, many future solutions will depend on the consumption of digital technologies. This will have a profound impact on the environment in at least three areas: 1) Electronic waste, which will increase exponentially given that responsible management of this waste has yet to be established globally, and even less so in Latin America. In the very near future, a trend accelerated by the pandemic, the impact of electronic waste will be as significant as, or even more significant than, that of plastic waste today. 2) Energy consumption, since all technological production, expressed in hardware and software of all types and sizes, is extremely energy-intensive. Just to mention one example, data centers, commonly referred to as the cloud, are increasing exponentially every day, keeping pace with the growth of data, contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer in a way that is almost impossible to measure. 3) The production of technologies is not characterized by clearly defined, responsible, and fair environmental regulations. Many of its successes are based on the mining of cobalt and other minerals, carried out under inhumane conditions and with the exploitation of child labor. Furthermore, territorial disputes are beginning to arise to expand enormous data centers: forests are being sold off and devastated to make way for them.
It is true that digital technologies can strongly contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, but that depends a lot on the type of technological development that is promoted through public policies and citizen actions in our countries.
● Open knowledge and protection of local knowledge
One of the most significant aspects of this global crisis has been to highlight the issue of knowledge ownership and the urgent need for citizen science and open science, enabling all people and all countries to access methodologies, discoveries, evidence, and tools to combat the threat. Digital technologies are the means by which open science and citizen science are strengthened. Using these mechanisms, we have all learned more than ever before about viruses, pandemics, transmission, prevention measures, genomes, and much more. These technologies also facilitate the formation of multidisciplinary and multicultural teams that develop solutions for all of humanity.
However, there is still a long way to go in this regard: the tension between this open knowledge and the private knowledge that pharmaceutical companies, private medicine, and insurance companies hope to use to generate more profits during the pandemic will be imminent and radical. The global crisis we are experiencing has repositioned the value of science, but specifically science that serves communities and populations. As a research network, we vehemently support a repositioning of open knowledge and citizen science through the strategic use of technologies that democratize knowledge as a common good for humanity.
In this context, we believe it is essential to create special protections for local knowledge—Indigenous, rural, fishing, Afro-descendant, women's, and others—so that it can be shared for the common good and not privatized by large corporations. We find this historical moment crucial in the need to build these alternative frameworks in our countries.
● The development of another technology
Our working group advocates for creating conditions and spaces for experimentation and the development of alternative technologies. Our societies have been bombarded by the urgency of technological consumption, and the conditions for this have been created for us. It is time to begin developing other technologies based on different business models, addressing different needs, and built through different processes, such as the collective development of algorithms. These processes should be transparent and open, and guided by community-based data management principles. This is technology built by the communities and populations that have thus far been labeled as the primary consumers, and which our group proposes should have the right to design, define, and propose the technology they require and desire.
We are referring specifically to women, Indigenous populations, migrant populations, border communities, coastal communities, rural communities, and others. We start from the principle that in these historical moments, living in a digital society, it is a fundamental human right for every social group to design and build the technology it needs. Furthermore, we are convinced that they can/we can do so.
Workgroup
Appropriation of digital technologies and intersectionalities
RIAT (Network of researchers on the appropriation of digital technologies)
This statement expresses the position of the Working Group on Appropriation of Digital Technologies and Intersectionality and not necessarily that of the centers and institutions that make up the CLACSO international network, its Steering Committee or its Executive Secretariat.
