Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Habermas (1994)
Three Normative Models of DemocracyDemocracy and Difference
B. Lepri, N. Oliver, E. Letouzé, A. Pentland, P. Vinck (2018)
Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making ProcessesPhilosophy & Technology, 31
Sandra Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, Chris Russell (2017)
Counterfactual Explanations Without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRCybersecurity
E. Hargittai, Elissa Redmiles, Jessica Vitak, M. Zimmer (2020)
Americans' willingness to adopt a COVID-19 tracking app The role of app distributorFirst Monday, 25
M. Kohn (2020)
Public Goods and Social JusticePerspectives on Politics, 18
I. Akman, A. Yazici, A. Mishra, A. Arifoglu (2005)
E-Government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizensGov. Inf. Q., 22
(2021)
A trust deficit is hindering Hong Kong’s COVID-19 response
A. Fotopoulou (2020)
Conceptualising critical data literacies for civil society organisations: agency, care, and social responsibilityInformation, Communication & Society, 24
Mike Ananny, K. Crawford (2018)
Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountabilityNew Media & Society, 20
Jessica Vitak, M. Zimmer (2020)
More Than Just Privacy: Using Contextual Integrity to Evaluate the Long-Term Risks from COVID-19 Surveillance TechnologiesSocial Media + Society, 6
Ina Sander (2020)
What is critical big data literacy and how can it be implemented?Internet Policy Rev., 9
Katharina Pistor (2020)
Statehood in the digital age 1Constellations, 27
Q. Shi, M. Abdel-Aty (2015)
Big Data applications in real-time traffic operation and safety monitoring and improvement on urban expresswaysTransportation Research Part C-emerging Technologies, 58
C. Wang, C. Wang, C. Ng, Robert Brook, Robert Brook (2020)
Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Big Data Analytics, New Technology, and Proactive Testing.JAMA
Jakko Kemper, D. Kolkman (2018)
Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a critical audienceInformation, Communication & Society, 22
Morgan Currie (2020)
Data as performance – Showcasing cities through open data mapsBig Data & Society, 7
Andrew Schrock, Gwen Shaffer (2017)
Data ideologies of an interested public: A study of grassroots open government data intermediariesBig Data & Society, 4
M. Andrejevic (2014)
The big data divideInternational Journal of Communication, 8
Vernon Cisney, Nicolae Morar (2015)
Biopower and the Avalanche of Printed Numbers
Jennifer Gabrys, Helen Pritchard, B. Barratt (2016)
Just good enough data: Figuring data citizenships through air pollution sensing and data storiesBig Data & Society, 3
A. Hintz, I. Brown (2017)
Digital Citizenship amd Surveillance| Enabling Digital Citizenship? The Reshaping of Surveillance Policy After SnowdenInternational Journal of Communication, 11
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31
Davide Beraldo, S. Milan (2019)
From data politics to the contentious politics of dataBig Data & Society, 6
D. Boyd, K. Crawford (2012)
CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATAInformation, Communication & Society, 15
L. Taylor (2017)
What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globallyBig Data & Society, 4
E. Graeff (2018)
Evaluating civic technology design for citizen empowerment
Elinor Carmi, Simeon Yates, Eleanor Lockley, Alicja Pawluczuk (2020)
Data citizenship: rethinking data literacy in the age of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformationInternet Policy Rev., 9
M. Ienca, E. Vayena (2020)
On the responsible use of digital data to tackle the COVID-19 pandemicNature Medicine, 26
L. Dencik, A. Hintz, J. Cable (2016)
Towards data justice? The ambiguity of anti-surveillance resistance in political activismBig Data & Society, 3
J. Dijck (2014)
Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideologysurveillance and society, 12
(2018)
UK has six months to rewrite snooper’s charter, high court rules
(2017)
Regulatory entrepreneurship
E. Zuckerman (2020)
What is digital public infrastructure”, center for journalism and liberty
(2021)
What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law?
Rob Kitchin (2014)
Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shiftsBig Data & Society, 1
Richard Heeks, Satyarupa Shekhar (2019)
Datafication, development and marginalised urban communities: an applied data justice frameworkInformation, Communication & Society, 22
Luigi Zingales (2017)
Towards a Political Theory of the FirmAARN: Theorizing Politics & Power (Political) (Topic)
S. Rogerson, K. Miller, J. Winter, D. Larson (2017)
Information systems ethics - challenges and opportunitiesJ. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc., 17
Shira Mitchell, E. Potash, Solon Barocas, A. D'Amour, K. Lum (2021)
Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and DefinitionsAnnual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Natasa Veljkovic, Sanja Bogdanovic-Dinic, L. Stoimenov (2014)
Benchmarking open government: An open data perspectiveGov. Inf. Q., 31
Andrew Selbst, D. Boyd, Sorelle Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, J. Vertesi (2019)
Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical SystemsProceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
(2021)
Principle (a): lawfulness, fairness and transparency
S. Milan, Emiliano Treré (2019)
Big Data from the South(s): Beyond Data UniversalismTelevision & New Media, 20
Jeremy Ginsberg, Matthew Mohebbi, Rajan Patel, L. Brammer, M. Smolinski, L. Brilliant (2009)
Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query dataNature, 457
Pak-Hang Wong (2019)
Democratizing Algorithmic FairnessPhilosophy & Technology, 33
M. Fourcade, Kieran Healy (2016)
Seeing like a marketSocio-economic Review, 15
J. Burrell (2016)
How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithmsBig Data & Society, 3
(2016)
Factsheet – communications data: investigatory powers bill
Sandra Wachter, B. Mittelstadt (2018)
A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AIColumbia Business Law Review, 2019
Solon Barocas, Andrew Selbst (2016)
Big Data's Disparate ImpactCalifornia Law Review, 104
S. Milan (2020)
Techno-solutionism and the standard human in the making of the COVID-19 pandemicBig Data & Society, 7
D. Lyon (2014)
Surveillance, Snowden, and Big Data: Capacities, consequences, critiqueBig Data & Society, 1
A. Acquisti (2014)
Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: The Economics and Behavioral Economics of Privacy
N. Lee (2018)
Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learningJ. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc., 16
H. Nissenbaum (2017)
Deregulating Collection: Must Privacy Give Way to Use Regulation?Social Science Research Network
M. Wieringa (2020)
What to account for when accounting for algorithms: a systematic literature review on algorithmic accountabilityProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
Robert Goerge (2014)
Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Data for the Public Good: Challenges and Barriers in the Context of Cities
International Journal of Communication, 11
C. D’Ignazio, Lauren Klein (2020)
Seven intersectional feminist principles for equitable and actionable COVID-19 dataBig Data & Society, 7
A. Poom, O. Järv, Matthew Zook, T. Toivonen (2020)
COVID-19 is spatial: Ensuring that mobile Big Data is used for social goodBig Data & Society, 7
Rita Raley (2013)
Dataveillance and Countervailance
(2020)
We’ve become dependent on a technological ecosystem that is highly invasive and prone to serial abuse
E. Ruppert, E. Isin, D. Bigo (2017)
Data politicsBig Data & Society, 4
This study aims to develop an interdisciplinary political theory of data justice by connecting three major political theories of the public good with empirical studies about the functions of big data and offering normative principles for restricting and guiding the state’s data practices from a public good perspective.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on three major political theories of the public good – the market failure approach, the basic rights approach and the democratic approach – and critical data studies, this study synthesizes existing studies on the promises and perils of big data for public good purposes. The outcome is a conceptual paper that maps philosophical discussions about the conditions under which the state has a legitimate right to collect and use big data for public goods purposes.FindingsThis study argues that market failure, basic rights protection and deepening democracy can be normative grounds for justifying the state’s right to data collection and utilization, from the perspective of political theories of the public good. The state’s data practices, however, should be guided by three political principles, namely, the principle of transparency and accountability; the principle of fairness; and the principle of democratic legitimacy. The paper draws on empirical studies and practical examples to explicate these principles.Originality/valueBringing together normative political theory and critical data studies, this study contributes to a more philosophically rigorous understanding of how and why big data should be used for public good purposes while discussing the normative boundaries of such data practices.
Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 16, 2021
Keywords: Big data; Data justice; Political theory; Public good; The state
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.