Digital identity for development: The quest for justice and a research agenda

Masiero, Silvia; Bailur, Savita

doi:10.1080/02681102.2021.1859669

Cited by 42 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on critical data studies offers many examples of adverse digital incorporation. Studies of digital identification present multiple negative impacts: a Special Issue of Information Technology for Development, titled “Identification in a Digital Age: Implications for Development” (Masiero & Bailur, 2021), details how digitally identified people, from refugees to food ration users, are subjected to risks including state violence and deportation. Relatedly, authors in the field of surveillance studies detail how data‐based profiling can put people at risk: undocumented migrants in transition and settlement frequently do what is in their power to avoid digital tracing, which can result in exposure of their data to international police forces, triggering capture and even death (Newell et al, 2016; Pelizza, 2020).…”

Section: The Theoretical Crisis Of Ict4dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we still be doing ICT4D research?

Masiero

2022

E J Info Sys Dev Countries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In over 30 years of history, the field of Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) has asserted itself both within Information Systems (IS) and across disciplines. However, the core assumptions on which the field was built have been questioned over time, resulting in a situation in which such assumptions—on development, the role of ICTs towards it, and the meaningfulness of the term “developing countries”—have been problematized. As a result, this paper poses the question on whether it still makes sense to do ICT4D research: starting from older ICT4D landscape papers, it fleshes out three main assumptions made at the origins of the field. It then problematizes such assumptions through more recent works, noting that the old theoretical grounds of the field do not apply anymore today. Having said that, it states three reasons for renewed ICT4D research efforts: the reframing of “development” in terms of justice, the potential of multitheoretical research approaches, and the turn to indigenous understandings of ICTs. For all these reasons, it concludes that doing ICT4D research is especially important today, in virtue of a juncture of history that problematizes its older assumptions.

show abstract

Section: The Theoretical Crisis Of Ict4dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should we still be doing ICT4D research?

Masiero

2022

E J Info Sys Dev Countries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…eID systems bring together stakeholders with divergent incentives and interests and become crucial vehicles in the applicability of rights and resources. Numerous studies have highlighted the need to balance divergent societal and economic interests and brought to the fore novel ideas of data justice and human rights recognition in digital systems (Mansell, 2004;Mihr, 2017;Taylor, 2017;Masiero and Bailur, 2021;Niklas and Dencik, 2021). Through the application of the RI framework, this study compliments the scholarship on digital social justice by providing pathways for greater stakeholder engagement that help contextualize digital systems within the environments they are intended to operate in and a means to bring forth value tensions that arise from the deployment of these systems.…”

Section: Responsible Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible innovation for digital identity systems

Anand

Brass

2021

Data & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital identity (eID) systems are a crucial piece in the digital services ecosystem. They connect individuals to a variety of socioeconomic opportunities but can also reinforce power asymmetries between organizations and individuals. Data collection practices can negatively impact an individual’s right to privacy, autonomy, and self-determination. Protecting individual rights, however, may be at odds with imperatives of profit maximization or national security. The use of eID technologies is hence highly contested. Current approaches to governing eID systems have been unable to fully address the trade-offs between the opportunities and risks associated with these systems. The responsible innovation (RI) literature provides a set of principles to govern disruptive innovations, such as eID systems, toward societally desirable outcomes. This article uses RI principles to develop a framework to govern eID systems in a more inclusive, responsible, and user-centered manner. The proposed framework seeks to complement existing practices for eID system governance by bringing forth principles of deliberation and democratic engagement to build trust amongst stakeholders of the eID system and deliver shared socioeconomic benefits.

show abstract

“…The use of identity on social media, or what can be referred to as digital identity, is the conversion of human identity into machine-readable digital data (Masiero & Bailur, 2021). The digital identity scheme has three functions, namely identification, authentication, and authorization, all done digitally (Nyst et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indonesian Netizens’ Digital Self and Identity Creation on Social Media

Susanti

Hantoro

2022

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Users’ identity is important in accessing social media and digital platforms. This identity is formed and accessed digitally and can serve to identify fellow users of the platform. Digital identity can be in two forms: partial and social. Identity in social media is important because this is the main thing that needs to be done before users can carry out activities such as uploading and commenting on their own accounts. This study aims to identify how users respond to the creation of a user's digital identity on social media. This study uses a descriptive quantitative method with a survey method involving 218 respondents of various ages, occupations, and forms of access to social media. The data collection process was carried out in August-September 2022. The results of this study indicate that in creating a partial digital identity, most users display personal data that is the same as their identity in the real world. Then on account ownership, most users gave an approval response to the ownership of more than one account on their social media. Finally, users' self-disclosure on social media is carried out through a selection process on activities that are shared publicly and privately through their social media accounts.

show abstract

Digital identity for development: The quest for justice and a research agenda

Cited by 42 publications

References 23 publications

Should we still be doing ICT4D research?

Should we still be doing ICT4D research?

Responsible innovation for digital identity systems

Indonesian Netizens’ Digital Self and Identity Creation on Social Media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About