Analyze

At the height of the West African Ebola epidemic, West African governments and Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) were barraged with requests from international humanitarian and Western data analytics agencies to provide Call Detail Record data. This data could furnish the large-scale ambitions of data modelling to track and predict contagion. Despite its utility in tracking mobility and, as such, disease, CDR’s use raises many privacy concerns. In addition, embedded within a turn towards datafication, CDR technologies for surveillance embed specific ontologies of the data-focused society they emerge from. There is a false equivalence embedded in the relationship between humans and technology. The predominantly Western idea that one phone equals one person underlines the claim that CDR data accurately tracks distinct user movements, encoding a Western “phone self-subjectivity” (Erikson 2018). However, the refusal by some African actors to hand over sensitive mobile data to international agencies was met with forceful rhetoric of Africa’s moral obligation to comply—to forgo privacy rights in the name of ‘safety.’ The Ebola context reflects an emergent digitization of emergencies in the Global South, which is reshaping the way societies understand and manage emergencies, risk, data, and technology. The big data frenzy has seen a rising demand to test novel methods of epidemic/pandemic surveillance, prediction, and containment in some of the most vulnerable communities. These communities lack the regulatory and infrastructural capacity to mitigate harmful ramifications. With this emergence is a pivot towards 'humanitarian innovation,' where technological advancements and corporate industry collaboration are foregrounded as means to enhance aid delivery. In many ways, these narratives of innovation and scale replicate the language of Silicon Valley’s start-up culture. Surveillance of the poor and disempowered is carried out under the guise and rhetoric of care. In this scenario, market ideals and data technologies (re)construe social good as dependent on the “imposition of certain unfreedoms” as the cost of protection (Magalhaes and Couldry 2021). As big data technologies, they foreground a convergence of market logistics and global networks with existing and already problematic international humanitarian infrastructures (Madianou 2019). These convergences create new power arrangements that further perpetuate an unequal and complex dependency of developing countries on foreign organizations and corporations. Pushback against these data demands showcases competing notions of where risk truly lies. While resistance to data demands was at the state level, community responses to imposed epidemic regulations ranged from non-compliance to riots. These resistances demonstrated how the questions of ‘who and what is a threat?’ or ‘who and what is risky?’ and ‘to whom?’ experience shifting definitions in relation to these technologies as global, national, and community imaginaries are reinforced and reproduced as cultural, political, as well as biological units. 

Source

Akinwumi, Adjua. 2023. "Technological care vs Fugitive care: Exploring Power, Risk, and Resistance in AI and Big Data During the Ebola Epidemic." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science.

(MNOs) were barraged with requests from international humanitarian and Western data analytics agencies to provide Call Detail Record data. This data could furnish the large-scale ambitions of data modelling to track and predict contagion. Despite its utility in tracking mobility and, as such, disease, CDR’s use raises many privacy concerns. In addition, embedded within a turn towards datafication, CDR technologies for surveillance embed specific ontologies of the data-focused society they emerge from. There is a false equivalence embedded in the relationship between humans and technology. The predominantly Western idea that one phone equals one person underlines the claim that CDR data accurately tracks distinct user movements, encoding a Western “phone self-subjectivity” (Erikson 2018). However, the refusal by some African actors to hand over sensitive mobile data to international agencies was met with forceful rhetoric of Africa’s moral obligation to comply—to forgo privacy rights in the name of ‘safety.’ The Ebola context reflects an emergent digitization of emergencies in the Global South, which is reshaping the way societies understand and manage emergencies, risk, data, and technology. The big data frenzy has seen a rising demand to test novel methods of epidemic/pandemic surveillance, prediction, and containment in some of the most vulnerable communities. These communities lack the regulatory and infrastructural capacity to mitigate harmful ramifications. With this emergence is a pivot towards 'humanitarian innovation,' where technological advancements and corporate industry collaboration are foregrounded as means to enhance aid delivery. In many ways, these narratives of innovation and scale replicate the language of Silicon Valley’s start-up culture. Surveillance of the poor and disempowered is carried out under the guise and rhetoric of care. In this scenario, market ideals and data technologies (re)construe social good as dependent on the “imposition of certain unfreedoms” as the cost of protection (Magalhaes and Couldry 2021). As big data technologies, they foreground a convergence of market logistics and global networks with existing and already problematic international humanitarian infrastructures (Madianou 2019). These convergences create new power arrangements that further perpetuate an unequal and complex dependency of developing countries on foreign organizations and corporations. Pushback against these data demands showcases competing notions of where risk truly lies. While resistance to data demands was at the state level, community responses to imposed epidemic regulations ranged from non-compliance to riots. These resistances demonstrated how the questions of ‘who and what is a threat?’ or ‘who and what is risky?’ and ‘to whom?’ experience shifting definitions in relation to these technologies as global, national, and community imaginaries are reinforced and reproduced as cultural, political, as well as biological units. 

Akinwumi, Adjua. 2023. "Technological care vs Fugitive care: Exploring Power, Risk, and Resistance in AI and Big Data During the Ebola Epidemic." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

1. This is a standout organization to unite many underrepresented groups and collectively advocates for solutions to their issues. I believe this is a great strategy to bring about genuine change in policy, laws, and, hopefully, the future lives of Californians.

2. 1. What are some of the biggest challenges facing the environmental justice movement in California today, and how is CEJA addressing these challenges?

   2. How does CEJA approach community engagement and leadership development, and what role do community organizations play in the organization's work?

1. From the sources shared on their website, they seem to be well-regarded by major news outlets and other sources for media. CEJA’s headlines are generally featured as necessary and critical to the context in which they advocate for communities of color disproportionately impacted by higher exposure to pollution. Of course, though, prominent industry leaders for oil and agriculture are opponents of this organization.

1. This organization is a coalition of other organizations; therefore, they work intimately with core members; Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE), Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights (PODER)

2. And community partners; Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE), Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, and Strategic Concepts in Organizing Policy Education (SCOPE).

1. Environmental Justice issues are increasingly complex, so naturally, this presents challenges for CEJA, among many other organizations centralized around EiJ.

1. CEJA does not necessarily have any claims of it using any unique strategies for addressing the problems they work on. If anything, I would note that the fact it is a coalition of multiple Environmental Justice Organizations from all over California would be characteristic enough to stand out.

1. CEJA produces and shares a wide range of data and research on EiJ issues in California. Their website has a section dedicated solely to the resources produced and circulated among their coalition. This includes the bills and legislation they are reviewing and various sources regarding pollution reports like oil refineries, power plants, and transportation.

1. The principal initiatives of CEJA campaigns are central to Policy Advocacy, Community Organizing, Research and Analysis, and Leadership development. They work to advance local, state, and federal environmental justice policies. A research and analysis team can provide evidence of the harmful effects of various pollutants that affect their communities, educate local stakeholders on these issues, and promote engagement of historically underrepresented groups to champion policy to address these concerns.

• CEJA has physical office spaces in Oakland and Los Angeles, California. They have their website and social media to communicate with their members, supporters, and the general public.