The US Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs case changes the relationship between women and the online world because it deprives them of reproductive control and physical agency as a matter of constitutional law. If you use the internet for information, products, and services related to reproductive health, you are subject to online policing.
The marginalized and vulnerable populations whose privacy is at risk are all women of child-bearing age.
I have known for a long time that internet data can be used by law enforcement to cast digital dragnets. Women are at risk not only from what they reveal about their reproductive status on social media, but also by data from their health applications, which could be used to incriminate them if they were subpoenaed.
People without means, power or social standing are less deserving of protection from online privacy encroachment than people with means, power or social standing. It's not only a lack of interest in protecting marginalized people but also a presumption that they are more likely to commit crimes because of their social identity, which is why they're being surveilled in the first place.
The act of applying for public assistance can lead to presumptions of criminal intent for women who are low income. The invasions of their privacy are often justified by these presumptions. All women of reproductive age in the states that have anti- abortion legislation are likely to be subject to those same presumptions.
Women only had to worry about Target or Amazon when they were pregnant. According to what we know about privacy incursions by law enforcement against marginalized people, it is likely that women will be more in the crosshairs of digital forensics. Law enforcement agencies often use forensic tools to search people's cellphones when investigating a wide range of crimes.
Some of the companies behind the apps that track your location sell that information.
Imagine a scenario in which a co-worker or neighbor reports someone to the authorities, which leads to the pursuit of digital evidence. Evidence can include internet searches about abortion providers and missed periods.
In places where bounty hunting is encouraged, the risk is very high. In a state like Texas where there is a chance for citizens to have standing to file lawsuits against people who help others access abortion services, everything you say or do becomes relevant.
It is difficult to do justice to all the risks because of the different circumstances. There are risks to be aware of.
Scholars, including my colleagues and me, have been raising alarms for a long time, arguing that lack of privacy is a threat to all. Political forces can increase the number of people at risk when they identify a larger population as posing a threat.
A failure of imagination is one of the reasons for the lack of action on privacy vulnerability.
Another reason for not paying attention is also present. The debate about whether people really care about their privacy in practice even if they value it in principle has been going on for decades.
Conventional wisdom still holds that people are less motivated to protect their privacy than they say they are. The view diverts attention from taking action. The privacy paradoxes is a commentary on how little people understand the implications of what's been dubbed "surveillance capitalism."
It is easy to assume that people don't want or need protection, and that all groups are at risk. Both are false.
The importance of online safety will become a mainstream concern as online risks spread to a larger population. Digital footprints and anonymous browsers are online safety precautions.
It's possible that the general population will come to realize that the data from the internet can be used to implicate them.
A Creative Commons license has been granted for this article by the assistant professor of information technology at the university. The original article is worth a read.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
