data and maps

After reading Deckey’s thesis, one of the questions I had was what a privacy right looks like on a practical level. Deckey argues that because voting data is in the possession of all kinds of entities, these entities have the ability to manipulate citizens. Instead of allowing the government to collect anonymized data and use it for partisan gerrymandering, she advocates for people to have privacy rights in the information they share even if they do not legally own it. What does it mean to own a privacy right? If we are not able to sell our own data, what can we do with it? Should we sign contracts every time we choose to allow the government to use that specific piece of data? The proliferation of technology and the way it is used/developed seems to be problematic altogether in that it encourages data sharing and easy access.  

“Anything beyond census data should not be used by a mapmaker unless there is clear demonstration that the process is serving a compelling state interest and is not serving the interests of a single party.” While I agree with the intentions of protecting people and, as an extension of their property/privacy, personal data, from reaching the government, I do not see how it would be feasible to draw maps without collecting data beyond the census in order to properly represent different groups of people. In doing so, fully independent commissions not remotely tied to the state legislatures would have to weigh in different factors such as people calling in about how they want the maps to be drawn and commissioners would likely place more weight on those outspoken responses which do not necessarily account for everyone. For communities of interest, only ones that are extremely vocal in the process of redistricting will be able to have their thoughts represented. At times, it may be important to collect aggregated data on race/voting preferences/general priorities to create balanced maps in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act and concentrate minority voters to give them the full effects of their votes. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more