Indigenous Data Sovereignty (DDN3-A11)

Indigenous Knowledges and Data Governance Protocol — Indigenous Innovation Initiative

Between March 2020 and March 2021, the Indigenous Innovation Initiative co-created the Indigenous Knowledges and Data Governance Protocol with the community, to guide how we collect and use Indigenous Knowledges and Data. Click on the image below to learn more about this Protocol. Since then, t

Treating data like land — data sovereignty in the AI age - ICT

Artificial intelligence front and center at North America’s largest Indigenous tech conference

Animikii: Indigenous Technology for an Equitable Future

Animikii empowers Indigenous communities with culturally informed technology solutions like Niiwin—our groundbreaking tool for Indigenous data sovereignty and community empowerment.

Data Refusal from Below: A Framework for Understanding, Evaluating, and Envisioning Refusal as Design

Amidst calls for public accountability over large data-driven systems, feminist and indigenous scholars have developed refusal as a practice that challenges the authority of data collectors. However, because data affect so many aspects of daily life, it can be hard to see seemingly different refusal strategies as part of the same repertoire. Furthermore, conversations about refusal often happen from the standpoint of designers and policymakers rather than the people and communities most affected by data collection. In this article, we introduce a framework for data refusal from below —writing from the standpoint of people who refuse, rather than the institutions that seek their compliance. Because refusers work to reshape socio-technical systems, we argue that refusal is an act of design and that design-based frameworks and methods can contribute to refusal. We characterize refusal strategies across four constituent facets common to all refusal, whatever strategies are used: autonomy , or how refusal accounts for individual and collective interests; time , or whether refusal reacts to past harm or proactively prevents future harm; power , or the extent to which refusal makes change possible; and cost , or whether or not refusal can reduce or redistribute penalties experienced by refusers. We illustrate each facet by drawing on cases of people and collectives that have refused data systems. Together, the four facets of our framework are designed to help scholars and activists describe, evaluate, and imagine new forms of refusal.

Preventing AI extractivism: the case for braiding indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance

Artificial-intelligence systems are rapidly reproducing colonial extractivism by harvesting Indigenous linguistic, biometric, geospatial, and ecological data without consent, compensation, or accountability. Biotechnology offers a blueprint for curbing such practices: the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol obligate users of genetic resources to obtain Prior Informed Consent, negotiate Mutually Agreed Terms, and share benefits fairly. No comparable framework restrains the digital appropriation that underpins many AI products. Consequently, corporations and states monetize Indigenous knowledge systems under the banners of “open data” and “scientific neutrality,” eroding rights affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In response to this rising risk of AI extractivism, we make the case for a binding, sui generis ABS protocol for AI data governance. First, through a series of case studies we demonstrate that AI extraction mirrors the colonial and biopiracy controversies that originally triggered Access‑and‑Benefit‑Sharing (ABS) rules in biotechnology. Second, we translate those rules into a digital register by braiding two Indigenous data‑governance frameworks—OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) and the CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics)—inside the ABS triad of consent, terms, and benefit‑sharing. The resulting model grounds technical safeguards in relational accountability and Indigenous legal orders. Such an instrument would compel transparent negotiations with Indigenous rights‑holders, assign enforceable authority over data across the AI lifecycle, and require equitable redistribution of the economic value generated by models trained on Indigenous data. Embedding ABS principles into AI governance offers a decolonial pathway that centers Indigenous epistemologies, promotes ethical foresight, and transforms AI from a vehicle of digital colonialism into a space for algorithmic justice.

Abundant intelligences: placing AI within Indigenous knowledge frameworks

The current trajectory of artificial intelligence development suffers from fundamental epistemological shortcomings, resulting in the systematic operationalization of bias against non-white, non-male, and non-Western peoples. We argue that these failings are, in part, the result of certain Western rationalist epistemologies that exclude many ways of knowing about the world, and therefore they cannot provide a sufficient foundation on which to adequately, robustly, and humanely conceptualize intelligence. We present a new research agenda, Abundant Intelligences, an Indigenous-led, Indigenous-majority international, interdisciplinary research program that imagines anew how to conceptualize and design artificial intelligence (AI) based on Indigenous knowledge (IK) systems. Abundant Intelligences draws on the rich plurality of Indigenous knowledge systems, bringing together diverse sets of thought, culture, and protocol together. We show IK systems provide one way to rebuild AI’s epistemological foundations and transform these tools’ current role in reinforcing colonial practices of exclusion, extraction, manipulation, and eradication into engines of abundance that enable us to care better for ourselves, our communities, and our world. Our proposition is to fully engage with AI to explore how different conceptions of intelligence could be embodied in these technologies. In this paper, we present the tenets of the research program in detail, account for our methodological approach, describe the impact and limitations, and conclude on a discussion of the implications of the program.

The Shared Patterns of Indigenous Culture, Permaculture and Digital Commons | David Bollier

Rarely have I read an essay that knits together some very different commons with such wisdom and depth. Joline Blais' 2006 essay, “Indigenous Domain: Pilgrims, Permaculture and Perl,” is a wonderfully insightful analysis that reveals the underlying unity and logic of commons principles. Her piece appeared in Intelligent Agent (vol. 6, no. 2), published by the Inter-Society for the Electronic Arts.

A Polycentric Governance Lens on Data Infrastructures

Funding policies for data infrastructure promote open data sharing to drive positive social impact. However, concerns regarding the long-term management of data within and across distributed infrastructures can hinder data sharing. We draw upon the concept of polycentric governance to demonstrate how collaborative practices of data curation, in preparing and maintaining data for (future) sharing, provide a solid foundation for understanding data governance within data infrastructures. Based on a qualitative case study of a distributed ecological network, we investigate the conditions under which data are managed as a shared resource by local actors to ensure the long-term (re)usability of data. We contribute to CSCW by conceptualising data curation as a complex form of governance practice with multiple centres of decision-making, each of which operates with some degree of autonomy in data infrastructures. A polycentric governance lens on data infrastructures advances the CSCW conception of data curation as a collective governance practice that can cultivate a data democracy culture within and across organisations, empower individuals to be accountable for their data, and foster a mindset shift toward decentralised data governance.

Doctrine of Discovery Project

Explore the Doctrine of Discovery Project archive of legal history, papal bulls, repudiations, and resources on Indigenous sovereignty, justice, and decolonization.

Sovereignty and Landscape | Simon Wardley | 15 comments

X : What is digital sovereignty? Me : I was asked that question by some friends within Government at the beginning of this month. I know some have been working on the idea, which is very encouraging, but I gave my tuppence worth of a definition. "Digital sovereignty is a country's ability to make its own decisions about the technology it uses, the data it creates, and how digital systems work in service of its people rather than being forced to accept choices made by other entities. This requires continuous situational awareness of the economic and technological landscape to anticipate changes, maintain strategic advantage, and shape international digital norms. Digital sovereignty is achieved through strategic control over critical digital assets and relationships, extending from public sector systems to the broader digital ecosystem affecting citizens and economic interests." The key is choice. You are sovereign if you retain the ability to make your own decisions rather than being forced to accept the decisions of others. This doesn't mean you need to own the entire tech stack, or all the data but you do need to maintain control over critical assets and relationships. This can be achieved by many means not just by conflict with others but through co-operation and collaboration (i.e. all the forms of competition matter). You also can consciously compromise, accepting some loss of sovereignty in one space to gain sovereignty in another. Anyway, I quite like the Mike Bracken description https://lnkd.in/eFjzcAdr "Digital sovereignty is the agency and capacity of any organisation to make intelligent, informed choices to shape its digital future by design". I used to do a lot of work on sovereignty many years ago, so if you want to know more about my view and how to achieve this, well I have a series of hopefully useful but somewhat introductory posts. Sovereignty and Landscape https://lnkd.in/eku2X_Ea Societal versus Market benefit https://lnkd.in/eXxkCv-K Whose interests are you serving? https://lnkd.in/eAgHS5wc | 15 comments on LinkedIn

MyData

The human-centric approach to data is aimed at a fair, sustainable, and prosperous digital society. In such a society, people get value from their data and set the agenda on how it is used. And for organisations, the ethical use of data is always the most attractive option.

Awana Digital • Co-developing Technology for Social Justice

Awana Digital works in solidarity with Indigenous peoples to use technology to defend their rights and fight climate change.

U.S. Demands to Access Africans’ Data Raise Privacy, Sovereignty Concerns — ProPublica

The United States is requiring access to health data as part of lifesaving aid deals with African countries. The U.S. says the data will be aggregated and anonymized, but privacy experts fear the information could be misused or exploited.