Beyond privacy rules: The power struggles over humanitarian data

When humanitarian organizations gather and share data, the intent is often to improve aid delivery. But when that data falls into the hands of states or other actors, it can expose vulnerable communities to new risks. Assistant Professor of Data Science Aaron Martin's latest research, published in Big Data & Society, reframes these disputes as being less about privacy than about power — and that the stakes for vulnerable populations could not be higher.

"Why sovereignty matters for humanitarian data" argues that many of the debates surrounding humanitarian data, like unauthorized access, unconsented sharing, or enforced interoperability, are underpinned not simply by issues of privacy or data protection, but by deeper conflicts over sovereignty and authority in humanitarian contexts. 

These tensions emerge when different actors, like states, organizations, or tech providers, lay competing claims to control data. Framing these controversies through a sovereignty lens provides a richer understanding of the power dynamics involved, going beyond standard ethical or legal discussions.

Martin begins by mapping how humanitarian data flows among various actors involved in aid operations. He then examines what sovereignty means within this sphere and introduces the concept of “pseudo-sovereigns," i.e., actors who assert a form of sovereignty over humanitarian data in ways that disrupt conventional norms. 

Through case studies — including biometric data controversies related to the Rohingya in Bangladesh, the Houthis in Yemen, "double-registered" individuals in Kenya, and data practices in Ukraine — he demonstrates how such sovereignty claims complicate humanitarian efforts and raise broader questions about authority and legitimacy.

Ultimately, the paper calls on scholars and practitioners to prioritize sovereignty in analyzing humanitarian innovation, surveillance, and privacy. Martin contends that understanding the layered, sometimes conflicting, claims to data authority is essential to fully grasp the political and ethical implications of humanitarian data practices. He suggests that this sovereignty lens can guide more nuanced, accountable, and context-sensitive approaches to data governance in humanitarian settings.

In the conversation below, Martin cleared up some of the more nebulous concepts, shared what being published in Big Data & Society meant to him, and laid out where he plans to take this research in the future. 

Q: For those unfamiliar with the concept, how would you explain data sovereignty in the context of humanitarian work?

In general, data sovereignty refers to how states assert their authority over data in their jurisdiction, usually through laws and regulations. In humanitarian contexts, where humanitarian actors, including international organizations, are central to response efforts and data about vulnerable populations is widely collected and shared, questions of sovereignty over data become particularly crucial and legally thorny. As I discuss in the paper, we've seen a number of cases where sensitive data about at-risk groups is shared with government authorities with considerable negative consequences.

Q: Your article was published in Big Data & Society, a prominent journal in the field. What does it mean to you to have your work featured there?

I'm certainly very happy I was able to publish the paper in Big Data & Society, which has become one of the go-to outlets in my field. I’m equally happy that it is part of a larger special issue on the technopolitics of interoperability. Both the special issue and my paper engage with topical themes such as the geopolitics of data sharing.

Q: Why do you think this topic, data sovereignty in humanitarian contexts, is especially important right now?

The humanitarian sector is currently undergoing a major policy rethink and operational redesign due to serious funding and resource constraints. Innovative uses of data will play a central part of this reform. Questions of control and sovereignty will become more relevant during this transition. It's important that we understand who is able to assert sovereign authority of data and what to make of challenges to these claims, as the paper outlines.

Q: Were there any surprising findings or challenges that came up during your research or writing process?

A primary challenge with doing research on data topics in humanitarian contexts is gaining access to research sites. It’s a very closed space, often for good reasons related to international protection, and developing relationships with practitioners and trusted informants takes time. That said, I think the paper benefits from many important relationships that I’ve been able to build over the years including through my work on Professor Linnet Taylor's data justice project. The arguments were developed in dialogue with several humanitarians working on data and its governance.

Q: How do you hope your article will influence future research or policy in this area?

As I argue in the paper, I hope researchers will engage with the concept of sovereignty more deeply in their work on humanitarian data, privacy, and surveillance. As for the policy implications, these issues could be integrated in the risk analyses that humanitarian organizations are supposed to be undertaking. I’ll be speaking about the paper and its practical lessons at the next International Organisations Workshop in September in Paris.

Q: What’s next for you? Are you planning to continue exploring this topic or branching into something new?

This paper forms part of a larger research collaboration with colleagues from Queen Mary University London, Kings College London, and the Graduate Institute in Geneva, and it draws on the inspirational work of my collaborators. We plan on further developing our theories on data and sovereignty in a new project in partnership with the Robert Bosch Foundation starting this year. Our new website will launch soon! https://www.digitalsovereigntyobservatory.org/