SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Abortion rights supporters demonstrate in Washington, D.C., shortly after a draft ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade leaked (Photo: Olivia Alperstein)
How Big Tech Is Undermining Abortion Rights
Pending "Digital Trade" rules could end up hurting reproductive freedom.
Aug 02, 2022
The Supreme Court's attack on long-standing privacy rights via the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade comes at the same moment corporate lobby groups are pushing to restrict data privacy protections through a slate of new international trade agreements. If Big Tech gets their way in these pacts, many who seek and provide abortion services will be at increased risk of surveillance and criminal prosecution.
Even before Dobbs, civil rights, consumer, labor and other civil society organizations were starting to sound the alarm about digital trade agreements' likely adverse effects on data privacy and discrimination.
Post-Dobbs, numerous politicians and government officials have promised to track down and prosecute people who receive, provide, fund or otherwise assist with abortion services--even those conducted across state lines. In this hostile climate, some pro-choice organizations are, by necessity, encouraging individuals to take prudential measures to protect their privacy. Nobody who supports reproductive justice wants online paper trails such as medical records, financial statements, search histories, messaging, geolocation and more to be used to build a legal case against those who receive or provide abortions.
At the same time, unequal access to technology and information, coupled with the flat-out unreasonableness of expecting people to engage in perfect "spy craft" both pre- and post-abortion, point to the urgent need for municipalities, states and the federal government to adopt binding measures that better protect privacy for the long haul.
For this reason, and many others, it is crucial that the "digital trade" provisions proposed for upcoming pacts like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity and more not be allowed to restrict governments' ability to enact new data privacy measures, including those related to the collection, storage, transmission, trade and sale of people's personal information.
In recent years, as the U.S. and the world have begun grappling with how to best regulate Big Tech in areas such as consumer privacy, gig economy worker protections, antitrust and more, corporations have been quietly pushing for the adoption of rules in trade agreements that lock-in retrograde domestic digital governance policies and restrict new forms of regulation.
Such digital trade provisions undermine our privacy and data security by prohibiting limits on data flows and rules on the location of computing facilities. Today, our every move on the internet and via our cell phones is increasingly tracked, stored, bought and sold--as are interactions with the growing "internet of things" that we might not even know are tracking us nor have any feasible way of opting out from. To ensure privacy is better protected moving forward, upcoming trade pacts must not restrict governments from establishing rules that set conditions on how individuals' personal data may be collected, where it can be transmitted and where and how it is stored.
Insofar as state governments and other bad actors eventually turn to private corporations for aid in data tracking and analysis--using AI-based surveillance tools already used for predictive policing, sentencing recommendations and other law enforcement functions--pending trade rules that enable corporations to hide their sources codes and algorithms as so-called "trade secrets" are also potentially dangerous.
Trade deals like President Biden's signature IPEF initiative must not be allowed to repurpose "trade secrets" rules, or establish any other rules, that limit the ability of regulators, researchers, civil society and the public to review the underlying technology used by state and local governments to surveil people seeking and providing abortions. Nor should trade pacts in any way help shield corporations for liability from discriminatory conduct and civil rights violations.
Even before Dobbs, civil rights, consumer, labor and other civil society organizations were starting to sound the alarm about digital trade agreements' likely adverse effects on data privacy and discrimination. The recent Supreme Court decision further highlights the dangers of allowing international trade rules to restrict privacy protections.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The Supreme Court's attack on long-standing privacy rights via the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade comes at the same moment corporate lobby groups are pushing to restrict data privacy protections through a slate of new international trade agreements. If Big Tech gets their way in these pacts, many who seek and provide abortion services will be at increased risk of surveillance and criminal prosecution.
Even before Dobbs, civil rights, consumer, labor and other civil society organizations were starting to sound the alarm about digital trade agreements' likely adverse effects on data privacy and discrimination.
Post-Dobbs, numerous politicians and government officials have promised to track down and prosecute people who receive, provide, fund or otherwise assist with abortion services--even those conducted across state lines. In this hostile climate, some pro-choice organizations are, by necessity, encouraging individuals to take prudential measures to protect their privacy. Nobody who supports reproductive justice wants online paper trails such as medical records, financial statements, search histories, messaging, geolocation and more to be used to build a legal case against those who receive or provide abortions.
At the same time, unequal access to technology and information, coupled with the flat-out unreasonableness of expecting people to engage in perfect "spy craft" both pre- and post-abortion, point to the urgent need for municipalities, states and the federal government to adopt binding measures that better protect privacy for the long haul.
For this reason, and many others, it is crucial that the "digital trade" provisions proposed for upcoming pacts like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity and more not be allowed to restrict governments' ability to enact new data privacy measures, including those related to the collection, storage, transmission, trade and sale of people's personal information.
In recent years, as the U.S. and the world have begun grappling with how to best regulate Big Tech in areas such as consumer privacy, gig economy worker protections, antitrust and more, corporations have been quietly pushing for the adoption of rules in trade agreements that lock-in retrograde domestic digital governance policies and restrict new forms of regulation.
Such digital trade provisions undermine our privacy and data security by prohibiting limits on data flows and rules on the location of computing facilities. Today, our every move on the internet and via our cell phones is increasingly tracked, stored, bought and sold--as are interactions with the growing "internet of things" that we might not even know are tracking us nor have any feasible way of opting out from. To ensure privacy is better protected moving forward, upcoming trade pacts must not restrict governments from establishing rules that set conditions on how individuals' personal data may be collected, where it can be transmitted and where and how it is stored.
Insofar as state governments and other bad actors eventually turn to private corporations for aid in data tracking and analysis--using AI-based surveillance tools already used for predictive policing, sentencing recommendations and other law enforcement functions--pending trade rules that enable corporations to hide their sources codes and algorithms as so-called "trade secrets" are also potentially dangerous.
Trade deals like President Biden's signature IPEF initiative must not be allowed to repurpose "trade secrets" rules, or establish any other rules, that limit the ability of regulators, researchers, civil society and the public to review the underlying technology used by state and local governments to surveil people seeking and providing abortions. Nor should trade pacts in any way help shield corporations for liability from discriminatory conduct and civil rights violations.
Even before Dobbs, civil rights, consumer, labor and other civil society organizations were starting to sound the alarm about digital trade agreements' likely adverse effects on data privacy and discrimination. The recent Supreme Court decision further highlights the dangers of allowing international trade rules to restrict privacy protections.
The Supreme Court's attack on long-standing privacy rights via the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade comes at the same moment corporate lobby groups are pushing to restrict data privacy protections through a slate of new international trade agreements. If Big Tech gets their way in these pacts, many who seek and provide abortion services will be at increased risk of surveillance and criminal prosecution.
Even before Dobbs, civil rights, consumer, labor and other civil society organizations were starting to sound the alarm about digital trade agreements' likely adverse effects on data privacy and discrimination.
Post-Dobbs, numerous politicians and government officials have promised to track down and prosecute people who receive, provide, fund or otherwise assist with abortion services--even those conducted across state lines. In this hostile climate, some pro-choice organizations are, by necessity, encouraging individuals to take prudential measures to protect their privacy. Nobody who supports reproductive justice wants online paper trails such as medical records, financial statements, search histories, messaging, geolocation and more to be used to build a legal case against those who receive or provide abortions.
At the same time, unequal access to technology and information, coupled with the flat-out unreasonableness of expecting people to engage in perfect "spy craft" both pre- and post-abortion, point to the urgent need for municipalities, states and the federal government to adopt binding measures that better protect privacy for the long haul.
For this reason, and many others, it is crucial that the "digital trade" provisions proposed for upcoming pacts like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity and more not be allowed to restrict governments' ability to enact new data privacy measures, including those related to the collection, storage, transmission, trade and sale of people's personal information.
In recent years, as the U.S. and the world have begun grappling with how to best regulate Big Tech in areas such as consumer privacy, gig economy worker protections, antitrust and more, corporations have been quietly pushing for the adoption of rules in trade agreements that lock-in retrograde domestic digital governance policies and restrict new forms of regulation.
Such digital trade provisions undermine our privacy and data security by prohibiting limits on data flows and rules on the location of computing facilities. Today, our every move on the internet and via our cell phones is increasingly tracked, stored, bought and sold--as are interactions with the growing "internet of things" that we might not even know are tracking us nor have any feasible way of opting out from. To ensure privacy is better protected moving forward, upcoming trade pacts must not restrict governments from establishing rules that set conditions on how individuals' personal data may be collected, where it can be transmitted and where and how it is stored.
Insofar as state governments and other bad actors eventually turn to private corporations for aid in data tracking and analysis--using AI-based surveillance tools already used for predictive policing, sentencing recommendations and other law enforcement functions--pending trade rules that enable corporations to hide their sources codes and algorithms as so-called "trade secrets" are also potentially dangerous.
Trade deals like President Biden's signature IPEF initiative must not be allowed to repurpose "trade secrets" rules, or establish any other rules, that limit the ability of regulators, researchers, civil society and the public to review the underlying technology used by state and local governments to surveil people seeking and providing abortions. Nor should trade pacts in any way help shield corporations for liability from discriminatory conduct and civil rights violations.
Even before Dobbs, civil rights, consumer, labor and other civil society organizations were starting to sound the alarm about digital trade agreements' likely adverse effects on data privacy and discrimination. The recent Supreme Court decision further highlights the dangers of allowing international trade rules to restrict privacy protections.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.