Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T14:42:10.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting Reproductive Rights Post-Roe: Can Companies Keep Your Data Safe?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2023

Meagan Barrera Open the ORCID record for Meagan Barrera [Opens in a new window]  and
Danny Rayman Labrin Open the ORCID record for Danny Rayman Labrin [Opens in a new window]
Meagan Barrera*
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar, USA
Danny Rayman Labrin
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar, Chile
*
Corresponding author: Meagan Barrera; Email: Meaganmbarrera@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization brought to the forefront the intersections between technology and reproductive rights. As the country grappled with the impact of Dobbs on reproductive rights, digital and human rights experts warned that the vast amounts of data collected by companies could now be used to target and punish people seeking or facilitating access to abortions. This is the most recent manifestation of the negative impact technology can have on women, girls and persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and represents a global challenge for companies that collect, store, share and process user data. To fulfill their responsibility to respect human rights, companies should take steps to prevent the risks associated with collecting, storing, sharing and processing user data, and adapt these steps to respond to emerging risks, such as those now posed by the Dobbs decision.

Keywords

Datagenderreproductive rightsright to privacytechnology
Type
Developments in the Field
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Beyond human rights due diligence: What else do we need? , June 2023 , pp. 259 - 264
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Center for Reproductive Rights, ‘Roe v. Wade’, https://reproductiverights.org/roe-v-wade/ (accessed 18 February 2023).

2 Rachel Treisman, ‘States with the Toughest Abortion Laws have the Weakest Maternal Supports, Data Shows’, NPR (18 August 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes (accessed 18 February 2023); Center for Reproductive Rights, ‘The Disproportionate Harm of Abortion Bans: Spotlight on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health’ (29 August 2021), https://reproductiverights.org/supreme-court-case-mississippi-abortion-ban-disproportionate-harm/ (accessed 18 February 2023).

3 Center for Reproductive Rights, ‘After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State’, https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/ (accessed 18 February 2023).

4 American Civil Liberties Union, Informational Privacy in the Digital Age (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2015)Google Scholar, https://www.aclu.org/other/human-right-privacy-digital-age (accessed 18 February 2023); Human Rights Council (HRC), ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’, A/HRC/39/29 (3 August 2018).

5 Privacy International, ‘Privacy and Sexual and Reproductive Health in the Post-Roe World’ (22 July 2022), https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/4937/privacy-and-sexual-and-reproductive-health-post-roe-world (accessed 27 March 2023); Jake Laperruque et al, ‘Following the Overturning of Roe v Wade, Action is Needed to Protect Health Data’, Center for Democracy and Technology (24 June 2022), https://cdt.org/insights/following-the-overturning-of-roe-v-wade-action-is-needed-to-protect-health-data/ (accessed 27 March 2023); Corynne McSherry and Katharine Trendacosta, ‘What Companies Can Do Now to Protect Digital Rights in a Post-Roe World’, Electronic Frontier Foundation (10 May 2022), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/what-companies-can-do-now-protect-digital-rights-post-roe-world (accessed 27 March 2023).

6 Association for Progressive Communications, ‘Gender Perspectives on Privacy: Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy’ (October 2018), https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/APC_submission_Gender_Perspectives_on_Privacy_Oct_2018.pdf (accessed 18 February 2023).

7 Ibid, 13–15; Cat Zakrzewski et al, ‘Texts, Web Searches About Abortion Have Been Used to Prosecute Women’, The Washington Post (3 July 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/03/abortion-data-privacy-prosecution/ (accessed 27 March 2023); Jason Koebler and Anna Merlan, ‘This is the Data Facebook Gave Police to Prosecute a Teenager for Abortion’ Vice (9 August 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zevd/this-is-the-data-facebook-gave-police-to-prosecute-a-teenager-for-abortion (accessed 27 March 2023).

8 HRC, ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: Resolution’, A/HRC/RES/42/15 (26 September 2019).

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Stefanie Felsberger, ‘Cycles of Control: Private Companies and the Surveillance of Reproductive Health’, Tactical Tech (21 February 2023), https://tacticaltech.org/news/cycles-of-control/ (accessed 23 February 2023).

12 Privacy International, ‘No Body’s Business But Mine: How Menstruation Apps Are Sharing Your Data’ (9 September 2019), https://www.privacyinternational.org/long-read/3196/no-bodys-business-mine-how-menstruations-apps-are-sharing-your-data (accessed 23 February 2023).

13 Center for Democracy and Technology, Legal Loopholes and Data for Dollars: How Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies Are Buying Your Data from Brokers (Washington DC: Center for Democracy and Technology, 2021), https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2021-12-08-Legal-Loopholes-and-Data-for-Dollars-Report-final.pdf (accessed 18 February 2023).

14 Joseph Cox, ‘Data Broker is Selling Location Data of People Who Visit Abortion Clinics’, Vice (3 May 2022), https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location-data-abortion-clinics-safegraph-planned-parenthood (accessed 18 February 2023).

15 Felsberger, note 11; Association for Progressive Communications, note 6, 18.

16 Sharona Coutts, ‘Anti-Choice Groups Use Smartphone Surveillance to Target “Abortion-Minded Women” During Clinic Visits’, Rewire News Group (25 May 2016), https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2016/05/25/anti-choice-groups-deploy-smartphone-surveillance-target-abortion-minded-women-clinic-visits/ (accessed 18 February 2023).

17 Abby Ohlheiser, ‘Anti-Abortion Activists are Collecting the Data They’ll Need for Prosecutions post-Roe’, MIT Tech Review (31 May 2022), https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/05/31/1052901/anti-abortion-activists-are-collecting-the-data-theyll-need-for-prosecutions-post-roe/ (accessed 18 February 2023); Harriet Barber, ‘Abortion Surveillance: How Women’s Bodies are Being Monitored’, The Telegraph (10 October 2022), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/women-and-girls/new-abortion-surveillance-state-keeping-tabs-women/ (accessed 18 February 2023).

18 Dunstan Allison-Hope, ‘A New Transparency Challenge for Business and Human Rights’, BSR Blog (25 February 2019), https://www.bsr.org/en/blog/transparency-business-and-human-rights-government-law-enforcement (accessed 23 March 2023).

19 Laperruque et al, note 5; McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5.

20 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Damaging Data: Corporate Due Diligence and Reproductive Rights (London: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2022)Google Scholar.

21 Ibid, 6.

22 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, note 20, 7.

23 Privacy International, note 5; Laperruque et al, note 5; McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5.

24 Runa Sandvik, ‘How US Police Use Digital Data to Prosecute Abortions’, TechCrunch (27 January 2023), https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/digital-data-roe-wade-reproductive-privacy/ (accessed 27 March 2023).

25 Rainey Reitman, ‘Who Has Your Back? Government Data Requests 2017’, Electronic Frontier Foundation (10 July 2017), https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2017 (accessed 27 March 2023).

26 Johana Bhuiyan, ‘How Can US Law Enforcement Agencies Access Your Data? Let’s Count the Ways’, The Guardian (4 April 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/04/us-law-enforcement-agencies-access-your-data-apple-meta (accessed 27 March 2023); McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5.

27 Caitlin T Chin, ‘Statement Before the House Judiciary Committee – Digital Dragnets: Examining the Government’s Access to Your Personal Data’, Center for Strategic & International Studies (19 July 2022), https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/congressional_testimony/ts220719_Chin.pdf?VersionId=tUyXcdbLnovu3CpK73x0nC9zZiHyW6lj (accessed 27 March 2023).

28 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, note 20, 8.

29 Zakrzewski et al, note 7.

30 Koebler and Merlan, note 7.

31 Zakrzewski et al, note 7; Sandvik, note 24.

32 HRC, ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’, A/HRC/27/37 (30 June 2014), paras 43–45; HRC, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression’, A/HRC/38/35 (6 April 2018), para 10.

33 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, note 20, 3.

34 McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5; Laperruque et al, note 5.

35 McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5.

36 McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5; Verónica Ferrari, ‘Facebook and Privacy in the post-Roe Era’, Association for Progressive Communications (13 September 2022), https://www.apc.org/en/news/facebook-and-privacy-post-roe-era (accessed 30 March 2023).

37 McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5; Laperruque et al, note 5.

38 Ibid.

39 Privacy International, note 5; Laperruque et al, note 5; McSherry and Trendacosta, note 5.

40 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, note 20, 6–8; Reitman, note 25.