Rule by Data and the Quest for Data Justice: Lessons from China’s Social Credit System

Abstract

Big data brings promises and perils. Police forces have used it to detect crime and prevent fraud; the medical sectors have used it to monitor disease and assist in clinical decision making; the financial sector has used it to offer personalized services; and we have enjoyed all the conveniences in daily life. Yet the potential harms of big data technology should not be overlooked, especially when individuals’ personal lives are being affected significantly. When big data is used to define and construct identity, as in defining who a good employee is or who a good citizen is, issues of privacy and personal data protection, discrimination and exclusion, and procedural fairness are inevitably involved. In light of the above, the US and the EU have formulated various legal responses attempting to weed out the harm of big data analytics but harvest its benefits. The current concerns and legal awareness are largely on the harm of profiling, discrimination and misuse of personal data. This framework hinges on the identification of clear cases of data abuse and individual’s determination to seek legal redress. However, it does not address increasing datafication in our daily lives and the unfettered methods of dataveillance by corporate and the states to intervene and influence citizens’ thinking and behaviours. Scholars have advocated for data justice without defining its content. In asking what a system of data justice requires to combat data abuse, China’s social credit system serves as a telling case study. Launched in 2014, the social credit system is a nationwide project that aims to assess the trustworthiness of China’s citizens in keeping their promises as well as their compliance with other prescribed legal and moral norms, and professional ethical standards. Objects of the rating include government agencies, business bodies and individuals. The rating results can be used by the authorities for various governance purposes, including controlling access to market and distribution of social welfare. China may represent a radical example of an Orwellian state that is rule by data. Yet with the growing trend of datafication, citizens in liberal states may not be far away from living under this daunting form of control. This paper argues that the current legal frameworks are inadequate to cater the rising and all-encompassing dataveillance with ever evolving data analytics. Other than tackling how individual personal data be secured, a regime of data justice needs to address the increasing ties between public and private sectors, which data should not be re-combined and distributed, and how to achieve the aims of accessibility and accountability.