According to a 2022 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) report, approximately 1.1 billion people lack official identity and are essentially “invisible, discounted, and left behind.”[1] Moreover, without a national identity, individuals face barriers including in accessing public services, exercising voting rights, or accessing private services such as bank accounts and telephone cards.
The bi-annual UN resolution on "Birth registration and the right of everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law"[2] includes text calling on states to use digital and new technologies as a means to facilitate and universalise access to birth registration by permanently storing and protecting civil registration records and preventing the loss or destruction of records, including in emergency or armed conflict situations.
This briefing paper responds to the UN resolution’s call for inputs to contribute to a comprehensive study on the use of digital technologies to achieve universal birth registration, its best practices, challenges and opportunities.
The expansion of digital technologies has the potential to increase birth registration for all. Simultaneously, however, the increased use of digital technology may lead to an “erosion of our personhood”,[3] amplifying some of the challenges which have historically been fought, including multiple intersecting forms of discrimination, harassment and inequality.
Personal data (including what is defined as sex or gender on birth certificates) does not only inform about, but also formats our identity as “informational persons” including via social normative processes.[4] Identity-based data is not a simple layer on top of ourselves, but an intrinsic aspect of ourselves. In other words, we are constituted by our data and, to certain extent, made by the formats of our data. The categories and formats chosen for personal data (including sex or gender, age, ethnicity, among others) have a fundamental impact: they contribute to the construction of who we are and who we, and the world, believe we can become. The politics of data – “infopolitics”[5] – is not just an issue of what we can and cannot say, or what can or cannot be said about us, but is also a matter of who we can or cannot be(come).[6] They simultaneously enable us to act in some ways and restrict us in many other ways. This dramatically impacts the most structurally oppressed groups and vulnerable communities including women, LGBTQI+ people or ethnic minorities.
Moreover, birth registration via digital technologies forms part of a wider global trend towards mass surveillance[7] “in which the bodies, movements, and choices of citizens and consumers are ever more seamlessly monitored and mined by governments and corporations”[8] with “asymmetric relations between those who collect, store, and mine large quantities of data and those whom data collection targets.”[9] Global corporations (such as Google and Facebook) decide what forms part of our personal information, what it means, and construct the world we inhabit in the process. We hold close to no control over who we are algorithmically speaking, and in practice our identities belong not only to us – but mostly to others and to serve their interests. This begins with our data registered at birth. The capitalisation and monetisation of data have proven how the private sector prioritises profit over user privacy and public good.[10]
Before talking about universal birth registration, it is imperative to define mechanisms of data collection, protection and governance. How is this data collected? Who decides the parameters and characteristics of the data? Who has control of this data? How is it secured? How is it used?
APC believes that everyone has the right to the protection of the data that concerns them and to be able to understand, in very simple terms, how that data is processed.[11] No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference of this right, and any limitation of this right shall be reasonable, necessary, proportionate and justifiable.[12] Moreover, any processing of data shall be fair, lawful and transparent, adhering to data processing principles set out in international norms and standards.[13] It is also important to recognise that there is a gender dimension present in data collection, as it never takes place in a gender-neutral setting. Methods used for activities that are inherently about labelling and categorising individuals are often predicated on existing binary gender norms. Systems developed by such data can be exploited in ways that either perpetuate such norms or limit access for and discriminate against those who do not conform.[14]
If we seek universal birth registration, governments must ensure the right to data privacy and give everyone, including marginalised groups, full control over their personal data and information online at all levels.[15] Having that in mind, a lack of data is detrimental in many ways. Economic, social and public policy require data that is representative of the lived realities of each context. It is harder for governments to design policies that include people if those who lack empowerment are undocumented, as well as to protect their rights and distribute the benefits to which they are entitled.
This briefing note aims to underline some of the key human rights opportunities and challenges in the use of digital technologies for birth registration, from an intersectional gendered perspective. We argue that datafication must be carefully regulated with human agency at the core of its “design, protocols, audits and other forms of formats,”[16] including the most marginalised and vulnerable communities. Future versions of Resolution 52/25 must be founded on an intersectional feminist perspective to ensure that the ongoing digital transformation can promote a gender-just world that is affirming to all individuals and their path to self-actualisation.[17] All individuals must be able to take part in the global digital ecosystem, no matter who they are or where they are based, and must have agency over their complex selves, to enjoy equal rights to safety, freedom and dignity. This means equal respect for privacy, identity, self-expression and self-determination as well as equal protection from persecution, discrimination, abuse and surveillance, and equal access to information, opportunity and community.
Read the full submission here.
[1] Dutta, N., & Mojtahedi, S. (2024, 26 March). Navigating the Risks and Rewards of Digital ID Systems. Open Government Partnership. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/navigating-the-risks-and-rewards-of-digital-id-systems
[2] The resolution adopted in 2023 can be accessed here: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g23/077/58/pdf https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/HRC/RES/52/25&Lang=E
[3] Koopman, C. (2019). How We Became Our Data: A Genealogy of the Informational Person. University of Chicago Press.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of Our Digital Selves. NYU Press.
[7] Guerrero, C., & Lara Castro, P. (2023). Identidad digital en América Latina: Situación actual, tendencias y problemáticas. Derechos Digitales. https://www.derechosdigitales.org/wp-content/uploads/DD_Reporte_Regional_GIF.pdf
[8] Dow Schüll, N. (2018). Self in the Loop: Bits, Patterns, and Pathways in the Quantified Self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self and Human Augmentics, Artificial Intelligence, Sentience. Routledge.
[9] Ibid.
[10] APC et al. (2023). Joint submission to the Global Digital Compact on gender. APC. https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/gdc_joint_submission_on_gender_final.pdf
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Koopman, C. (2019). Op. cit.
[17] APC et al. (2023). Op. cit.