Month: April 2020

Categories
CHRC FBEC Proof

Tales from the Plantation #4

Burden of proof should be on those accused of discrimination not their accusers

Currently, people who file union grievances against their managers or make complaints of discrimination to organizations like the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination based on race, must prove two things: that discrimination happened and that it was based on race. This is almost impossible to do as most organizations require proof similar to that of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC). The HRLSC is an independent agency, funded by the Government of Ontario, to provide legal services to individuals who have experienced discrimination. Its website states:

“To prove discrimination, you must show that there is a connection…between negative treatment that you experienced and one of the personal characteristics (or prohibited grounds of discrimination) listed in the the [Human Rights] Code.

Put another way, to prove discrimination, you need to show…that you were subjected to negative treatment because of your gender, place of origin, family status or any one of the Code-protected personal characteristics.”

Meeting these requirements is next to impossible because, by definition, discrimination means someone doing something to you that they’re not doing to others. How do you prove they’re not doing it to others and that the difference is based on race?

One obvious way to get an answer to the first question in the workplace would be to ask your colleagues if they’re treated the same way. That works for very visible things like telework. For things like that, you don’t even have to ask as, if your manager denies your telework request, it’s pretty easy to see if she approved others’ requests because they’re not around. However, less visible types of discrimination are harder to deal with.

I had such an example recently where my boss called a meeting to engage in what I label “hyper critique”. Hyper critique is when a manager rarely, if ever, praises an employee’s work, but critiques it, most often in private meetings. Hyper critique is a common complaint of our Federal Black Employee Caucus members.

Proving whether my boss hyper critiques my colleagues is challenging. I could ask them, but most people are, understandably, reluctant to admit if they are subject to such things. They’re also often reluctant to admit if they’re not subject to such things as they may see that as admission that they’re getting preferential treatment.

So what can you do? Right now, not much. That’s why I recommend we push the public service to do three things:

  1. Shift the burden of proof to those accused of discrimination instead of their accusers; require the accused to prove that they’re not discriminating.
  2. Until the burden of proof is shifted from accuser to the accused, create a discrimination investigator function staffed with someone given the power to investigate claims of discrimination, including being able to mandate colleagues to reveal, in anonymous interviews, if they have been subject to the same treatment.
  3. Start collecting race-based data on who managers sanction.

People who are being harassed and discriminated against have enough to deal with. Let’s take one thing off their plate.

Note: The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Black Employee Caucus. To contact an FBEC spokesperson use the Contact Us page on FBEC’s website.

Categories
GDPR GoC Regulation SurCap

All the great “free” stuff we get from Google and Facebook is costing us a lot more than our privacy

In my post, COVID-19 could mean we lose and surveillance capitalists win — again, I discussed some of the challenges of surveillance capitalism (surcap). This post starts the discussion of what we can collectively do about those challenges.

One of the first issues is who is “we”? Only those who think there’s a problem will see the need for a solution. However, unlike the rise of the resistance to industrial capitalism that was partly fuelled by people slaving under horrible working conditions, surveillance capitalism’s most negative effects are mostly cloaked. Most people see only the benefits like free search, email and YouTube.  

For those that do see a problem, there are, thus, two challenges:

  1. How to fight back.
  2. How to get more people to join the fight.

As knowing how to fight back is key to getting more people to join the fight, let’s focus on that for now.

The success of surveillance capitalism is due to a lot more than lots of folks feeling hooked on great, free tools like Facebook and Gmail. In her book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, released in February 2019, Shoshana Zuboff identifies 16 reasons for surcap’s success. Here are 7 of them, including the most personal ones:

  1. Unprecedented – Surcap is a completely new phenomenon so we have a hard time fully understanding it as we tend to compare it to things we know.
  2. Velocity – “Surcap rose from invention to domination in record time”, says Zuboff. She says this is by design to freeze resistance while distracting us with immediate gratification.
  3. Inevitability – Surcap rhetoric makes us believe that it’s all inevitable and we should simply accept it, enjoy its benefits – and don’t think too much about any possible down side.
  4. Inclusion – Paraphrasing Zuboff, “Many people feel that if you’re not on Facebook, you don’t exist. People all over the world raced to participate in Pokemon Go. With so much energy, success and money flowing into surcap, standing outside of it, let alone against it, can feel like a lonely and risky prospect.”
  5. Ignorance – Surcap’s inner workings are secretive by design. Their systems are intended to ensnare us, preying on our vulnerabilities bred by an unequal balance of knowledge, and amplified by our scarcity of time, resources and support.
  6. Dependency – Most people find it difficult to withdraw from using surcap’s free tools and many wonder if it is even possible.
  7. No alternatives – There just aren’t great alternatives to Google Search, in terms of quality, and Facebook in terms of ubiquity. There are better alternatives to things like Gmail and Google Docs but, with so many people using them, it’s very hard to switch.

However we decide to combat surcap, one thing is clear: we can’t do it on our own. Stopping surcap’s march will require many of us constantly pushing our governments to bring in effective regulation – and working to get more folks to join the fight. 

In terms of government regulations, Zuboff says many hopes today are pinned on the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which became enforceable in May 2018. The EU approach fundamentally differs from that of the US in that companies must justify their data activities within the GDPR’s regulatory framework. The regulations introduce several key new substantive and procedural features, including:

  • a requirement to notify people when personal data is breached;
  • a high threshold for the definition of “consent” that puts limits on a company’s reliance on this tactic to approve personal data use;
  • a prohibition on making personal information public by default;
  • a requirement to use privacy by design when building systems;
  • a right to erasure of data; and
  • expanded protections against decision making authored by automated systems that imposes “consequential” effects on a person’s life.

The new regulatory framework also imposes substantial fines for violations, which will rise to a possible 4% of a company’s global revenue, and it allows for class-action lawsuits in which users can combine to assert their rights to privacy and data protection. 

In May, 2019, Jim Balsillie, co-founder of Research in Motion that created the Blackberry, made other suggestions for what governments can do. Balsillie appeared as a witness, alongside Zuboff and Zucked author Roger McNamee, at a hearing of the International Grand Committee on Big Data, Privacy and Democracy, in Ottawa and suggested:

  1. Eliminating tax deductions of specific categories of online ads.
  2. Banning personalized online advertising during elections.
  3. Implementing strict data governance regulations for political parties.
  4. Providing effective whistle-blower protections.
  5. Adding explicit personal liability alongside corporate responsibility to affect CEO and board of director decision-making.
  6. Creating a new institution for like-minded nations to address digital co-operation and stability.

The Grand Committee is a first step towards achieving #6 as it has members from around the globe, some of whom come from countries like the Philippines which are already experiencing life and death consequences of uncontrolled surcap. However, it is #5 that may have the most impact given one of the most dangerous impacts of surcap: an increase in online hate fuelled by real “fake news”.

One of the points that came through clearly at the Committee hearing is the most disturbing: surcap companies resist removing hateful content and fake news because it generates by far the most engagement and the most money. Balsillie’s point was that making CEOs and board members personally liable for such content would make them think twice about letting it proliferate on their platforms.

So now it’s up to us to demand that our political leaders start implementing ideas like Balsilli’s.

Our very freedom is at stake just like it was during the Second World War. Only this time, instead of being controlled through blatant terror by a power that knows very little about us, we’re being controlled through hidden systems by powers that know almost everything about us.

Categories
COVID19 SurCap

COVID-19 could mean we lose and surveillance capitalists win — again

This post is on rabble.ca

Update, April 18 – Since posting this, I found some good blog posts on The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Barbara Fisher’s post, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: A Mixed Review on the Inside Higher Ed site, nicely explains how businesses aren’t just using the predictions about our behaviour that they buy from surveillance capitalists to help them better target their ads:

“That Fitbit your employer paid for? It feeds information to insurers that can use to change your behaviour and reduce costs – or charge you more if you don’t comply. Google drove into our neighbourhoods with camera-equipped cars to capture images of our communities and create detailed maps that will be useful for routing their self-driving cars and even planning entire cities where everything will be connected and everyone’s life experience moment by moment can be rendered as data.”

Categories
Education OCDSB Trustees

Covid19 brings out the best in all of us (ok, only some of us)

Although the covid19 pandemic has generated lots of great stories of people coming together to help one another it has also led to the kind of stories that don’t surprise Black folks one bit: covid-related confrontations with white people.

On Friday March 27, a young Black man here in Ottawa was the victim of such a confrontation with a white woman who apparently was a self-appointed covid19 rule enforcer.

After being cooped up for weeks, the young man had sought out, and found, an empty basketball court to shoot some hoops. While there, he was confronted by a woman who accused him of breaking covid19 social distancing protocols and proceeded to interrogate and verbally threaten him. She then posted her version of events on Facebook, including this comment:

“So I had to go to the drugstore for an essential and then bought deodorant. I am sure my pets love me no matter what I smell like. When I got home people playing basketball in the park. Went over to politely ask them to leave, kid gave me attitude and played dumb. Then I said, parlez-voux francais? Yeh kid I can argue in both official languages.” (sic)

In her post, she also revealed what elementary school the boy, now in high school, had attended.

According to the boy’s father, and clearly evident from the picture taken by the woman herself, his son was in fact at the park by himself as he had specifically looked for a hoop with no one around.

(I include the photo only because it was already published online as, unlike the woman apparently, I want to respect the boy’s privacy and I care about his safety). The boy also told his father that the woman said, “Oh you’re graduating? If you are, I will be at the graduation ceremony and I will trip you before you get your diploma.” and “You’re going to go to Innes road”, clearly making the racist insinuation that, because he is Black, the young man is destined to end up in Ottawa’s notorious detention centre.

The woman’s actions were appalling, especially given who she is: Donna Blackburn, the Ottawa Carleton District School Board trustee for the very school the boy attends.

Blackburn’s actions violate school board policy on a number of fronts.

The Board’s Code of Conduct states that, “It is a policy of the Board that a positive school climate exists when all members of the school community feel safe, comfortable, accepted and valued.” Blackburn’s actions will clearly make the young man feel the exact opposite. 

The Code’s standards of behaviour fall into two categories: things that people should do and things they should not do. It states that all members of the school community should, “act with decorum and be respectful of other Board members, staff, students and the public.” The Code says that school community members should not engage in bullying behaviours and what Blackburn did was clearly bullying.

Blackburn’s actions also violate the Board’s privacy policy which states that members of the school community should, “…practice good digital citizenship by being respectful when they post photos of others, which includes only posting photos involving…students with permission.”

This is not the first time that Blackburn has run afoul of Board policy. In December 2016, she was under fire for accusing her Board colleague, Erica Braunovan, of “buying her children” after Braunovan adopted two young daughters from Guyana. Then, a year later, in December 2017, Braunovan filed another complaint against Blackburn for emails Blackburn sent her that, once again, violated the Board’s Code.

The Black community quickly mobilized to demand Blackburn’s resignation and that effort continues. However, the larger question is why Blackburn has been allowed to remain and do so much damage for so long? It’s true that, as she’s an elected school trustee, she can’t be “fired”, but there are clearly other ways to get problem trustees to “see the light” and do the right thing. This seems to have been accomplished with York region school trustee, Nancy Elgie, following public outrage at her racist comments.

Both cases also raise questions about why these people were elected in the first place. Did they only put on their metaphorical white hoods after the election – or did voters elect them with their hoods proudly on?

Food for thought…