Jonathan Cinnamon, "Data inequalities and why they matter for development"

Bibliographic info

Cinnamon, J. (2020). Data inequalities and why they matter for development. Information Technology for Development, 26(2), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1650244

Commentary

What I found most interesting about this paper is that it challenges the common assumption that more data automatically leads to better development outcomes. Cinnamon argues that simply increasing access to digital technologies is no longer enough to understand inequalities in a data-driven society. Instead, he shows that data itself has become a source of power, and that unequal access to collecting, controlling and interpreting data creates new forms of inequality, particularly between large technology companies and the people whose data they collect.

I also appreciated how the paper connects ideas from critical data studies with the field of Data for Development (D4D). Rather than presenting technology as inherently beneficial, Cinnamon highlights that digital participation can also expose people to profiling, surveillance and exploitation. This perspective complements many of the ethical issues discussed during the Digital Ethics course, especially those related to privacy, fairness, and accountability.

One aspect I found less convincing concerns the proposed solutions. While the analysis of data inequalities is thorough and persuasive, the suggested remedies—such as hybrid data collection approaches and managed crowds—seem difficult to implement in many of the low-resource settings discussed throughout the paper. These proposals still require technical expertise, institutional capacity and governance structures that may not always exist. Nevertheless, the paper offers a valuable framework for understanding data inequalities as structural issues rather than purely technological ones.

Excerpts & Key Quotes

The limits of traditional digital divide models

• Page 215

"conventional understandings of digital inequalities are not always sufficient to explain and address some causes, forms, and consequences of emerging inequalities of the data revolution."

Comment

This quote captures the main argument of the article. Traditional models of the digital divide usually focus on access to technology, digital skills and internet use. Cinnamon argues that this perspective is no longer sufficient because data introduces new forms of inequality. People may have full access to digital services while simultaneously losing control over the information they generate. This shifts the discussion from access alone to questions of power, ownership and data governance.

Data shapes reality

• Page 223

"uneven or biased representations as digital data are reontologizing our world: they are not only creating or recreating inequalities between groups such as men and women and places such as Global North and Global South, they are fundamentally changing the material world itself."

Comment

I found this passage particularly thought-provoking. Cinnamon builds on Floridi's idea of "reontologization" to argue that data does not simply describe reality—it actively shapes it. If governments, companies or humanitarian organisations rely on biased datasets, these biases influence real decisions about infrastructure, services and resource allocation. This reinforces existing bias and inequality instead of reducing them. The example of OpenStreetMap illustrates how apparently neutral crowdsourced data can reflect the perspectives of the groups who contribute most actively.

The separation between people and their data

• Page 224

"This 'legal entrepreneurship' by corporations enables a further, ontologically distinct type of data inequality, described by Andrejevic (2014) as the separation of people from their personal data."

Comment

This passage highlights what I consider one of the central ethical problems discussed in the paper. Individuals continuously generate data through their everyday activities, yet they rarely retain meaningful control over how these data are collected, analysed or monetised. Although consent mechanisms formally exist, in practice refusing to participate in digital platforms is increasingly unrealistic. This creates an imbalance between those who produce data and those who benefit from it, raising important questions about data governance, privacy, surveillance capitalism and justice.

bias
digital divide
fairness
privacy
accountability
data governance
surveillance capitalism
inequality