linnetelwin.bsky.social

@linnetelwin.bsky.social

Hanging around causing trouble in NL, working at Tilburg on data and representation. I’m sceptical about the whole thing tbh.

So proud of all our Global Data Justice project network for producing this set of essays - if you want to know how the field has developed across regions over the last decade, check this out. And it’s open access!

Aaron Martin@sixfouronea.net · 3mo ago

At last, our 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩 edited volume is now available online (OA). A key deliverable of @linnetelwin.bsky.social's Global Data Justice project, the book explores and extends philosopher Tamar Sharon's 'sphere transgressions' theory in an international perspective. 📖 doi.org/10.4324/9781...

Transgressive Tech: The privatization of the public interest (book cover)

After submitting a FOIA request UKRI, I obtained success rates by three grant call scheme and I can only say that I am disheartened by the results: - AHRC Responsive Mode 2025: 2% - ESRC New Investigator Grant 2025: 1% - ESRC Research Grant Round 2025: 1%

"We were excited to have a panel accepted on the role of technology in genocide in Gaza at this year’s Computers, Privacy & Data Protection (CPDP) conference in Brussels. However, CPDP then requested that Access Now & others remove the word “genocide” from panel titles & descriptions. We declined."

Two accepted panels on Palestine were targeted after the preliminary programme was published online: Technologies at war: The role of tech companies and the EU in facilitating war crimes and genocide in Gaza, and Cyber Surveillance and Data Violence in Palestine: Protection, Practice, and Legality. CPDP approached the panel organisers and advised them to remove the word ‘genocide’ in the titles and descriptions, including references to crimes and violations of international law. 

CPDP then unjustifiably singled out these two panels with a disclaimer that read: “The text of this panel represents the opinions of the Panel Organiser and not those of CPDP. The case before the ICJ regarding the categorization of Israel’s activities in Gaza has yet to be decided.” Upon the request of the panels’ organisers, the disclaimer was removed. 

Discussions about human rights abuses, atrocity crimes, or genocide do not require a court ruling to be legitimate. At the core of international law and human rights work is prevention — a responsibility that also extends to private companies, which are expected to identify and mitigate risks of contributing to such abuses. These obligations are clear under the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The  International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its provisionary measures orders, affirmed the responsibility of state and non-state actors to take actions in the face of a clear and imminent risk of genocide.  Multiple UN bodies and experts, genocide scholars, and leading human rights organisations have already categorised the Israeli conduct in Gaza as genocide that has met all legal elements of this crime.