UPDATE: A complete set of Māori ethics Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti and Māori Ethics Guidelines for: AI, Algorithms, Data and IOT

This is the third in a series of articles I am writing about Māori ethics with AI, Data sovereignty and Robotics*. Article 2 Māori ethics associated with AI systems architecture and Article 1 Māori cultural considerations with Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. The next article is Indigenising the Internet.

To attain national-scale applicability within New Zealand, an Artificial Intelligence platform must be co designed and have co governance with Māori to support Māori principles that are applied both to personal data and to systems of ethics. As Kukatai and Taylor note, Indigenous data sovereignty raises “a wide-ranging set of issues, from legal and ethical dimensions around data storage, ownership, access and consent, to intellectual property rights and practical considerations about how data are used in the context of research, policy and practice (Tahu Kukutai & John Taylor eds., 2016).

An AI system built without Indigenous collaboration at all levels of the decision-making process will likely impact negatively on the Indigenous Peoples way of life, their spirituality, wellbeing and would likely result in the creation of bias algorithms.

In terms of management of data about people, applying provenance tracking and information flow control to support determining how Māori data influences decisions is necessary. First, this will help support a necessary contrast to typical software engineering approaches for managing the security and privacy of personal data; it is recognised that Māori data contains a part of the people the data is about, no matter how anonymized the data is (Taiuru, 2018). This is not unique to Māori, but common amongst other Indigenous Peoples (Radin.J, 2017). For example, a health study of diabetes among tribal members requires researchers to take physical samples from participants, as well as information about his or her family members and lifestyle choices, such as diet and exercise habits. (Radin.J, 2017). The health information is associated with the person, and, even if the data is “de-identified” in the future to meet privacy restrictions, that information is the person. (Radin,J. 2017). For this reason, Maori and Iwi have a strong interest in exercising their sovereignty to protect the interests of its members. Some tribal leaders might even consider this a sacred responsibility (Rodriguez-Lonebear.D, 2016).

Māori data is not always owned by any one individual, but is owned collectively by one or more family units, clans or tribes. Individuals’ rights (including privacy rights). Risks and benefits in relation to data need to be balanced with those of the groups of which they are a part. In some contexts; collective Māori rights will prevail over those of individuals (Te Mana Raraunga, 2018).

The New Zealand government have partnership obligations with Māori described in the Treaty of Waitangi 1840. The Treaty recognises equal partnerships and the right for Māori to govern their own treasures (Orange & New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. Historical Publications, 1992). New Zealand is also a signatory to The United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights. This deceleration recommends Indigenous Peoples have a number of rights in relation to data (UN, 2011).

Māori Data Sovereignty recognises that Māori data should be subject to Māori governance as Article I of the Treaty of Waitangi states (Hudson, 2018). More generally, the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty include the right of Indigenous peoples to determine the means of collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination and reuse of data pertaining to the Indigenous peoples from whom it has been derived, or to whom it relates. Indigenous data sovereignty centers on Indigenous collective rights to data about our peoples, territories, lifeways and natural resources (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). Consent to use Indigenous data requires full discourse of usage, storage and current and future predicted risks. The disclosure will often require a communal consent process.

Systems of ethics for Māori is about tikanga. Tikanga reflects Māori values and beliefs and is the way Māori view the world (Te Puni Kokiri,1994). Tikanga is a Māori custom, like common law that is founded on long accepted practices and traditional knowledge and religion; it does not preclude new circumstances and needs as they arise (Benton, Frame, Meredith, & Te Mātāhauariki, 2013). Tikanga recognises Māori data as a living treasure such as songs, proverbs and prayers; it is an inter-generational format. People analytics systems within New Zealand should endeavor to integrate tikanga.

Digital colonialism deals with the ethics of digitizing Indigenous data and information without fully informed consent. Digital colonialism is the new deployment of a quasi-imperial power over a vast number of people, without their explicit consent, manifested in rules, designs, languages, cultures and belief systems by a vastly dominant power (Renata Avila, 2017). A new form of imperialism by technology conglomerates for commercial gains; academics and researchers to advance science, technology and research (Taiuru 2015).

A new AI system should use kaupapa Māori frameworks developed specifically from a Māori perspective, such as Ngā Tapa Whā (Durie, 1984), and Te Wheke (Pere, 2011). However, these projects pre-date large-scale, data-driven people analytics platforms. Therefore, to avoid global trends of cultural and minority bias algorithms, general ethical Māori concepts using a Māori customary ethics test should be considered (Mead.S., 2016).

References

Benton, R., Frame, A., Meredith, P., & Te Mātāhauariki, I. (2013). Te Mātāpunenga: a compendium of references to the concepts and institutions of Māori customary law. Wellington: Victoria University Press.

Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, Building a Data Revolution in Indian Country, in Indigenous Data Soverignity: Toward and Agenda 253, 268 (Tahu Kukutai & John Taylor eds., 2016) (citing interview with a tribal leader).

Durie, M. (1984). Te Whare Tapa Whā

Hudson, M. (2018). Social License: A Maori’s Perspective. In M. R. t. M. D. S. Network (Ed.).

Joanna Radin, “Digital Natives”: How Medical and Indigenous Histories Matter for Big Data, 32 OSIRIS 43, 62 (2017) (referring to comments by Rebecca Lemov and Dan Bouk).

Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda: ANU Press.

Mead, S. M. (2016). Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values (Revis ed.). Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Orange, C., & New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. Historical Publications, B. (1992). The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, N.Z: Bridget Williams Books with assistance from the Historical Publications Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs.

Pere, R. (2011). Te Wheke

Renata Avila (2017) Resisting digital colonialism. Internet Health Report 2018. Retrieved from https://internethealthreport.org/2018/resisting-digital-colonialism/

Taiuru, K. (2015). Definition: Digital Colonialism Retrieved from https://www.taiuru.maori.nz/definition-digital-colonialism/

Taiuru, K. (2018). Data is a Taonga. A customary Māori perspective. Retrieved from https://www.taiuru.maori.nz/data-is-a-taonga/

Te Mana Raraunga, 2018. Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty Brief #1 | October 2018

Te Puni Kokiri (1994). Health sector ethics: Nga tikanga pono wahanga hauora: Mechanisms for Māori into ethical review, Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry of Māori Development.

UN. (2011). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(3), 909-921.

*This is a modified article that I wrote for The School of Computer Science of Auckland University.