Profiling

Profiling is often used to predict people and is associated with the use of technology

Profiling is in the news again after the police and the military allegedly started “profiling” people behind the community pantry concept. Let me say that profiling isn’t strictly unlawful as portrayed today.

Vaccine priority listing, for instance, takes into account the profiles of individuals to determine qualified people to receive the Covid-19 vaccine jab first, based on science and health considerations. The Social Amelioration Program (SAP) distribution of ayuda and the PhilSys (our national ID) targeted registration also takes into account the profile of low-income households for them to be prioritized and receive government aid and services first.

The police must explain the significance of the data collection and processing they are conducting to court our citizens’ trust.

“You have to be selective to be effective,” as I sometimes say when faced with challenges equipped with limited resources. Further, law enforcers may conduct surveillance on individuals based on known characteristics of a suspect within the bounds of a legitimate intelligence operation.

Profiling is often used to predict people and is associated with the use of technology. Profiling generally means the processing of personal data to evaluate and analyze or predict certain unique aspects concerning that person’s performance at work, economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests, reliability, behavior location, or movements.

Even if profiling is the automated processing of data to analyze or make predictions about individuals, assessing or classifying individuals based on characteristics could be considered profiling even without a predicting purpose.

Profiling can be lawful using legitimate interests. It could also prove vital in data governance. But it may pose a threat to the rights or freedoms of individuals if it becomes a weapon to be used to discriminate, install bias, or violate constitutional rights.

Data users should process personal information fairly and lawfully. Profiling should, therefore, not be based on a “catch-all” criterion. Processing should remain ethical in balancing societal objectives like national security and a public health emergency — respecting human dignity and fundamental human rights.

The National Privacy Commission called the attention of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to look into reported incidents of personal data collection employed on organizers of community pantries. We reminded them that should there be a need to collect personal data to maintain peace and order, they must accomplish the same with transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality. And that data subjects’ rights are fully observed.

Primordial to these rights is the right of citizens to be informed on how the police will use their data. Therefore, the police and other competent authorities must inform data subjects why they engage in a particular type of open data collection. They should provide meaningful information about the reason, purpose and logic involved. Likewise, the police must explain the significance of the data collection and processing they are conducting to court our citizens’ trust.

The Data Privacy Act protects us all Filipinos from unfair and unlawful profiling. We encourage the PNP to come up with simple ways to tell citizens why they are asking for personal data, the rationale behind it, and stressing the collection’s significance to attain results that can give hope and build trust to the community in this time of the pandemic.