ArticleJournal of international humanitarian action2025
Examining the applicability of hard data protection law on demographically identifiable information (DII): the case of humanitarian UAV/drone images in Malawi.
Article in Journal of international humanitarian action, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research carried out in Northern Malawi concluded that protecting and ensuring responsible use of drone-collected data in disaster-risk areas should be left entirely to the humanitarian organisations collecting these data, with little participation expected of the affected residents, mostly because they will always be coerced into giving up their data in exchange for assistance. One way to guarantee this protection is by applying national rules of data protection law to these drone data processes in the country. However, aerial drone data (e.g. high-resolution images) of a community would usually be demographically identifiable information (DII) which, unlike personally identifiable information (PII), is not substantively regulated by contemporary hard data protection law, i.e. the 2023 Malawi Data Protection Bill (MDPB) which leaves drone DII without any binding regulatory framework and hence less legal protection. Faced with this regulatory obstacle, this paper sets out to propose and evaluate methods through which the data processing principles and rights provided by the MDPB could nevertheless be applied to regulate drone DII collected and processed by humanitarian organisations in Malawi. First, it sought to establish the feasibility of their application among the humanitarian community: to this end, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with humanitarian officials operating in the country, with results showing that these officials largely believed the MDPB principles and rights could effectively govern their drone data processes. The paper then proposes some regulatory modifications or 'nudges' which, if adopted by Malawian regulators, could probe humanitarian organisations towards applying the MDPB principles and rights to their drone DII processes, and examines how these principles and rights could be reflected in concrete, drone-related internal policies adopted by these organisations. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41018-025-00174-z.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.