From Voice to Leverage in Data Governance. Building Enforceable Social License for Data ReUse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.05731v1
• Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 21:30:57 GMT
• Title: From Voice to Leverage in Data Governance. Building Enforceable Social License for Data ReUse
• Abstract summary: Citizens assemblies, deliberative polls, codesign workshops, and community advisory panels are now routinely suggested to build trust and secure a social license for the reuse of data.<n>This paper argues that the field needs to complement voice with leverage.<n>Individuals and communities can make their participation consequential by attaching credible legal, institutional, contractual, economic, or reputational costs to being ignored.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Contemporary data governance has converged on participation. Citizens assemblies, deliberative polls, codesign workshops, and community advisory panels are now routinely suggested to build trust and secure a social license for the reuse of data. Yet this consensus rests on an unexamined assumption: that giving affected communities a voice will, on its own, change what data holders do. This paper argues that the field needs to complement voice with leverage: the capacity of individuals and communities to make their participation consequential by attaching credible legal, institutional, contractual, economic, or reputational costs to being ignored. Drawing on labor relations bargaining theory, the sociology of disputes, and James C. Scott's account of legibility, we develop leverage as an analytic category defined by three properties: it is counterfactual, enforceable, and durable. We further argue that leverage presupposes epistemic legibility affected publics can rarely impose costs on a system they cannot see, document, or contest; and that most existing transparency instruments equip regulators and procurers rather than the governed. We then map six sources from which communities and data subjects can derive leverage (legal and regulatory; institutional decision; contractual; economic; data access; and political and reputational), examine the intermediary structures that aggregate and sustain it, and propose a six dimension evaluative framework: obligation, enforceability, consequence, monitoring equipment, revocability, and institutional durability for auditing whether any social license process actually redistributes power. The paper's central claim is that a social license worth the name must share the properties of a legal license: conditions, a licensor, and enforceable remedies for breach.

Related papers

• Software Engineering in the Agent Era From Trustworthy Change to Human Agent Software Organizations [4.180009544319738]
  Software agents make digital execution elastic.<n>Problem framing, semantic commitment, verification, integration, attention, and residual-risk acceptance remain bounded by human cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T02:05:35Z)
• Traceable, Enforceable, and Compensable Participation: A Participation Ledger for People-Centered AI Governance [0.0]
  We introduce the Participation Ledger, a framework that operationalizes participation as traceable influence, enforceable authority, and compensable labor.<n>The ledger represents participation as an influence graph that links contributed artifacts to verified changes in AI systems.<n>It integrates three elements: a Participation Evidence Standard documenting consent, privacy, compensation, and reuse terms; an influence tracing mechanism that connects system updates to replayable before and after tests, enabling longitudinal monitoring of commitments; and encoded rights and incentives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T14:53:58Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• PETLP: A Privacy-by-Design Pipeline for Social Media Data in AI Research [2.185322080975722]
  PETLP (Privacy-by-design Extract, Transform, Load, and Present) is a compliance framework that embeds legal safeguards directly into extended pipelines.<n>We demonstrate how extraction rights fundamentally differ between qualifying research organisations.<n>We show why true anonymisation remains unachievable for social media data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T08:33:40Z)
• Governments Should Mandate Tiered Anonymity on Social-Media Platforms to Counter Deepfakes and LLM-Driven Mass Misinformation [0.6554326244334868]
  Tiers are determined by a given user's $textitreach score.<n>Tier 2 requires private legal-identity linkage for accounts with some influence.<n>Tier 3 would require per-post, independent, ML-assisted fact-checking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T11:18:10Z)
• Trustless Audits without Revealing Data or Models [49.23322187919369]
  We show that it is possible to allow model providers to keep their model weights (but not architecture) and data secret while allowing other parties to trustlessly audit model and data properties. We do this by designing a protocol called ZkAudit in which model providers publish cryptographic commitments of datasets and model weights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T04:43:06Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• Auditing and Generating Synthetic Data with Controllable Trust Trade-offs [54.262044436203965]
  We introduce a holistic auditing framework that comprehensively evaluates synthetic datasets and AI models. It focuses on preventing bias and discrimination, ensures fidelity to the source data, assesses utility, robustness, and privacy preservation. We demonstrate the framework's effectiveness by auditing various generative models across diverse use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T09:03:18Z)
• Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest [70.02478301291264]
  Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse. Prior studies have used black-box methods to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes. We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T17:32:35Z)
• A relationship and not a thing: A relational approach to algorithmic accountability and assessment documentation [3.4438724671481755]
  We argue that developers largely have a monopoly on information about how their systems actually work. We argue that robust accountability regimes must establish opportunities for publics to cohere around shared experiences and interests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T23:22:03Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.