I agree with both Mimi Ọnụọha's and Zach Blas’ points that we should be critical in our approach to data, in both its presence and lack of it. While data has traditionally been thought of as an objective entity and thus a tool for justice and fact, the truth is that it skews to the biases of those who have the power and resources to be collecting data. Data is also far more malleable than we think; how it is collected and presented can heavily affect its final narrative, and does not always serve everyone fairly.
That being said, data is still needed and useful so long as we are aware of its shortcomings. For example, “Fatal Encounters” was a dataset created in response to police brutality, and uncovered how official statistics from law enforcement downplay or outright hide brutality incidents to protect their institutional image and power. In this way, “Fatal Encounters” was data that was important in giving power back to the people, and bringing transparency.
However, Blas discusses transparency and how it may not always be good. He argues that because data is a powerful tool, it also allows for surveillance. He argues that there should be spaces of “informatic opacity”, where people can put certain information and parts of themselves to avoid constant surveillance. I agree with Blas in that transparency should not be the default for every aspect of data in our lives, and that having the choice to be opaque— whether you choose it or not— is a human right.