We talk often about digital privacy, but a deeper problem lies beneath: data colonialism. Just as colonial empires once extracted resources from colonised lands, today, corporations and states harvest vast troves of personal and societal data from around the world. In doing so, they often relegate the individuals and communities from whom the data originates to “data providers” with little control or benefit.
What does it mean for our rights, identities, and the sovereignty of nations? And how can law respond to a system built on extraction, not consent?
What Is Data Colonialism?
Data colonialism is a term used to describe how data generation, collection, and usage replicate the logic of historical colonialism—namely:
Extraction of valuable resources (here: data)
Control over infrastructure and platforms
Monetisation of what was formerly public or generative
Unequal power relations between data extractors and those from whom the data is drawn
In this framework, people become sources of raw material for AI, recommendation engines, surveillance systems, and targeted ad economies. The value flows outward; recognition, recourse, and reward rarely flow inward.
As one commentator put it, data colonialism is not metaphorical but literal in the way it normalises the dispossession of data as a resource. policyreview.info
Historical Parallels and Power Asymmetries
Data colonialism builds on legacies of colonial exploitation. Just as traditional colonial powers claimed lands as “terra nullius” (empty and unclaimed) to legitimise appropriation, data colonialism treats personal data as “free to take” by virtue of digital connectivity and minimal regulation.
In practice:
Tech giants concentrated in the Global North (e.g. U.S., China) wield disproportionate control over cloud infrastructure, data centres, undersea cables, and analytics platforms. old.law.columbia.edu+2UNESCO+2
Communities in the Global South often lack robust legal protections, giving large firms leeway to aggregate, filter, and commercialise their data with minimal accountability. UMich Law Scholarship Repo+1
Corporate influence on legal regimes allows data extractors to lobby for favourable rules or weak enforcement, reinforcing their dominance. Default+1
Thus, the architecture of data control mirrors older colonial hierarchies—only now the “soil” is information.
Key Legal Challenges
1. Consent & Meaningfulness
Many data practices (e.g. scraping, profiling, AI training) rely on broad, unclear consent agreements—“click-wraps” that few read. The question: does consent under asymmetrical power exercise legitimise extraction? In many cases, the answer is no.
2. Ownership & Property in Data
Can data be owned? Should individuals or communities have a property right in their data? Legal systems are split. Some see data as a “thing” with property-like status; others view it as a set of rights (access, deletion, control).
3. Cross-border Data Flows
Data frequently moves across national boundaries—where should it be governed? Many countries assert data sovereignty (i.e. data generated in their territory should be regulated locally) to reclaim control. Wikipedia+1
Yet global flows of data challenge the capacity of national law to enforce control over foreign platforms.
4. Surveillance, Profiling & Discrimination
Data extraction enables powerful profiling, predictive judgments, and surveillance systems. The harms disproportionately impact marginalised communities, exacerbating inequality. Law Faculty+2UNESCO+2
5. Infrastructure Control & Gatekeeping
Control over the digital highways—cloud providers, platforms, data marketplaces—is itself a form of dominance. Entities that control access to infrastructure can dictate terms of data use, pricing, and participation.
Case Studies & Illustrations
Getty Images v. Stability AI & dataset scraping
Getty Images alleges that large-scale image scraping for AI training constitutes copyright and derivative infringement—this is an input problem that closely mirrors data colonialism dynamics. Harvard Law ReviewDigital colonialism in Africa
Many African countries have weak enforcement of data protection laws. Companies extract vast volumes of personal data while regulatory constraints remain limited. UMich Law Scholarship Repo+1US “data grabs” and federal data appropriation
Some commentators frame recent moves to extract federal or public data by private actors as an extension of data colonialism into the U.S. itself. LSE BlogsIndigenous data sovereignty
Indigenous communities have pioneered the concept of data sovereignty—the principle that Indigenous peoples must control the collection, ownership, and use of data generated from them. This includes the CARE Principles: Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics. arXiv+2Wikipedia+2
Paths Toward Reform and Resistance
1. Data Sovereignty Frameworks
Nations and communities seeking to reclaim control should implement data sovereignty regimes—requiring local storage, local legal jurisdiction, and governance structures that favour local stakeholders. Wikipedia+1
2. Indigenous and Community Governance
Centre for Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Practice data governance by and for the communities from which data originates, rather than top-down extraction. arXiv+2Wikipedia+2
3. Regulating Big Tech and Data Monopolies
Introduce antitrust scrutiny over data accumulation, regulate data marketplaces, enforce stricter privacy rules, and limit upstream access to foundational datasets.
4. Transparency, Auditing & Accountability
Require algorithmic impact assessments, disclosures of data sources and pipelines, human review, and enforce auditability of AI/analytics systems.
5. Global Cooperation & Aligning Standards
Cross-border alliances (e.g., Global South coalitions) can push for harmonised data governance rules that limit exploitative extraction. Tech Policy Press+1
6. Digital Literacy and Public Advocacy
Empower individuals through awareness, tools to control personal data, and legal literacy so that data extraction is more contested and negotiated.
Conclusion
Data colonialism is one of the defining legal and political battles of the digital age. It forces us to confront who truly owns information, who benefits, and whose rights are subordinated.
As law evolves, it must not merely regulate extraction — it must recenter control in the hands of data subjects, communities, and nations. Only then can we transform data from a vehicle of domination into a foundation of participatory justice.
In the words of scholars, data colonialism is not just about technology — it’s about power. The future of law depends on recognising that.
Lexdot simplifies connecting with legal professionals across borders for flexible and on-demand legal services.
