Seeing Human Rights at Sea: How to Align Tech Development with the Needs of Maritime Human Rights Investigators and Affected Communities
Abstract
Significant effort has been devoted to developing tech tools that leverage data to assist human rights investigations at sea. It is unclear, however, how users incorporate data and data-related tools into their investigations, nor what is needed for tech developments to contribute more value. We present the preliminary findings of a study which used workshops and interviews to examine the practices, experiences, and views of experts who perform maritime human rights investigations. Following a thematic analysis, we find that while there is scope for developers and designers to become involved, technologists’ enthusiasm for cutting-edge solutions appears detached from the context and experience of affected communities. The result is a saturated but opaque market for under-used tech solutions, while communities’ low-tech needs remain unmet. We suggest developers can best contribute to the fight against human rights abuses at sea by adopting deeper forms of engagement that promote communities’ agency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Public procurement of AI systems has relevance for several traditional human-centred domains, including community needs, transparency, AI governance, accountability, and policy.
“Although not commonly recognised as such, the public procurement of AI systems has relevance for several traditional human-centred domains, including community needs [84, 92, 103, 135], transparency [31, 145], AI governance [100, 107, 109, 169, 175], accountability [31, 131, 169, 175], and policy [75, 100, 103].”
From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [84]
Cites
Boy, J., Pandey, A. V., Emerson, J., Satterthwaite, M., Nov, O., & Bertini, E. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025512 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
“It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism
Hudig, A. I., Kallina, E., & Singh, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791968 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hancock, J., Hui, R., Singh, J., & Mazumder, A.
- Affiliations
- The Alan Turing Institute (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-05-02
- Pages
- 1-13
- OpenAlex
- W4396831763
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Human Rights and Development
- Keywords
- human rights at sea, technological progress, affected communities, community participation, user needs, low-tech solutions, human rights violations, community agency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
