By Hilbert Haar
I’m still not sure whether the guerilla warfare that is currently underway to convince voters to choose a particular party on February 26 is because of Hurricane Irma our political parties do not have wealthy sponsors anymore to finance their expensive billboards or that it’s because we have entered a new era in political campaigning fueled by technology.
This thought came up after reports emerged about robo-calls and complaints to telecom provider UTS about these unsolicited calls. UTS quickly explained that it had not sold its phone numbers to any political party; instead, the provider noted, robots are used to generate random phone numbers. Once they connect and the phone is picked up, the receiver hears a pre-recorded message.
A Facebook post by the inevitable Gromyko Wilson suggests that the United Democrats are using this technology to reach out to voters; Wilson posted that he had received an election message this way from MP Sarah Wescot-Williams.
The question on many people’s mind is now whether the United Democrats are violating privacy legislation with these unsolicited calls; and if this is the case, what receivers of these calls can do against it.
St. Maarten has a law that protects the privacy of citizens. This national ordinance mainly sets the rules for processing personal data, but it does not say anything about computer generated cold calls.
A couple of years ago, I worked on a project that I thought would be interesting for – for instance – security companies. I started compiling a database of felons and the verdicts against them. Interesting background information for companies who want to know whom they are hiring. But I soon found out that creating that information is against the law – so I dropped it.
In the Netherlands, consumers are able to protect themselves against unsolicited phone calls by registering in the national do-not-call registry. The law that underpins this registry was established nine years ago, in 2009. It obliges telemarketeers to check the register before they make a call. If you’re in the registry, they are not allowed to call you.
The robo-calls that are now ambushing the electorate in St. Maarten are (probably) not against the law. It is a cheap way to reach voters, but whether the receivers of those calls appreciate the method is another matter altogether.
What happened to political candidates going door to door to talk to people face to face?
It would be interesting to get an opinion about the question whether what these robots do is the same as processing personal data. After all, the robot generates random phone numbers and when it finds one that actually exists, it makes the connection. If the robot processes information that falls under our privacy legislation, the question becomes relevant who is responsible for these actions. To me, the answer is clear: the party that uses this technology.
The problem with all this is that it is up to the recipients of unsolicited calls to take action and a situation only gets corrected after the fact; that’s how this works in the Netherlands.
In St. Maarten, it is currently questionable whether consumers are protected under our privacy legislation against unsolicited phone calls.
And I don’t think anyone will soon hear a recorded message like this one: “Hi, I’m Chanel Brownbill and I am a candidate for the United Democrats. Vote for me! I’m all for transparency so you may know that I have to appear in criminal court because I ducked taxes to the tune of 1.2 million guilders over the past eight years, but I want you to know that I didn’t do anything wrong. Trust me, and vote for me on February 26.”
