Identification technologies like biometrics have long been associated with securitisation, coercion and surveillance but have also, in recent years, become constitutive of a politics of empowerment, particularly in contexts of international aid. Aid organisations tend to see digital identification technologies as tools of recognition and inclusion rather than oppressive forms of monitoring, tracking and top-down control. In addition, practices that many critical scholars describe as aiding surveillance are often experienced differently by humanitarian subjects. This commentary examines the fraught questions this raises for scholars of international aid, surveillance studies and critical data studies. We put forward a research agenda that tackles head-on how critical theories of data and society can better account for the ambivalent dynamics of ‘power over’ and ‘power to’ that digital aid interventions instantiate.

诸如生物识别技术之类的识别技术长期以来一直与证券化，胁迫和监视相关联，但近年来也已成为授权政治的组成部分，特别是在国际援助的情况下。援助组织倾向于将数字标识技术视为识别和包含的工具，而不是监视，跟踪和自上而下的控制形式。另外，许多批评学者将其描述为辅助监视的做法，人道主义主体常常会有不同的经历。这篇评论探讨了国际援助，监视研究和关键数据研究学者提出的烦恼问题。