Stop the World Bank and Charities’ Programs Without Evidence They Will Avoid Documented Harms

The World Bank and various charities appear to support the extension of technology, including
surveillance, to rural and slum areas. These areas have various characteristics:

• Despite poverty, electromagnetically they may be some of the safer places on Earth.
• People within them suffer from deprivation.
• These areas have been used for experimentation in the past by charitable actors, who take
  advantage of the lack of regulation, and the illiteracy of peasants or urban dwellers.
• The extension of any infrastructure which does not provide extensive protections, or has any known
  or anticipated harms, should not be funded.
  

Schools

It is true education in various countries is not effective. However, the solution may be well paid
teachers to provide supplemental instruction outside of school, as has been recommended.
Technology should not be a solution, unless there is both privacy through the learning devices (with
no coordination with other devices), low levels of electromagnetic exposure, and other evaluation
that ensures no violation of human or legal rights (which seems unlikely).

Questions include:

• Will any personal data be collected on children if technology is deployed to new schoolhouses or
  elsewhere through deployed devices or any other objects or devices?
• How do we know the answer above is accurate and legally enforceable, given the numerous
  violations of privacy expectations within contracts, and the unexpected sharing of information?
• Are children given training on what is actual information and the quality of sources (although we believe they
  should not have internet access until the above are met?)
• Are cameras blocked except for applications in which there is no data collection (either through the
  application or other internet of things devices)?
• There is a discussion of "values" for one or more programs. What does this mean? Does a program favor speaking to those who may have information obtained from one and/or manipulated through algorithms, such that a value of privacy is judged to be anti-social (this is one example)?

Sustainable agriculture

For rural peasants, the lack of visibility may be one reason they are able to hold on to their farmland,
even in the midst of a major grab for it globally by the powerful.

• No sensors or radiofrequency -- Will any sensors or radiofrequency be used? (Should this not take
  place given the extensive damage to plants that has been documented?)
• No provision of information -- Who will receive information on it? Why should they, and how do we
  know it will not go to anyone else without meaningful consent and accountability should this occur?
• Will this be used with genetic modified crops which are famous for requiring high amounts of water
  (and pesticides?) Should they not be banned?