Does Artificial Intelligence Reproduce Colonialism by Exploiting Indigenous Data Without Consent?

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly exploiting the languages, biometric, geospatial, and ecological data of Indigenous peoples without their consent or fair compensation. This practice echoes colonial methods of resource extraction, but now in digital form. While strict rules exist to govern the use of genetic resources, as outlined in the Nagoya Protocol, nothing comparable protects Indigenous knowledge in the field of AI. Companies and states thus benefit from this knowledge under the guise of open data and scientific neutrality, disregarding the rights recognized by the United Nations.

The extraction of Indigenous data by AI takes several forms. Recordings of endangered languages, such as te reo Māori or ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, have been used without authorization to train voice recognition models. Biometric surveillance disproportionately targets Indigenous communities, particularly during protests or resistance movements. Satellite maps analyzed by AI reveal sacred sites or natural resources, exposing these territories to unwanted intrusions. Finally, the digital exploitation of ecological data allows circumvention of traditional protections, much like biopiracy once did with medicinal plants.

These practices are not neutral. They perpetuate a colonial logic where Indigenous knowledge is treated as freely accessible resources. Yet, for the peoples concerned, language, biometric data, and environmental knowledge are not mere datasets. They embody a culture, an identity, and a deep connection to the land. Their non-consensual appropriation exacerbates inequalities and threatens the sovereignty of communities.

In response to this reality, Indigenous governance frameworks, such as the OCAP and CARE principles, offer an alternative. OCAP asserts that communities must control access to, ownership of, and use of their data. CARE emphasizes the importance of collective benefit, control authority, shared responsibility, and respectful ethics. Integrating these principles into an international mechanism for access and benefit-sharing, inspired by the Nagoya Protocol, could compel AI developers to negotiate with the holders of this knowledge. This would mean obtaining informed consent, defining equitable terms, and redistributing the economic benefits generated by these technologies.

Such a legal framework would transform AI into a tool for justice rather than domination. It would recognize Indigenous peoples not as passive subjects, but as full partners capable of deciding how their data is used. Concrete examples show that this approach works. In Canada, benefit-sharing agreements have already enabled communities to reclaim a portion of the profits derived from their traditional knowledge. In New Zealand, collaborations with tech companies have led to voice recognition tools tailored to local languages, developed with and for the affected communities.

The stakes are high. Without protection, AI risks replicating the worst excesses of colonialism by digitizing the exploitation of peoples and their territories. But with clear and binding rules, it could instead become a lever for cultural revitalization and recognition of Indigenous rights. Technology is not inevitable: its impact depends on the choices we make today.

Documentation and Sources

Reference Document

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02931-z

Title: Preventing AI extractivism: the case for braiding indigenous data justice with ABS for stronger AI data governance

Journal: AI & SOCIETY

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Authors: Maria Schulz; Jordan Loewen-Colón