This Chapter describes principles of information management for health systems and the need to focus on key data items required to improve individual and population health. It discusses the collection and analysis of relevant, high-quality data and the importance of agreeing on health programme aims before defining the minimum data set. We review the derivation of health indicators, focusing on WHO indicators. Many indicators rely on linking data from different sources, which requires accurate personal identifiers. Data is useless unless reports based on it can be shared and understood, so data analysts should use different visualization techniques to facilitate and support user decisions such as self-service dashboards. We also review the many high quality, open source, free to use data capture, analysis and data sharing tools that can support health systems, concluding that it is rarely necessary to develop an information system from scratch. Finally, while big data analytics, artificial intelligence and machine learning capture many headlines, health system can achieve much using simple tools to capture relevant, high-quality data and turn it into actionable knowledge to support their decision makers.

Chapter two considers the interwoven interests of individual participants, collectives interests and the wider public interests in research using linked data. The chapter discusses the research participants interests including dignity, autonomy and privacy and the traditional approaches to protecting them — consent and anonymisation — and concludes that these do not operate to effectively to protect individual interests in this context. Research using linked data can also have impacts, both beneficial and harmful on others, including socio-demographic groups, disease groups and the wider community and these should be explicitly recognised and evaluated by decision makers. The current legal and ethical regulation of data linkage research are critiqued for being too individualistic and alternative approaches are discussed.

Chapter two considers the interwoven interests of individual participants, collectives interests and the wider public interests in research using linked data. The chapter discusses the research participants interests including dignity, autonomy and privacy and the traditional approaches to protecting them — consent and anonymisation — and concludes that these do not operate to effectively to protect individual interests in this context. Research using linked data can also have impacts, both beneficial and harmful on others, including socio-demographic groups, disease groups and the wider community and these should be explicitly recognised and evaluated by decision makers. The current legal and ethical regulation of data linkage research are critiqued for being too individualistic and alternative approaches are discussed.

This chapter examines a third pro-migration activist intervention, which involves the dressing of unmarked graves at cemeteries in which the bodies of those who died en route are buried. It situates the intervention in relation to existing instruments of containment charted in Part I and shows how grave dressing challenges biopolitical, thanatopolitical and zoopolitical dynamics of governing migration through death and vulnerability by accounting for the lives of those who have died at sea. The chapter draws on research carried out in Lampedusa and considers how cemetery activism invokes dignity in death through the naming of the deceased and the marking of graves as sites of loss and mourning. In so doing, it shows how such interventions go beyond an action for the dead alone, albeit in terms that bring to bear tensions between and within a politics of pity and a politics of empathy. By exploring different strands of cemetery activism, the chapter highlights the critical importance of those interventions that involve a refusal of racialised processes of dehumanisation and that extend practices of mourning beyond commemoration in terms that render visible the normalisation of death and vulnerability. It shows how such interventions enact dignity in death through a politics of responsibility that directly challenges authorities for a failure to account for the lives of those lost or disappeared. Grave dressing in this regard not only draws attention to the problems of a politics orientated towards the security of home, but also recreates home in more hopeful terms, through the enactment of a politics of collective responsibility for deaths at sea in solidarity with both the living and the dead.