Integration of modern technologies has made privacy one of the key problems of the 21st century in our networked world. The digital traces we leave behind every time we make a like, share, or search, and shop have turned data into an indispensable asset. With data helping to make the recent technological advancements possible, it has also opened a new era of corporate and governmental monitoring over our day to day lives.
Photo by Glen Carrie on Unsplash
Finding a adjust between keeping up the improvement and benefits of data-driven innovations and ensuring human rights privacy has gotten to be an issue of awesome concern. In today’s computerized environment, where everyone’s individual information appears to be transparent, businesses and governments collect our information, analyze and using it. They utilize the obtained information for prescient examination, personalized suggestions, or set up corresponding marketing methods. Each move we make on the web is being tracked, from the websites we browse to the apps we utilize, indeed when we press “Exit” or “Proceed.” The data collected can reflect what we like, the choices we make, our activities, and indeed what we routinely do at any given minute. Be that as it may, we don’t seem to have a clear idea of where our personal information is being used and whether it’s at risk of being leaked. With the quick advancement of internet, concerns almost privacy breaches moreover raised.
A privacy leak involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica in 2018 caused shocking and serious consequences. Political counseling firm Cambridge Analytica allegedly gotten the individual data of millions of Facebook users without assent and after that utilized the information to target political advertisements that eventually impacted election results. This serious infringement of client privacy highlights the significant results that may cause if companies don’t have a complete measure of protecting consumers’ information utilize. Therefore, it is crucial for companies to consider of taking important measures to ensure client privacy from being abused.
Another case related to consumer privacy is Apple’s declaration of a firm commitment to securing consumer privacy. Apple has presented a few privacy-focused highlights to upgrade security and avoid unauthorized third-party apps and administrations from getting to client information without assent, such as App Following Straightforwardness and E-mail privacy Security, among others. Whereas privacy advocates commended Apple’s proposed measures, the move was opposed by some companies which depend on consumer information for advertising. It can be seen that a key issue that has to be considered when taking measures to ensure individual information is how to require into consideration willingness of cooperate companies at the same time.
Photo by Lianhao Qu on Unsplash
There’s no simple arrangement to this issue of whether a technology ought to be both data-driven and privacy-friendly due to the fundamentally result both for the people and for society. It can be contended, on the one hand, that the stream of free information has brought about in astounding benefits within the areas of medication, instruction, open security, and so on. In spite of the reality that it isn’t conceivable to control what information is collected and how it is dispersed, misuse, control, and a misfortune of privacy and individual flexibility take after.
Traversing through this complicated trail, it is very important to have carefully and thoroughly considered talks on the value of privacy, the ethical limits for data usage, and the role of regulatory norms in protection of individual rights. It is only possible to see the entirety of this problem by looking at all the aspects of it. Without this, we cannot create a digital environment where innovation and respect for the basic human right to privacy can coexist.
Unpacking the Right to Privacy
The essential part of privacy is to have control and freedom over your personal data and not to be exposed to any unwarranted intrusion or surveillance. Yet, the concept of privacy varies from one culture to another. In the U.S., privacy is often framed within the context of individual choice according to the seminal definition by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis in their 1890 Harvard Law Review article, which first concerned the legal concept of privacy (Krotoszynski, 2016). Europe relies more on the concept of human dignity as a base of privacy in which autonomy and rights are regarded as fundamental rights as codified in the European Convention on Human Rights (Olwig, 2019).
Photo by Tobias Tullius on Unsplash
The different Western views demonstrate that privacy is not a cast-in-concrete, absolute right but a value which must be kept in balance with other rights and social needs, such as national security, free expression, and government transparency. Considering this, the possibility to obtain privacy is a privilege only a few can benefit from, as they are the ones who get monitored intensively and lack the means to control their personal information.
Privacy issues in the digital sphere are not only complicated but the complexities are, in fact, growing exponentially. A new and challenging issue arises from the fact that the data generated by our internet behavior makes it possible to collect, aggregate and monetize information in an unprecedented way compared to any privacy regulation written for the times before the digital era (di Vimercati et al., 2020). Today’s machine learning algorithms can keep with or detect us, and group together our digital footprints that include our location trail, website patterns and the likes. Regulators across the world are busily trying to catch up with the speed of technological innovation by amending the legislation to make it comprehensive enough for these technologies which are not only innovative but also transformative.
However, creating a moderated privacy governance for the digital age is a very difficult task. On the other hand, it is a field that not only considers the fundamental rights but also the interests of society – national security over personal liberty, human life vs. dignity. unmanageable inventions, freedom vs. privacy of government and business. Notwithstanding the fact that societies are faced with these clashes, the promotion of cultural notions about what privacy includes and the extent to which it matters has a very strong impact on the different policy perspectives around the globe.
The Governance Tug-of-War
The struggle for data privacy and digital innovations, which are becoming more intensely fought battles, is a rift between governments, tech titans, and citizens’ views on establishing the right governance structures that can find a balance of privacy and innovation. At one end of the spectrum, GDPR which is a General Data Protection Regulation of Europe has the potential to become an exemplary comprehensive data protection platform requiring compliance from the companies at the other side. According to the GDPR that entered into force in 2016 and became enforceable in 2018, European citizens are granted a set of privacy rights, and have more control over their data saved by companies.
The data protection and privacy rights regulations are enforced through consent requirements for data collection, the access to one’s data profiles held by the companies, rights to correct the inaccurate information, and even the powers to have the personal data deleted under certain circumstances. Computers are also restricted from automated decision-making that is based solely on algorithms, and companies are expected to disclose data breaches immediately (Nišević et al., 2022). Australia has taken a more serial approach through the Privacy Act, which is considered by critics an old law in a digital age. The Act follows a conventional “notice and consent” framework that requires ordinary users to delve into and comprehend the intricate, elusive, and rapidly evolving data practices of digital platforms and internet companies.
Photo by Jason Dent on Unsplash
In the wake of the extensive 2022 federal review, a number of proposals have been put forth that would amend Australian law in a way consistent with the GDPR principles – such as the provision of greater enforceable data rights to citizens, stronger penalties for corporate violations, restrictions on certain high-risk data practices like targeted advertising, and the introduction of requirements for valid user consent (FPF, 2023). On the other hand, the reformers claim the reforms are not sufficient to correct the skewed balance of power favoring corporations at the expense of citizens’ privacy.
The United States’ regulatory policy takes a complete opposite approach as compared to the European regime. The collection and the monetization of user’s personal data is now a non-regulated practice by companies and technology corporations online. In this place, the sector-based law intermingles with inter-agency actions by agencies like the Federal Trade Commission using a handful of consumer protection regulations. Nonetheless, the public outcry over the colossal data breaches and privacy mishaps like the unethical exploitation of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica to sway election campaigns, has intensified to the point that the chorus for new comprehensive data privacy rules is clamoring. Nevertheless, despite the on-and-off of comprehensive legislation, the technology lobbies remain strong.
Non-governmental organizations and academicians are of the view that the data privacy framework like GDPR of the West seems to be ineffective when it comes to combating the monopoly of the corporate data giants vis-à-vis the citizens. While GDPR consent requirements may be regarded highly by many, tech companies have however found ways around the law’s spirit through confusions in data policies, bundled required consent terms, and persistent user-reminders.
Governments balancing the competing interests of privacy rights and data collection for digital advertising and data-based business models at corporate scale will be an area that is more likely to heat up. Societies will be subject to a range of governance models for regulating the digital space. This process will involve a balancing act of making various compromises while trying to maintain personal privacy and encourage digital innovation.
Emerging Technologies Blur the Line
Regulators are often a step behind as technologies such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things significantly increase the chance of privacy breaches. With the advent of smart home devices such as Amazon’s Alexa and smart thermostats that continuously collect data about our lives, this has become a matter of concern. Facial recognition algorithms can label us and track us without permission. Additionally, those challenges include AI systems that make autonomous decisions that may influence our lives in such spheres as employment, criminal justice, and housing. Should we have the right to comprehend the data points and algorithmic logic upon which these determinations are made? The question is, what actions are the responsible ones for the “black boxes” systems?
The ever-changing interpretations of privacy in public areas come into play here as well. The information gathered in physical spaces is sometimes considered as “public” and therefore is not supposed to have any protection. Nevertheless, our movements, conferences, and behavior in semi-public locations, such as the workplace or shopping malls, can be subject to certain amounts of privacy that need to be balanced against unfair data gathering.
Notable fines such as Google’s €50 million penalty by French regulators in 2019 demonstrate the EU’s commitment to the GDPR rules of transparency and user consent for data usage. Hence, the data watchdog CNIL concluded that Google did not clearly disclose how user data was processed and then used for personalized adverts (Hern, 2019). This was a lesson not only for the company, but for any organization that handles personal information which should clearly explain what personal data is collected and how consent is obtained.
Finding the Balance
Even though the issues surrounding data privacy are multiple and intricate, some points of consensus are starting to arise around some principles that can serve as a guide to strike a balance between the different interests. Ultimately, privacy should be defined as an unconquerable human right that cannot be signed away through thick and complex legalese designed to blindfold the user’s understanding and consent (Tentu, 2023).
There is a need to revisit the paradigm to privacy-by-default, where companies take the responsibility for collecting data minimum and clearly justifying any intrusion into user privacy by stating legitimate business needs or public interest reasons like law enforcement and public safety. The priority should be on the users of technology rather than the technology themselves, putting the power with the citizen to opt-in instead of the current norm that requires the citizens to check the confusing privacy dashboards to opt-out (Olsthoorn, 2015).
Photo by on Unsplash
An effective data governance regime should also include a robust regulatory system with severe sanctions for firms that misuse or fail to appropriately safeguard personal information. Fines should be proportional to the financial calculations of large technology companies or data brokers that amassed wealth by commercially exploiting data of users without their consent (Johnson, 2022).
Most importantly, it is necessary to have an exceptional degree of transparency, audit, and accountability with the artificial intelligence and decision-making systems that operate autonomously and govern the opportunity to access the main life services such as jobs, housing, education, and financial services. The performance of algorithmic models must be externally monitored, and the models must also be tested for bias in order to avoid the reproduction of systemic discrimination of vulnerable groups by the models. However, in this age of data extraction the most essential is that the citizens should be enabled by public education, and digital literacy programs. Only with critical consciousness-raising can individuals hope to navigate the dizzying privacy tradeoffs they now face and make truly informed decisions around where to draw boundaries on corporate data harvesting.
This equilibrium between the privacy rights and innovation, security and freedom of expression will have to be negotiated by the state bodies, businesses, policy makers, and a highly involved citizenry. There isn’t any pertinent solution, that is, no single law or technology can help to resolve these tensions. Governance of digital privacy is a constant process that will entail tough deliberations on the values and rights of democratic societies as we advance. Nowadays, protecting information privacy and personal autonomy is more than just a personal issue, it is about self-determination and freedom in a world that is controlled by corporations and their surveillance. This is one of the big challenges and responsibilities for the people of the globe today.
References
Vimercati, S. D. C., Foresti, S., Livraga, G., & Samarati, P. (2020). Toward owners’ control in
digital data markets. IEEE Systems Journal, 15(1), 1299-1306.
FPF. (2023). What to Expect from the Review of Australia’s Privacy Act – Future of Privacy
Forum. Future of Privacy Forum. https://fpf.org/blog/what-to-expect-from-the-review-of-australias-privacy-act/
Hern, A. (2019, January 21). Google fined record £44m by French data protection watchdog.
The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/21/google-fined-record-44m-by-french-data-protection-watchdog
Johnson, G. (2022). Economic research on privacy regulation: Lessons from the GDPR and
beyond.
Krotoszynski, R. J. (2016). Privacy revisited: A global perspective on the right to be left alone.
Oxford University Press.
Nišević, M., Sears, A. M., Fosch-Villaronga, E., & Custers, B. (2022). Understanding the legal
bases for automated decision-making under the GDPR. In Research Handbook on EU Data Protection Law (pp. 435-454). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Olsthoorn, P. (2015). The price we pay for Google. Eburon Uitgeverij BV.
Olwig, K. R. (2019). The practice of landscape ‘Conventions’ and the just landscape: The case of
the European landscape convention. In Justice, power and the political landscape (pp. 197-212). Routledge.
Tentu, L. (2023). Consumers rights and challenges of the socio-economically disadvantaged and
the implications of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Doctoral dissertation).
Be the first to comment