Introduction
What did you “pay” when you clicked on an APP, browsed a short video and searched for a product on your mobile phone? On the surface, it is free, but in fact it hides more transactions, that is, your personal data.
With the rapid development of digital economy, privacy is no longer a question of whether personal space can be disturbed, but a digital right involving power, control and economic interests. From the continuous tracking of user behaviour on social media platforms to the data monitoring carried out by the government in the name of national security, personal privacy is in an unprecedented pressure environment (Zuboff, 2019). But the problem goes far beyond these. Many people will say, “I have agreed to the privacy policy, so there is nothing to worry about.” But is this agreement true? Do users really know how their data is used? More importantly, do we really have the right to choose under the extremely unequal power relationship between the platform and users?
Therefore, this paper tries to answer a core question: in the digital society, are privacy and digital rights still in the hands of individuals, or have they been gradually controlled by the government and technology companies? This paper analyzes and critically discusses this issue from the aspects of concept definition, practical challenges, rights issues and actual cases.
Source: https://www.filecloud.com/blog/data-privacy-in-a-digital-age/
Conceptual Definition Discussion
Before the discussion, it is necessary to define two basic concepts: privacy and digital rights.
Traditional privacy generally refers to the right of individuals to control personal information and private life. However, in the digital environment, it becomes more complicated. Personal data includes not only explicit data such as name and address, but also implicit data such as browsing history, clicking behavior and emotional preference (Nissenbaum, 2010). This means that privacy is no longer just hiding a piece of information, but refers to the whole process of collecting, analyzing and utilizing information. Digital rights are all kinds of rights that individuals should enjoy in digital space, including data control right, information right, access right and forgotten right (Floridi, 2014).
Digital platforms often use complex algorithms and data analysis systems, which make it difficult for users to understand or even interfere with the way their data is used. It is worth noting that there is both interdependence and tension between privacy and digital rights. On the one hand, privacy is an important part of digital rights. On the other hand, in some situations, privacy may be regarded as an object that can be “cedied” by policymakers (Lyon, 2018).
Therefore, from the perspective of digital policy and governance, these two concepts are not only legal issues, but also power distribution issues: who has the right to collect data? Who has the right to use the data? And who will supervise these powers?
Privacy challenges and governance responses in the digital age
First of all, from a realistic point of view, the biggest problem of privacy is platform data collection and algorithm-driven monitoring. When users use social media, e-commerce platforms or short video applications, their behavior data will be continuously collected, including clicks, stay time and interaction methods. Data collection is opaque and automatic, and it is difficult for users to find its scope and degree (Zuboff, 2019). However, the problem is not only how the data is collected, but also how it is used. Through the analysis of data, modern algorithms can not only predict user behaviour, but also actively influence decision-making. For example, the recommendation system may limit the diversity of information and even shape user perception by constantly strengthening user preferences (O’Neil, 2016). The integrity of the user’s context in the platform has also become a way to protect their personal information. Only when the context is fully described can it be possible to avoid the use of some of the information (Helen, 2015).
In this case, the user is not only the object of observation, but also the object of being guided and even manipulated (Kari, 2017). At the same time, data is gradually transformed into an economic resource, forming the so-called data commercialisation. Enterprises transform user information into a source of profit through advertising and data analysis services (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). However, it is worth noting that users often do not get corresponding benefits from it, but bear the risk of privacy leakage. Against this background, digital rights have become an important theoretical and institutional tool to respond to the privacy crisis. However, these rights face significant challenges in practice. The first is the limitation of the right to know. Although the platform provides a privacy policy, its content is often lengthy and complex, making it difficult for users to truly understand how data is used (Acquisti et al, 2015). Therefore, informed consent generally belongs to a form of choice, not a substantive choice.
Case Study: Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Abuse Incident
If you want to find the best case to illustrate how privacy and digital rights are eroded in reality, then the Cambridge Analytica scandal surrounding Facebook is the best sample (Flew, 2018).
The starting point is a data company called Cambridge Analytica, which uses a seemingly ordinary personality test application to obtain the personal information of tens of millions of users. But these data are not only from users who participated in the test, but from users’ friends, who did not authorize the platform to obtain their own information. That is, whether or not you click “Agree”, your data will be collected and used.
What is more worth pointing out is that these data were later used for political advertisements, trying to influence the behavior of voters, which means an important change has taken place. Personal data is no longer just used for business recommendation, but directly used for political manipulation (Confessore, 2018). In this case, the issue of privacy has risen to the issue of democracy. From the perspective of digital rights, it exposes many serious problems. The lack of the right to know. Most users don’t know that their data is obtained by a third party, and they don’t know how the data is analyzed and utilized. The second point is the lack of control. Once the data is collected and transmitted, it is difficult for users to track and delete this information (Acquisti et al, 2015).
However, the core point of this case is not data leakage, but the design logic of the whole data ecology. Facebook is not a passive victim, but actively gives third-party developers access to the personal data of users on the platform, thus achieving the purpose of growing the platform and developing business. In essence, this open strategy is to gain market advantage at the expense of user privacy (Zuboff, 2019).
Therefore, we can raise a deeper question: whether this is a violation or a systematic problem?
From the perspective of digital governance, governments later responded to this matter. The U.S. Congress conducted a hearing investigation on this platform, and the European Union stepped up its efforts to implement the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) (Voigt & Von, 2017).
However, whether these spare parts really solve the problem is still controversial. On the other hand, supervision has increased the compliance cost of enterprises, and similar incidents will not happen again. On the other hand, the business model of the platform has not changed fundamentally. Data is still the main resource, and the algorithm still relies on user behavior data to improve. Therefore, in a stricter regulatory environment, privacy risks still exist (Cohen, 2019). Furthermore, this incident also exposed the same defects of this mechanism. Even if the user agrees at a certain point, it is impossible to predict how his future data will be used. Because of information asymmetry, the so-called informed consent is extremely fragile in reality.
The incidents of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are not only a mistake of enterprises, but also a warning to the current digital governance system. Under the data-driven economic structure, it is not feasible to rely on user choice or enterprise self-discipline to protect privacy and digital rights. The real challenge is how to redistribute the power of data in the system.
Critical analysis
– Is there really a trade-off between privacy and security?
In policy discussions, privacy and security are generally regarded as a “long” connection. In counter-terrorism or public health, the government will increase the intensity of data collection to improve governance efficiency (Lyon, 2018). However, this trade-off is inherently problematic. First, it thinks that privacy and security are contradictory, ignoring that they can depend on each other. Too much supervision will reduce the public’s trust, and then affect the achievement of security purposes. Secondly, it is often used to justify the expansion of power. Once the supervision mechanism is established, it is difficult to recover it. Therefore, it is a risky governance logic to regard privacy as a variable that can be sacrificed at any time.
– The power is not equal. Do users really have a choice?
In theory, users can freely decide whether to share data, but in reality, due to structural reasons, users’ choice is limited. First, the mainstream platform has a strong network effect, and it is difficult for users to quit. Not using some social platforms will affect social relationships or work. Secondly, information asymmetry makes it impossible for users to know how their data is used (Acquisti et al., 2015). Therefore, the consent mechanism is more like a formal means of legalization than a real independent choice. This is also called “forced consent” or “consent illusion” (Cohen, 2019).
– Does technology have to be neutral?
Many people think that technology itself is neutral and the problem is the way to use it. But this view in digital governance is not completely correct. Algorithm design, data selection and model training will all be embedded by numerical values. When the training data is biased, the output of the algorithm will be discriminatory (O’Neil, 2016), which means that technology is not a simple tool, but a power structure. Therefore, when discussing digital copyright, we should not only consider users, but also consider designers and controllers.
– Is data capitalism the root of the privacy problem?
From a more macro perspective, privacy is a part of the current economic model. Some scholars have suggested that “monitoring capitalism” has become the dominant logic, and it is profitable to collect and analyze users’ information (Zuboff, 2019). Under this system, the invasion of privacy is not accidental, but an inherent result of a business model. Therefore, it is difficult to solve this problem fundamentally by legal or technical means alone, which also leads to a deeper question, that is, should we rethink the basic structure of the digital economy?
Conclusion
Back to the question raised at the beginning of the article, do we still have control over our own data in the digital age?
From the above analysis, we can see that the answer is not optimistic. Although privacy and digital rights are paid more and more attention in laws and policies, the power is mostly in the hands of the government and large technology companies. Although users enjoy formal rights, it is still very difficult to realize it under the background of asymmetric information, complex technology and platform dependence. Privacy is not only a problem of one person, but also a problem of the whole system. It involves economic model, technical structure and governance model. Therefore, solving the problem depends on all aspects of efforts.
In the future, the boundary between privacy and digital rights will change constantly, but what is certain is that it involves changes in personal life and also changes in the governance model of digital society.
Be the first to comment