INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler
Contributor
Dr
Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler is a Senior Fellow and head of the Democracy in the Information Age Project at The Israel Democracy
Institute&s.
More posts by this contributor
The crossroads between ethics and technology
In healthcare, better data demands
better privacy protections
Technological progress has created a situation of severe tension and incompatibility between the right to
privacy and the extensive data pooling on which the digital economy is based
This development requires new thinking about the substance of that right.
In the last decade, both governments and giant corporations have
become data miners, collecting information about every aspect of our activities, behavior and lifestyle
New and inexpensive forms of data storage and the internet connectivity revolution — not only in content, but in fact — in just about
everything (from smart appliances to nanobots inside people bodies) — enable the constant transmission of big data from sensors and
data-collection devices to central &brains&; the artificial intelligence revolution has made it possible to analyze the masses of data
gathered in this way.
The intensive collection of data and the inherent advantages of the new technology have spawned the cynical idea that
privacy is dead, and we might as well just get used to that fact
In what follows, I will describe three aspects of the right to privacy that have become especially relevant in the digital world
I will then demonstrate that not only is privacy still alive and kicking, but also that we should treat it with the respect it deserves as
the most important of all human rights in the digital world.
The first perspective on privacy in the digital world is the idea that the
appropriate reaction to the massive pooling of data is to enhance this right, so that we all have better control over our personal
Individuals should be able to choose what space within their personal domain can be accessed by others and to control the manner, scope and
timing of its exposure.
From this perspective, and in a different and more extreme fashion than with regard to other human rights, the
borders of the right to privacy allow for compromise and flexibility
Thanks to this control, I — as an individual — have the right to view the content of databases containing information about me
Furthermore, no one is allowed to make any use of this information without my consent, except in extraordinary circumstances
I retain the privilege to agree to the terms of use before I download an app onto my cell phone or began to use freeware — product
categories whose economic model rests on commercializing my personal data.
Above all, we need to understand the limits of privacy as
control.
This approach is reflected in the regulations requiring my consent for others to make use of and process personal data,
ensure my access to data about myself and stipulate that I can have it deleted, corrected or transferred to a different company.
But there
is one serious problem with this approach: It is utter fiction
It simply isn''t possible to speak about consent to violations of privacy in a world in which data is processed in many ways and for many
purposes, some of which cannot be foreseen at the time when consent is granted
Furthermore, every beginning scholar of behavioral psychology will tell you that no one reads the terms of use, even when they are phrased
concisely or displayed in large print — neither of which is the case, of course.
Were this not enough, there is also the psychological
phenomenon of the &privacy paradox,& which refers to thediscrepancy betweenthe concept of privacy reflected in what users say (&I care
deeply about my privacy&) and their actual behavior (&A free pizza? Fantastic! What information do you need?&)
The downside of the notion of
privacy as control is that our control of our personal data is quite fictional
There is an overall problem — whereby commercial entities avail themselves of huge tranches of private information without having obtained
real consent for doing so
This information, in turn, can be put to various uses, some of which are of value, while others pose serious threats to society.
Above all,
we need to understand the limits of privacy as control
It is clear that the best approach would be to upgrade our digital literacy and learn how to deal with the situation; but the problems noted
here make this idea only minimally relevant
Perhaps the solution is to start with clearer legislation — national or international — that defines reasonable and legitimate uses of
personal information and mandates companies to obtain the consent of the individual involved, only when the proposed use does not fall into
that category.
Somewhat paradoxically, the second approach to the right to privacy in a digital world relates to the most basic and classic
connotation of the right to privacy — the &right to be left alone.& This refers to our right to preserve and protect our identity and
maintain a safe and protected space around our body, thoughts, feelings, darkest secrets, lifestyle and intimate activities
A world with sensors and surveillance cameras all around us, along with recording devices and gadgets that are constantly monitoring what we
do, has far-reaching psychological ramifications.
In the discourse on privacy, we tend to deal chiefly with questions of controlling the
transmission or management of information after it has been collected, with regards to issues of data anonymization, security and encryption
But what we need at the present time is to ask whether there really is a commercial, business or public need to collect our private data so
obsessively.
Against the clear advantages of technological progress, commercial convenience and even law enforcement, we must weigh the
chilling effect on curiosity, on trust, on creativity, on intimate activity, on the ability to think outside the box — which is the
critical spark to innovation.
What more, the essential feature of all digital personal assistants is the human traits (voice, face,
language) with which their developers have endowed them
These devices are supposed to give us the feeling that there is another human being in the room
Researchers have shown that in contrast to our behavior with what we perceive as a machine (such as a computer or telephone), we react to
humanized technology as if a real person were standing there
The right to be left alone will get a whole new meaning, then, different than in the internet age.
The third approach to the right to
privacy is the idea that privacy should make it impossible for commercial or government entities to combine our personal data with big data
amassed from other people in order to construct precise personality, psychological and behavioral profiles through machine learning
This phenomenon, known as the &autonomy trap,& applies to information about emotional tendencies, insecurity, sexual orientation (even of
persons still in the closet), fears and anxieties and more.
The problem is that the personality profile is used for retargeting
advertisements of products or services or for other facets of influencing behavior — all of it in a way that is precisely tailored to the
needs associated with the profile.
In a world in which it is possible to pool and analyze information about us in order to generate buying
and behavior recommendations &just for you& (purchases on Amazon, shows on Netflix, navigation guides such as Waze), we in effect are
unwittingly surrendering some of our decision-making autonomy to systems that know what is the best route to our destination and what we
should eat.
Without individual privacy there is no meaning to an individual life
We also are exposed to attempts at individual persuasion tailored just for us, with a power, invasiveness and capacity that did
Think &self-restraint preference algorithms& power devices, such as personal assistants, whose purpose is to learn as much about us as
possible — what we are interested in, who our friends are, our habits, our mood — and then to help us by sending messages, making phone
calls, setting appointments, ordering products or making travel reservations.
We must remember the slippery slope from the use of techniques
for collecting personal information in order to offer products and services, and the use of the very same techniques to influence our
thoughts, creates an autonomy trap about beliefs, and undermines our trust in democratic institutions — in brief, manipulates
elections.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal in the spring of 2018 — which took the lid off the exploitation of personal data in order to
sway the elections in many countries — shows that the right to privacy goes far beyond individual control of information and extends to a
threat to the very possibility of conducting a sound democratic process, and thus — of protecting all human rights.
And so, in the digital
world, privacy must be seen as a crucially important right for us as a society, as a collective
At the conceptual level it needs to go through the same process of evolution as its older sibling, the right to freedom of expression
Just as freedom of expression started out as the right of individuals to scream to their heart content, and developed into a collective
right that sustains a rich and functional public discourse so that we can engage in a healthy democratic process, so too privacy must grow
and develop — from the right of individuals to trade in their own data, into a collective right of defense against autonomy traps, in the
context of elections and mind control.
The laws governing commercial competition will have to develop ideas that see personal data as an
Antitrust agencies will have to look at the concentration of the personal data held by a single entity.
By the same token, the laws on
election propaganda will have to regulate what types of personal information may not be exploited in campaigns, and determine whether there
are techniques whose persuasive and manipulative powers are so great that they should be banned.
Privacy is not dead
In fact, it has become our most basic right and must be protected
Without individual privacy there is no meaning to an individual life, and without privacy, democracy loses all meaning.
