Real Choice In the Digital Sphere

The Problem

The boundary between technology and all other aspects of human life has become blurred. Technology has become a ubiquitous and indispensable part of the human experience – at least in the developed world. So many of the products that we have become accustomed to, such as “smart” watches and “smart” phones, give us the ability to communicate instantaneously throughout the world and access more information than anybody in generations prior could fathom. But beneath the veneer of their sensory- and information-enhancing power lies a user that sees us as a tool. As Shoshana Zuboff argues, modern technology exploits our relationship with it, particularly our dependence on it.https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-professor-says-surveillance-capitalism-is-undermining-democracy/ Every data point that we provide our devices, both knowingly and unknowingly, is harnessed to produce profit for its owners and is used to diminish people’s autonomy and privacy.

Ignorance Is No Excuse – Or Is There More to the Story?

In many contemporary writings, we are told that capitalism based on the retrieval and sale of our data is one that we have not consented to and that most of us don’t know is occurring. But decades after this economy has been built, with ever increasing prevalence of headline-making news about big-tech companies and their shady practices, surely the onus must fall on the users to either reject it or consent.

It doesn’t seem to be a sound logical or moral argument to continue using a product whose risks you understand and then claim that you were not apprised. Like with all other aspects of our lives, we are presumed to know the rules that dictate our conduct. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. We cannot claim ignorance for breaking the law or not paying our bills on time. No matter how unpleasant the parallel might be in this situation, it begs the question, why should ignorance excuse us from the implied contract of our data for “free” use of technologies. But perhaps there is good reason in this situation why consent is still not freely given. To name a couple of reasons, consent is often mandatory to use services for which there is no suitable alternative and terms of agreement are obfuscated in large amounts of legalese that even professionals can’t easily penetrate. More than this, how should ordinary people become aware of which services use their data and, perhaps more importantly, how their data is used and to whom it is distributed?

Educating Future Generations

New generations must be better equipped with the tools to understand the problems surrounding data privacy. In fact, with greater education and access to such resources, I think it would be more fair and morally acceptable for the big tech companies to operate in their current manner, because they would be doing so in an environment where potential users are capable of responding adequately.

In the absence of a federal law expressly prohibiting the mining and selling of our data, solutions to this problem lie in the hands of private action. And it is likely that in any effective campaign against this current form of “surveillance capitalism”, education would be the cornerstone of the strategy. A much greater swathe of our society needs to be made aware of the prescient risks associated with our data being for sale. They must also be convinced that this information needs to be acted on, and not simply noted and forgotten. One great example of this is the effort by Common Sense Media and Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood to encourage young children to think actively and at an age-appropriate level about data privacy and navigating the digital landscape.https://www-prod.media.mit.edu/posts/family-friendly-data-privacy-ai-activities-interactive-lessons-to-help-kids-learn-and-design-with-data-privacy-in-mind/

Privacy Capitalism as an Alternative

Perhaps the solution to this dilemma isn’t for us to break the model of surveillance capitalism at all, but rather to create viable alternatives. Free market solutions, either for-profit or nonprofit, that offer the same types of services we are accustomed to, such as streaming music, navigation, instant messaging, etc., but which do not sell our data. If the market accepts these products, then those using it will have solved the surveillance issue to some extent, at least with respect to themselves. As such, it would appear that the most effective antidote to surveillance capitalism is privacy capitalism.

And in fact, there are currently many products whose stated missions are to provide services without compromising user privacy. By placing the spotlight on privacy-centric goods and services in an effort to combat constant surveillance, people are provided with a choice that allows them to be plugged into modern society, knowledge, and culture while maintaining some degree of anonymity. Two examples of nonprofit-produced services that position themselves in the market as privacy-centric alternatives are Signal and the Tor Browser.

Conclusion

While enhanced government regulation would be a more absolute and pervasive response, a market-based solution still provides an option to nearly all those concerned about their digital privacy. This is, of course, caveated by issues of access and being under the age of majority, which could be addressed by efforts to educate younger generations so that they can be technologically literate actors in the future.

American society places great value on freedom and agency, but in order for freedom and agency to be truly enjoyed and exercised, people have to be properly informed and must have viable alternative choices. Since we shouldn’t expect big tech to immediately dispel its data collection practices, people must ultimately be responsible for their own usage of these services and make decisions that align with their preferences and needs. People will always have the option to use things that might not be good for them. It’s hard to be a champion of freedom but also claim that we must push businesses or people to conduct their affairs in a particular way.