|
Law in the Internet Society
|
|
The Surveillance Paradox of Digital Empathy-- By ValeriaVouterakou - 25 Oct 2024 There is cognitive dissonance between the importance people claim to place on privacy and the manner in which they genuinely uphold it in practice. “This disconnect between attitude and behaviour was given a name, the ‘privacy paradox’", coined originally by Patricia A. Norberg. What seems ironic is how willing people are to trade off ‘privacy’ for new technologies and discounted goods. In “The Myth of the Privacy Paradox”, Daniele J Solove purports to paint a different picture in arguing that this paradox is, in fact, non-existent and that people who do not choose privacy for themselves can still ascribe value to the right to privacy on a principle level. In other words, what is important is the choice of privacy, more so than any decision to trade away personal data. This line of argumentation appears flawed as it overlooks one crucial point, namely that ‘privacy’ is one of the most important fundamental rights that people should have in functioning societies because it is inextricably interwoven with ‘freedom’. To argue that freedom in itself is not important but the choice of freedom is, would be the equivalent of undermining the human condition as you cannot have freedom if you deny your own privacy rights by making superficial and reckless trade-offs. Taking a further look at this surveillance paradox, it becomes increasingly evident that this state of surveillance has also affected our emotional expressions and in turn this has created a false sense of emotional connection, a distorted sense of digital empathy which this paper purports to explore in more detail. Taking a closer look at the mechanics of surveillance, we understand that the digital landscape has systematised, unjustifiably so, data collection, emotional data mining, sentiment analysis and behavioural tracking. By allowing the extraction of data that uses algorithms to codify sentiments and emotions with the ulterior motive of targeted marketing, personalised content and monitoring the public sentiment, we have inadvertently created this distorted idea of digital empathy. Digital empathy is a product of two concepts, digital competence and emotional intelligence. In this instance when referring to digital competence what we mean is the ability to use technological platforms in a critical and responsible manner. The same digital platforms that facilitate “emotional” connections are the ones that threaten our privacy rights. This threat creates online behaviour that is the result of the suppression of authentic self-expression. Constant surveillance can inhibit social media users from embracing vulnerability and can lead to reduced authenticity. In some instances, it can also create a pseudo-empathetic display of affection and compassion towards other users (through comments left in the videos shared in social media platforms) which do not hold any true emotional value. This creates a distorted idea of digital empathy. Once this set up changes to anonymous interactions, these platforms morph into breeding grounds for toxicity and hostility (which is evidenced in the comment sections of posts from anonymous users that hide behind their keyboards) and at this exact moment the digital empathy chain breaks . Perhaps this is the greatest paradox of all, how can empathy driven platforms, such as social media, ostensibly encourage connection while simultaneously stifle authenticity and consequently freedom of expression. How can these platforms value emotional transparency and human connection when the very same platforms are a threat to our fundamental right to privacy. While there are some available options in promoting digital trust and monitoring surveillance, namely by ensuring transparency in data collection, consent mechanisms, anonymisation techniques and enhanced privacy regulations the question that this paradox begs is, is this adequate? I cannot, in my right mind, think of any reason to justify the aforementioned solutions as sufficient to rectify these privacy violations. These mechanisms have always struck me, for lack of a better analogy, as small plasters covering fatally serious wounds, because the very violation of a person’s privacy is a fatal wound to this person’s freedom. Whether a person sees that or not, becomes irrelevant in the face of this violation. Choice, as Daniel J. Solove argued in “The Myth of the Privacy Paradox” also becomes irrelevant. The status quo and the effect it has on the human condition is so much bigger than each individual choice to trade privacy with any other benefit. It becomes imperative that we view this problem as one that needs to be treated universally from its route. To ensure that emotional transparency is protected and as a result digital empathy is no longer a façade of spurious human connection, we must return back to the question of privacy and surveillance. Only by elevating privacy to the utmost priority, can we ensure that the status quo changes. By implementing mechanisms that prohibit the unrestrained use of surveillance in our society, we can unburden ourselves from the violation of our fundamental right to privacy. This might initially strike the reader as utopian, and perhaps in some ways it is, but a complete surrender to the status quo signals our surrender to the violation of our freedom. Humans cannot truly be free if societies do not preserve the fundamental right to privacy.Given anything that human beings value we can create a "such and such paradox" by noting the difference between what people think they do and what they actually do. Given any "such and such" paradox we can deny it exists by rationalizing it. In all such cases the underlying fallacy is the belief that people have each an undivided personality, and that the manifestations of their multiple personality states are "hypocrisy," "false consciousness," and the like. So that portion of this draft which depends on the obtuseness of other writers won't take us very far. And beyond that false dichotomy what we have in the present draft is abstract language with no actual technology, no real law, and no particular politics. Instead of asking about other people, or "society," how about trying a draft that is about yourself. The persona who authored the current draft thinks that it would be good to reduce the level of surveillance and to increase personal privacy. There are obvious ways for you to do that, personally, immediately. Why not decide which ones you are going to pursue and write about learning how to pursue them? You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
