Kirby: The State's Safeguarding Over Data Abuse -- Exploring Government Complicity and The Pervasion of Individualized Ads

By

Tara’s thesis, “Behind Locke and Key: A Philosophical Reorientation of Privacy as Property in Oneself and its Applications to Personal Consumer Data,” was truly an incredibly well-constructed and illuminating read. Her writing was both academically engaging and digestible – it was a pleasure to read (thank you Tara, for sharing your work with us!). 


My main question lies in the problematic relationship between government and data collection entities. Tara recommends that “the state (is) justified in interfering with private companies,” and even “is required to do so in order to secure the basic worth of liberty,” in the final remarks of her thesis. I have no qualms with the fundamental argument she posits in regards to expanding the traditional legal definition of property. Nor do I disagree with her assertion that the state’s “foremost role” is to “protect individual’s ability to control their lives in a positive sense as well as a negative sense,” via securing their “exclusive authority to possess and control their means in order to set and pursue their ends.” In regards to the act of securing this control of the personal self–property–however, I am unsure as to how this encroachment of data privacy can be mitigated by the state when the state itself relies on and even compels forth data collection. 


Before diving into the role of the state in exacerbating the issue of data privacy protection, I’d like to discuss Tara’s exploration of personal property deprivation. She asserts that the practices of AdTech ignore or sidestep someone’s explicit consent in how they pursue their own “means to advance their ends.” The collection of data extracts one’s personal expressions and self-hood. Again, someone’s personal property is not just “stuff” they possess, but the innate ability to act as they see fit. Data collection without proper state regulation currently controls and manipulates the way people act, access, and understand in the online world. It is much worse than a standardized TV ad on new tennis shoes. This, of course, transcends into our non-technological aspects of living too. But can’t we argue here that at this point of modern technology, both the standardized ads we see on TV and those mined from individual online tracked behavior have become nearly the same? Our media has now become so curated that even ads provided for the general public are based on the highly analyzed engagement behaviors of individuals. Can they even be distinguished, can the public, generalized ads be considered as non-manipulative or depriving? 


Back to my main point: I would like to hear from Tara more about her recommendations in ensuring a state will regulate data protection for citizens, when the state itself (in the US and certainly beyond) has benefited from this encroachment just as private companies have. An example that comes to mind is the Patriot Act, passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Though the law has now expired (in 2020 after the sunset provisions failed to pass the house), this is a prime example of the state–whom Tara recommends to be the protector of data privacy protection–abusing that very privacy. Title II of the act, “Enhanced Surveillance Procedures” expanded the federal government’s ability to intercept, share and extrapolate on private technological interactions. This act particularly played a key role in the arrests of US and non-US individuals suspected as enemies in the “War on Terror”. 


Another troubling example here is the use of big data by the state in 2017, during the Trump Administration. The DOJ used a court order to access email history of NYT reporters, despite lengthy battles from the news company resisting the ethical claims of such order. Companies such as Apple and Microsoft have reported thousands upon thousands of requests from government authorities on private user data. Oftentimes, these tech companies have fought back, arguing the court orders, warrants, and subpoenas are abuses of governmental power over ensured tech privacy. I’m curious as to where Tara would recommend we draw the line – as there is a very real conflict between calling for a state-based regulation of tech companies, and the current state abuse of data for their own benefits.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more