Is Privacy Dead?
In as far as digital information is concerned, nothing is perfectly private. Back in the 1960s when computers were able to keep people’s information to customize and target direct marketing, privacy started dying. The digital age and social media that soon followed simply brought the embalming to a much greater form of art (Morgan, 2014). While some individuals and organizations are making an effort to put the digital revolution back in the internet bottle, the social network generation is well aware that privacy is dead, and actually anticipates it. Today, users are subscribing to newsletters, allowing their apps to gain access to third party websites, register for conferences, purchase things online, and take quizzes (Brock, 2016). This is because platforms such as Twitter and Google have given them access to such information (Floridi, 2016). Unknowingly, the users end up sharing their private information because simply loading a webpage of any form tracks some form of information about the user.
People’s information is already out there and no matter how much they scream demanding it back and wanting it to be safe, it is not going to happen any time soon. If anything, there is a move towards more transparency, more openness, and less privacy (Friedman, 2018). It has reached a point that if one desires privacy, they should probably not be utilizing the internet or own a mobile phone. Bombarded by stories of cyber attacks, hacks, and the inquisitive eyes of private organizations together with public agencies, tired consumers and users of the Internet may feel every attempt to safeguard themselves in the digital age is fruitless (Morgan, 2014). In the recent past, data has become such a big part of smart homes, social media, surveillance, and wearables, that it is no longer about privacy but more about disclosure.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Is the General Data Protection Regulation adapted to the new reality of the so-called information society?
Lately, there have been a lot of discussions about the new General Data Protection Regulation, also referred to as the GDPR. This is seen as a huge transformation in personal information safeguarding with effects across the world. Having been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2016 and coming into force two years later, the GDPR is mainly concerned with the safeguarding of inherent individuals with regards to the processing of personal information and on the liberal shift of such information (Brock, 2016). The GDPR also offers the regulatory structure that is taken on to the reality of today’s digital era, while putting the information subject in the front seat of a person’s personal information (Floridi, 2016). Even though this particular legislation adheres to the general European Union information safeguarding principles, it establishes numerous new rights for persons and new responsibilities for those who process personal information.
The GDPR is well adapted to the new reality of the so-called information society. People have reached a point in history where the technological possibilities as well as innovation abilities are about to burst out. As a structure, the GDPR offers a likelihood of restoring trust in the digital economy and allowing companies to improve their current information and safeguarding practices, which is important in this day and age of hyper-connectivity where data is now more than simply a critical business asset (Friedman, 2018). Furthermore, open and smooth processes often lead to a belief of good business practices, effectiveness, and trust (Morgan, 2014). If an organization is able to demonstrate to its consumers and stakeholders that it is responsible and aware of information and privacy protection, these individuals are more likely to proceed with the association and even recommend it to novel potential customers.
References
Brock, G. (2016). The right to be forgotten: Privacy and the media in the digital age . London: I.B. Tauris.
Floridi, L. (2016). ‘Mature information societies – a matter of expectations.’ Philosophy & Technology , 29(1). Pp. 1 – 4.
Friedman, P. (2018). ‘Is privacy dead in the digital age? What to do about it: Part I.’
Morgan, J. (2014). ‘Privacy is completely and utterly dead, and we killed it.’
